As it is widely spread by some quarters that the federal high court sitting in Jalingo has cleared Sani Danladi from Contesting future elections. The Federal High Court sitting in Jalingo on Friday allegedly gave a judgement nullifying a supreme Court judgement that barred Sani from contetsing any election in the state for the next 10 years.
Justice Simon Amobeda in his judgement which reads thus: wether the federal High court has a jurisdiction to set aside it’s earlier judgement on certificate issues, the presiding judge continue by defining the concept of what jurisdiction is;
“He defines jurisdiction in law as the ability to decide or re-decide it’s decision” he further affirmed the court of Law has a jurisdiction to set aside it’s earlier judgement or make another decision if there is a hole in the the earlier judgement.
From the above judgement by Justice Simon Amobeda, you will agree with me that this is just an academic Exercise in futility why, because if jurisdiction is defined by the judge as stated above then it is only the supreme Court that has that jurisdiction to re-decide its earlier decision on stopping Sani Danladi from Contetsing any elections until after 10 years.
It could be recalled that prio to 2019 general elections a high court sitting in Jalingo had disqualified Abubakar Sani Danladi from contesting the election after it was found that he presented a fake document to the INEC (forged ). The case went on to the court of appeal before the elections and unto the supreme Court after the elections where the supreme Court affirmed the judgement of the lower Court confirming that the certificate presented by Sani Danladi to the INEC was fake and forged.
It was on same judgement that the supreme Court barred Sani Danladi from contesting any elections until after 10 years and that should be by 2027 and not 2023 as widely spread by some Quaters. To buttress more on this, you could all recall that the 2019 Taraba State governorship tribunal sitting in Abuja had substituted the candidate of APC after a application was received by the panel from counsels of the APC with reasons that the supreme Court has affirmed the disqualification of their candidate who was Sani Danladi and was replaced by Professor Sani Yahaya. This was happening after elections has been decided and a winner emerged and that was the candidate of the PDP (Arc Darius Dickson Ishaku). This action was a clear indication that the APC it self had comfirmed that their candidate (Sani Danladi) was guilty as charged with the offence of forgery hence applied for substitution immediately.
The court is a well defined institute and can not floor her own orders as ranking is what makes it unique as an arm. The federal high court yes; has the jurisdiction of hearing a case which was yet to be decided by the apex court (Supreme) but has no powers anymore to up-turn an order that has been effected and sealed by the most highest court in the country during a open sitting with Panel of judges presiding over such. The case against Sani Danladi was a case of forgery which a punishment was served to that effect and such must be carried out to the later and until then no court can revisit same case to up-turn it unless the supreme Court revisits to re-decide the matter.
For some people to come out to say Sani Danladi has been cleared to run for political office in Taraba state by 2023 is not true and it is just a means of making a a caricature of the Judiciary. There was no place where it was mentioned either in the judgment by the Supreme Court or even the lower court that Sani Danladi is to present an affidavit after the judgment to avert the effects of the judgement passed against him by the supreme Court.
To this note it should be made clear to APC and the good people of Taraba that Sani Abubakar can not contest in the fothcomimg general elections as a candidate of any political party as he has been barred from such activities until after 10 years. The state high court only cleared Sani on the provision of an affidavit to be used in the future in replacement of the forged certificate he presented earlier and this can only take effect after 10 years most have elapsed from the date of the Supreme Court judgement.
The high court setting aside a judgement of the supreme Court doesn’t only sound un-calm to the ear but also an effort to market the Judiciary in such a manner that is not only contradictory but also hopeless to the society.
Nelson C. Len
