Drama as Appeal Court’s certified judgment affirms Kano governor’s election

A certified True Copy of the Court of Appeal judgment on the Kano state governorship election has emerged causing confusion in the state.

The verdict that was made public last week, showed that the appellate court upheld the decision of the petition tribunal sacking Governor Abba Yusuf.

However, the state Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Haruna Isa-Dederi, is claiming that CTC of the judgment showed that Yusuf’s Victory at the poll was affirmed by the appeal court.

Isa-Dederi disclosed this while addressing a presa conference on Tuesday night.

He said as indicated in the written judgment, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of the Kano Election Petition Tribunal for lacking in merit.

“The evidence contained on page 67 of the the copy of the Appeal Court judgment released on Tuesday and signed by Registrar, Jameel Ibrahim Umar, appellate court upheld the victory of Abba Kabiru Yusuf of the New Nigeria Peoples Party as duly elected Governor of Kano,” he said.

The PUNCH reports that the three member panel of the appeal court, on Friday, November 17, 2023, had dismissed the appeal filed by the governor on the basis of his membership status.

The appellate court subsequently affirmed Nasiru Gawuna of the All Progressives Congress as the winner of March 25, 2023 governorship poll in the state.

Dederi noted that page 67 of the certified true copy of the judgment clearly indicated that the tribunal’s ruling that sacked the governor was set aside.

The commissioner insisted that contrary to what the justices read to the public in the courtroom on November 17, the written evidence has vindicated Yusuf as legitimate governor of the state.

Our correspondent obtained a copy of the CTC and noticed what appears to be a mix up in the conclusions.

According to the CTC, in his lead judgment, Justice Moore Adumein, wrote, “I will conclude by stating that the live issues in this appeal are hereby resolved in favour of the first respondent and against the appellant.”