BREAKING: Appeal Court Takes Decision On Judgment In Sylva Disqualification Case (DETAILS)

BREAKING: Appeal Court Takes Decision On Judgment In Sylva Disqualification Case (DETAILS)

The Court of Appeal in Abuja, on Friday, announced that it has reserved judgment in the appeals filed by Timipre Sylva, the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the November 11 governorship election in Bayelsa State.

A three-member panel of the court, led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, disclosed this after the legal representatives for the parties presented their final arguments and endorsed their written briefs.

The appeals were lodged against the October 9 ruling delivered by Justice Donatus Okorowo of a Federal High Court (FH) in Abuja, which disqualified Mr. Sylva as a candidate in the election.

Read Also Revelations As Reuben Abati Gives Analysis On Supreme Court Judgement (VIDEO)

A member of the APC, Demesuoyefa Kolomo, identifying himself as a registered voter, had filed the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/821/2023 on June 3. In it, he urged the court to remove Mr. Sylva’s name from the list of candidates contesting in the election, citing his double oath of office as governor.

During the proceedings, Mr. Sylva’s lawyer, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), and the APC’s counsel, K. O. Balogun, requested the court to admit the appeals, overturn the October 9 judgment, and affirm Mr. Sylva’s candidacy.

Read Also Obito Continua Dance, Featuring Rema’s Calm Down – Reno Omokri Releases New Dance Video (WATCH)

Mr. Kehinde pointed out that Mr. Kolomo asserted that the matter was in the public interest, invoking Sections 180 and 182 as the basis for the suit.

The senior lawyer, however, contended that in Mr. Sylva’s initial oath-taking, he served only six months, three weeks, and two days before the election was nullified. He questioned why the trial court would have ruled in favor of Mr. Kolomo, who did not participate in the primary election that nominated Mr. Sylva as a candidate, in accordance with Section 285.

He argued that Mr. Kolomo lacked the legal standing (locus) to bring the suit, and therefore, it should have been dismissed.

“Section 285 strictly defines that you must be an aspirant to challenge an election and there is a timeframe within which to challenge the poll,” he said.

“We urge this honourable court to look at our processes and agree with us that the judgment was an hatchet job just to tie this man (Sylva) not to campaign and participate in the election,” he said.

He pointed out that currently, Mr. Sylva’s name has been taken off INEC’s roster of candidates for the election, and urged the court to consider their appeals.

Mr. Balogun further contended that it was improper for the trial court to have entertained Mr. Kolomo’s suit, as he lacked the legal standing to bring it before the court.

He raised objections to Justice Okorowo’s ruling, specifically regarding the assertion that Mr. Sylva had taken the oath of office twice as Governor of Bayelsa State.

Mr Balogun said: “In 2007 he (Sylva) was elected the Governor of Bayelsa State, but within few months, the Court of Appeal (which was then the final court for governorship election petition) sacked him.

“He contested again in 2008 and won. The eight months that he earlier spent in office was nullified,” he said, arguing that the FHC should not have agreed with Kolomo because those months were voided by the court.

“What he (Kolomo) is doing is fighting a proxy war. He cannot be a member of the APC and be fighting to destroy its candidate and chances at the election.

“What the 1st respondent (Kolomo) is asking this court to do is to deem the nullified months as four years,” Mr Balogun said.

The members of the court’s panel also wondered why Mr Kolomo, who claimed to be a member of the APC, but not an aspirant, who participated in the party’s primary, would want to destroy his party’s chance in an election.

They said instead, he would have voted for another party in the poll if he assumed Mr Sylva did not deserve his vote.

The panel also condemned the attitude of counsel who failed to advice their clients appropriately on such issues, saying “it is a moral issue.”

Mr. Balogun subsequently informed the court that his client had submitted a motion to compel INEC to reverse its decision to exclude Mr. Sylvia’s name from the list of election candidates.

Justice Tsammani stated that given the court’s decision to hear the main appeals, there was no need to address any interim motions.

Kolomo’s lawyer, Abiodun Amuda-Kanike (SAN), urged the court to reject the appeal and uphold the trial court’s judgment.

INEC’s counsel, Ahmed Mohamed, also requested the court to dismiss both appeals.

After considering all arguments, the panel deferred judgment in the appeals to a later date, which will be communicated to the parties involved.

Never Miss Any News, Join Our WhatsApp Group With This Link Below

https://chat.whatsapp.com/L6TlxYS6ozI2UuJYsfqmeS