By
Managing Editor
——————————————
Governor Bello Matawalle the petitioner in the ongoing proceeding at the Zamfara Governorship Election Petition Tribunal holding in Sokoto had asked the court to dismiss the notice of preliminary objection filed by Dauda Lawal on the ground that it was not filed in substantial compliance with the Court of Appeal Practice direction which is applicable to the tribunal.
Governor Bello Matawalle who spoke through his counsel M. M Aliyu (Esq) said the preliminary objection filed by Dauda Lawal as well as the reply on the point of law were filed in breach of the section 5(c) (d) of the 2022 amended version of the practice direction.
My lord, by virtue of section 5(c) (d) of election petition practice direction 2022, the reply served on us by the respondents is invalid. It was drafted using twelve font size and single line spacing. The same thing applied to the notice of preliminary objection and based on this error the tribunal shall dismiss the processes filed against the petitioners”.
He informed the court that they were served with the notice of preliminary objection by Dauda Lawal the first respondent, and they have also filed their counter affidavit in reply to the notice of the objection.
He also said contrary to the claim made by Dauda Lawal the petition filed by Bello Matawalle is in substantial compliance with the electoral acts 2022(as amended).
Earlier counsel to Dauda Lawal Mr. Samson Egege (Esq) holding the brief of D. D. Dodo (SAN) told the court that Dauda Lawal has filed a notice of preliminary objection on the 12th of June 2023 asking the court to dismiss the petition filed by Bello Muhammad Matawalle for being defective.
“My lord, the application for preliminary objection is asking the tribunal to dismiss the petition for being defective”.
“The application is supported by an affidavit of seven paragraphs and we adopt the written address as our submission urging the lordships to hold the application”.
He further said, in reaction to the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners, the first respondent Dauda Lawal had filed a reply on the point of law dated 16th June 2023.
He noted in his adumbration that “the petitioners have failed to respond to the arguments of the first respondent, which, in effect, my lord, is a concession that indeed the grounds of the petition, as well as the facts, pleaded supporting the said grounds are in breach of the mandatory provision of the electoral act 2022 (as amended)”
“I refer the tribunal to paragraph 3.4 up to 3.8 of the written address, which the petitioners had failed to respond to as our submission”
“l also invite the lordship to paragraph 4.4 of the petitioners written address dated 14th day of June 2023 where the petitioners in a bid to mislead the tribunal purportedly quoted the portion of the decision in INEC versus Oshiomole and that quotation is not in the judgment” Samson submitted.
He added in his submission “the petitioners’ response to the competency of our notice of preliminary objection is without a legal basis, this is because there is no law that mandates that all interlocutory injunctions including preliminary objections be filed before prehearing session”.
