Plateau gov raises issue of fair hearing against Appeal Court

The Governor of Plateau State, Caleb Manasseh Mutfwang, has raised an issue of lack of fair hearing against the Court of Appeal in its judgment sacking him as the state governor.

Mutfwang, who raised the issue in his brief at the Supreme Court represented by an eight-man team of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) led by Kanu Agabi, said “The law is settled that wherever there is a wrong, there must be a remedy.”

He said he presented eight points to the Court of Appeal to prove the validity of his election but only one was determined, adding that ignoring the seven other issues he raised by the Court of Appeal was against the directive of the Supreme Court that intermediate courts should pronounce on all issues placed before them.

He, therefore, urged the apex court to declare him as the validly elected governor of Plateau State.

• Police arrest female serial phone snatcher, 84 suspects in Borno
• Yobe revokes licences of private schools, vows to streamline operations

The hearing of his brief by the Supreme Court is on Tuesday.

Mutfwang insisted that since he was not given a fair hearing, the Supreme Court should dismiss the judgment of the Court of Appeal which invalidated his election.

He added: “It is our further submission that having denied fair hearing to the appellant, with respect to the Notice of Preliminary Objection as well as a motion to strike out the incompetent grounds of appeal, the decision of the lower court to dismiss same is, with all due respect manifestly flawed.

“The implication of denial of fair hearing renders proceedings null and void.

“We respectfully urge the honourable court to invoke its powers in Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act by upholding the Notice of Preliminary Objection of the appellant embedded in his brief before the lower court and also granting the Motion of the Appellant filed on 2nd November, 2023 before the lower court by striking out grounds 1 – 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21 and 22 of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal of the 1st and 2nd respondents.”

He said he has attached enough evidence to prove that the Court of Appeal should not have cancelled his election.

He said: “The issue of nomination and sponsorship which underpinned Ground 1 of the petition is not only a pre-election but within the internal affairs of the 4th respondent and as such the 1st and 2nd respondents lacked the locus standi to canvass it.”