The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has nominated Dr. Dauda Lawal-Dare to run for governor of Zamfara State on March 11; this nomination has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Yesterday in Abuja, a five-member panel of the supreme court’s justices denied an appeal Dr. Ibrahim Gusau, a rival candidate for governor, had made against Lawal-nomination. Dare’s
The court confirmed the arguments made by Damian Dodo (SAN), the governorship candidate’s attorney, that his client was nominated following the law in the lead opinion handed down by Justice Adamu Jauro.
Jauro upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, which had validated the second primary election that gave rise to Lawal-Dare on January 6, 2023.
The candidate defeated Gusau and other contenders by receiving 442 votes in the primary election.
Jauro ruled that the Gusau Federal High Court lacked authority to rule on the Gusau-initiated lawsuit at the time it twice declared the primary elections invalid.
Lawal-Dare was chosen as the PDP candidate for the March 11 election in Zamfara after the primary election, which was validated by the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division, on June 6, 2022.
The PDP’s first governorship primary election, which was held on May 25, 2022, had been declared invalid by a Federal High Court in Gusau.
A new primary election was held on September 23 as per the High Court’s ruling, however, it was also invalidated by the same court due to irregularities.
Lawal-Dare, Adamu Maina-Waziri, the primary election committee chairman, and Col. Bala Mande (rtd) petitioned the appellate court for relief after being dissatisfied with the High Court’s ruling.
Dr. Ibrahim Shehu-Gusau, Alhaji Wadatau Madawaki, Hafiz Nahuche, and the Independent National Electoral Commission are among the respondents in the appeal (INEC).
The appellants were successful in establishing each of the seven grounds for appeal raised by their attorney, according to the Court of Appeal, which ruled unanimously in their favor in a decision read on their behalf by Judge Abubakar Talba.
Talba rejected all preliminary objections to the appeal’s competence on the grounds of judicial rules and the desire for a fair hearing, arguing that technical mistakes could not trump judicial rules.
He maintained that the High Court Judge erred in discounting papers provided by INEC and that the trial court did not specify the time frame for holding a rerun poll and the deadline for participant notices.
