Fintiri files cross appeal as SDP guber candidate, Ardo approaches S/Court
Governor Ahmadu Umaru Fintiri has through a cross appeal today challenged the grounds on which the governorship candidate of the Social Democracy Party (SDP) in Adamawa State in the 2023 election, Dr. Umar Ardo approached the supreme court.
In a notice of cross appeal dated 4th December 2023, Fintiri expressed dissatisfaction with sections of appeal court judgement which did not favour him.
Dr. Ardo is challenging the declaration of Fintiri’s victory in one of the most controversial guvernatorial elections in history that was marred by violence and allegations of substantial electoral malpractices, hence his appeal at the Supreme Court, which gave rise to Gov. Fintiri’s cross-appeal.
Both Dr. Ardo’s six grounds Notice of Appeal and Gov. Fintiri’s Notice of Cross-appeal were filed at the registry of the Court of Appeal Headquarters in Abuja today.
Dr. Ardo is contending that the violence against INEC officials and the security agent in the process of the results collation leading to the suspension of the collation and its later continuation on April 15th to the final declaration of Fintiri as winner of the 2023 governorship election in Adamawa state breached the provisions of the Electoral Act and constituted an abuse of administrative discretion by INEC.
He therefore prayed the Supreme Court to set aside the judgments of the courts below, cancel the election and order for fresh elections.
But in his cross appeal, Fintiri contended that the court of Appeal erred in law and thereby occasioned a miscarriage
of justice when it held at page 17 of the folio of the Judgment as follows;
“So, the Tribunal decided that the original 2nd Petitioner whose name has
not featured as an Appellant in the Notice of Appeal did not have the locus
standi to institute the Petition and that the 5th -17th Respondents at the
Tribunal, whose names were not included in the Notice of Appeal were
not necessary parties and ought not to be joined in the petition.
“The Appellants did not appeal against those findings. The effect of these
unappealed findings is that they ceased to be parties by the Appellants;
rather, it is the Appellants giving effect to the unchallenged findings of the
Tribunal in their appeal to this court, Accordingly, I am unable to agree
with the 2” and 3d Respondents that the notice of appeal is incompetent.
‘”The cases of EKPE vs. EKPE (2019) LPELR (48341) (CA) and
ADEGBEMIBO vs. BETIKU (2018) LPELR (46147) (CA) quoted
extensively by the 3rd Respondent, as well as the case of OBI vs. ETIABA
(2015) 6 NWLR (PT 1455) 377 relied upon by the 2nd Respondent, while
being a correct restatement of the legal position is distinguishable and
inapplicable as the parties set out in the Notice of Appeal are as informed
and necessitated by the unchallenged findings of the Tribunal which
remain subsisting and binding.
“The Appellants were therefore legally
bound to comply with the terms of the said decision by not including in
the Notice of Appeal, the names of the parties that the Tribunal had held
had no locus standi and were not necessary parties. Inexorably, the Notice
of Appeal is competent. The 3rd Respondent’s Motion on Notice and the
2nd Respondent’s Notice of Preliminary Objection are devoid of merit,
and they are hereby dismissed,” Fintiri contended.
