Victor Ezeja
Admin
The gubernatorial candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Timipre Sylva on Wednesday expressed rude shock over the exclusion of his name from the final list of candidates for the November 11 governorship election in Bayelsa State, regretting that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) went ahead to do this despite the various motions on notice he filed for the Commission to await the outcome of his appeal against the high court judgment against his nomination as a candidate.
The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja had on October 10 disqualified Sylva from the governorship election. Delivering judgement on a suit filed by an APC member, Demesuoyefa Kolomo, the judge, Donaltus Okorowo held that Sylva, having taken the oath of office twice and served as governor of Bayelsa State for five years, would be violating the revised 1999 Constitution if allowed to stand as a candidate in the forthcoming election.
Join our WhatsApp ChannelReacting after INEC acted in line with this ruling by omitting his name from the final list of candidates for the poll, Sylva asserted that the Commission as a respected arbiter and law-abiding institution should have respectfully waited for the outcome of his appeal marked CA/ABJ/CS/1060/2023, before taking any step that may be prejudicial to him, alleging that those who took him to court were only fighting proxy battles to deny him and his party the opportunity to participate in the governorship poll.
In a letter addressed to the INEC Chairman, Prof Mahmood Yakubu on Wednesday by his lawyers, Ahmed Raji & Co a copy of which was sent to Prime Business Africa, Sylva pointed the electoral umpire to the “dire and grave” implication of removing him from the list of candidates standing for the November 11 poll, as that would cause him an “irreparable” loss.
The letter reads in part, “We know that the Commission has always been consistent in a matter like this, to wait until the entire appellate process and proceedings are completed, one way or the other. This is not only consistent with the administrative and policy convenience but also with the Electoral Act and the Constitution, in all election-related matters. To hold otherwise is to breed instability.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Fixes Thursday, October 26 For Ruling On Atiku, Obi’s Case Against Tinubu
“For instance, upon a High Court’s Judgement, the Commission removes a Candidate’s name and the candidate expectedly proceeds to the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal restores the name, the Commission would follow suit, and eventually, the matter goes to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decides one way or the other. This will bring instability and disharmony to governance.
“Hence, the Commission’s age-long position to await the final decision of the Supreme Court, once evidence of an appeal has been demonstrated and shown. We respectfully commend by parity of reasoning to your esteemed office the provision of Section 138(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022 provides “where an election is nullified by the Court and notice of appeal against the decision is given within the stipulated period for appeal, the elected candidate shall, notwithstanding the contrary decision of the court, remain in office and enjoy all the benefits that accrue to the office pending the determination of the appeal and shall not be sanction for the benefits derived while in office.
“Which lends credence to our argument, being on election-related matter. Your esteemed office will realize that much more than the prescribed notice of appeal, the Appellant herein went further to file and serve a Motion for a Stay of Execution and also an Injunctive restraining order against INEC pending the determination of the Appeal. The Appellant has shown speed and determination to expeditiously prosecute the appeal, by filing the Appellant’s brief of argument and served the same. The Court has also played its judicial role admirably by granting an accelerated hearing of the matter to this Friday, 27th October, 2023.
“Your esteemed office may also wish to respectfully, take notice, that the matter may go to the Supreme Court, as the apex court. Consequences of the removal of Chief Sylva Timpre Marlin, the APC Governorship’s candidate from the list of candidates;
“Sir, the implication is dire and grave, in view of the fact that the election in issue, is barely seventeen (17) days from today. If the election is held without our Client while the matter is pending either at the Court of Appeal or proceeds to the Supreme Court, the loss to our Client would be irreparable. This is in view of the fact that he would have been completely shut out, without any recourse to any remedy, having not participated in the general election.
“The law has now been settled that “An election tribunal or court shall not declare any person a winner at an election in which such a person has not fully participated in all stages of the election.
“Whereas, if he was allowed to participate, there is no prejudice to the ongoing appeal or to the Respondents. This is in view of the fact that in the unlikely event that the court rules against him, he would be entitled to appeal to the Supreme Court and if he eventually does not win, he would be removed and the second runner-up, with the second highest lawful votes cast, would be sworn in. Our Client does not have such privilege, if your esteemed office fails to reverse your position and the election proceeds without him.
“It is also, imperative to note that the Court of Appeal and the potential appeal that may emanate from the Court of Appeal’s decision would also have been prejudiced by your decision of the removal of our Client’s name. All parties including the Commission are before the court and have joined issues. The Court and not the Commission should humbly be allowed to determine this issue one way or the other, without being overreached by the Commission’s decision.
“Our Prayers: It is our humble prayers that the Commission should as a matter of urgency withdraw and suspend the said Amendment No. 1, with respect to Bayelsa State and allow the due process of law to prevail,” the letter concluded.
