In a recent turn of events, the National Assembly Election Tribunal’s decision regarding the mandate of the constituents of Jos South, Jos East Federal Constituency has sparked controversy and raised questions about the essence of democracy. The verdict, which went against the overwhelming popular vote, has left many pondering the true significance of people’s wishes in the political landscape.
The case in question saw an electoral outcome with an astounding margin, where the winning candidate secured over 95,000 votes, as opposed to the 31,000 votes garnered by the opposing candidate. To some, it appears inconceivable that such a decisive mandate could be dismissed as a mere academic exercise. Yet, for reasons that seem to hinge on undisclosed interests, the tribunal delivered a verdict that contradicted the will of the people.
In light of previous tribunal judgments, it had been established that only party members or the party itself possessed the legal standing, known as “locus standi,” to challenge the nomination and sponsorship of a candidate. Moreover, such matters were considered pre-election issues. Therefore, the divergence in the current tribunal’s stance raises questions about the legal basis for this deviation from precedent.
In response to the tribunal’s decision, Rep. Dachung Musa Bagos, who represents Jos South, Jos East Federal Constituency, has called upon his constituents and party faithfuls to remain calm and steadfast. He has emphasized the party’s compliance with previous judgments and the due process observed during the congress of September 2021, duly monitored by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as mandated by law.
Rep. Bagos cited the federal High Court in Jos and the Court of Appeal’s unanimous rulings affirming the legitimacy of the State Executive of the Party, effectively validating the structure through which the mandate was given. He expressed optimism that justice would prevail as a sister panel to the National and State Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal in Jos had already affirmed their position in seven judgments.
Asserting that the tribunal’s decision did not align with the Electoral Act, Rep. Bagos announced his intention to challenge the ruling in the Court of Appeal. He assured his constituents that he would continue his duties as their elected representative in the National Assembly until the appellate court’s verdict, expressing confidence in the judiciary’s ability to dispense justice in accordance with the law.
In his closing remarks, Rep. Dachung Musa Bagos thanked his supporters and vowed to emerge stronger together.
This development marks a critical juncture in the ongoing legal battle surrounding the election results, with the Court of Appeal expected to provide further clarity on the matter in the near future.
Was there justice from the tribunal or delivered sponsored verdict?