The All Progressives Congress (APC) has said that it is not in a position to provide an explanation for the errors contained in the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the Kano governorship election judgement.
DAILY POST reports that last Friday’s verdict indicated that the appellate court upheld the decision of the tribunal sacking Governor Abba Yusuf of Kano State. However, the state Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Haruna Isa-Dederi, argued that the CTC of the judgment showed that Yusuf’s victory at the poll was affirmed by the appeal court.
Addressing a press conference on Tuesday, the National Legal Adviser of APC, Prof. Abdulkareem Kana, said the ruling party has not received the Certified True Copy of the judgement.
Kana noted: “We woke up this morning and we were confronted with media reports from different news outlets, mostly print media, and a few social media posts where the controversy was identified in the released Certified True Copy of the judgement of the Court of Appeal that was delivered on the 17th of November 223 here in Abuja.
“However, those of us who are lawyers know that typographic errors often occur in the Certified True Copy (CTC) of court judgements. Ordinarily, there wouldn’t have been confusion if it was probably not a political matter, because it will not be the first time such typographic mistakes will be seen in judgement, and as lawyers, we have been used to a situation like this. All that is done is to merely correct that mistake. The most important thing is a judgement that was read in open court.”
The legal adviser stressed that the onus lies with the Appeal Court to provide an explanation for the errors contained in the CTC of the judgement.
Kana added that they would write and get a copy, saying that if the copy that would be conveyed to them still contains an error, the party would take steps to ensure the correction is made.
He emphasised that the merits and other facts of the judgement of the tribunal, which was delivered on September 28, indicated that the appeal was upheld.
Kana noted: “And then, if you read through the entirety of the judgement from lead justice, my Lord analysed the submissions of different cited cases and the case and arrived at appropriate findings. It gives you an idea of what the conclusion should be. But that’s not all. If you read the concurring judgement by two justices because there are three judges who sat over the appeal, the two justices had explained and clarified their positions.”
Kana explained that in a situation like this, lawyers engage in what is called community reading of the entire judgement to see what exactly the court finds.
He stated: “So, I don’t think the explanation needs to come from us. But for us, we can only render our own perspective as a party to the entire uproar that is going on.
“But as to the explanation as to where the error happened in the cause of typing the judgement, it is for the court to provide an explanation and I’m sure the court will have done that by now by taking the necessary measures to issue a fresh CTC with respect to an appropriate judgement of the court.”
