Justice Ahmed Mahmud of the Federal High Court 1, sitting in Sokoto, has dismissed the suit filed against the leadership of the embattled Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Umar Faruq, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claims with sufficient evidence to warrant judgment in their favour.
The judgment was delivered on Friday in Sokoto by the Presiding Judge, Justice Mahmud Gama.
Reacting to the judgment, the Lead Counsel for the Defendant, Dr Sulaiman Usman, SAN, said the court upheld all the arguments of the defendants on the merits of the case, even though its preliminary objection was overruled to a large extent.
He explained that to a certain extent, as it affects the merit of the case, the court agreed that all four major claims of the plaintiffs were not established by sufficient evidence.
“A party that asserts a right must produce evidence to show that that right has been violated.
“That is the only way the court can grant remedy because the law is ubi jus, ibi remedium – where there is a right, there is a remedy,” Dr Usman said.
The Senior Advocate noted that while some rights were canvassed, there was no evidence to support their alleged violation, and some rights were not established at all, adding that the court considered all the issues and came up with a very robust judgment.
He described the judgement as significant for deepening constitutional jurisprudence in two principal areas.
The first, he said, is on the doctrine of exhaustion of internal remedies. He explained that where a statute or a constitution that binds members of a society provides for an internal mechanism for resolution of grievance, dispute or difference, a party that fails to avail himself of that procedure and rushes to court will still be sent back.
He said the court found that the plaintiffs had not exhausted the internal remedies provided for under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
The second area, he said, relates to the nullification of a statute. According to him, part of claim number one of the plaintiffs sought the nullification of subsection 5 of Section 83 and subsection 6 of the Electoral Act.
He said the court held that it can nullify a statute, but not without a reason, and that the plaintiffs failed to show the extent to which the said provisions affected their rights or violated rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution.
“From review of all the facts and evidence, it is clear that this has not been shown.
“The court felt there is no basis for nullifying those sections of the law and, relying on certain judicial authorities, the judge dismissed that claim,” he added.
Dr Usman described the judgement as completely neutral and impartial, noting that justice is even-handed.
“You can see where we are wrong, he says we are wrong, and where we are right, he agrees we are right. Where they are wrong, he says they are wrong. If you look at this judgement, it’s completely a neutral and impartial judgement,” he said.
On the crux of the judgement, he said the claims of the plaintiffs were unmeritorious, lacking in merit and substance, and were accordingly dismissed.
“The crux is that the claims of the plaintiffs have not been proven, are unmeritorious and have been dismissed. All four legs, all the claims have been dismissed for lacking in merit and substance,” he emphasised.
He further explained the legal principle that a court decides on what is demonstrated and tested before it, through assertion, claims, evidence, cross-examination and argument, a principle he said applies to all major legal systems in the world, whether common law, Islamic law, Asian law or civil law.
On the political implication, the Senior Advocate advised that since the matter is prima facie an internal dispute involving members of the same political party taking the leadership of their party to court, they should come back and explore the internal mechanisms for resolution.
He said the ADC Constitution has a very robust Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism, which he described as one of the best in Nigeria that provides for serious internal dispute resolution.
“All they must do is come back. There are still internal mechanisms of the party that are there for resolution,” Dr Usman advised.
The Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Dr Idris Bala Ahmed, commended the judgment, saying, “We must continue to commend the industry of the court.”
The Lead Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, Mrs Rabi Ibrahim, also commended what she described as a “sound judgment.”
