Olanipekun contended that the tribunal had established a novel legal precedent that deviated from the prior decisions of the appellate court and the highest court with its ruling.
The lead counsel asserted that it marked the first instance where an election had been invalidated due to the absence of stamping and signing on ballot papers.
He also criticized the tribunal’s reference to section 71 of the Electoral Act and its reliance on decisions derived from that section.
According to him, section 71 pertained to electoral forms and sum sheets, which had no relevance to the issue of ballot papers.
Furthermore, he argued that this was the inaugural case in which a political party filed a petition without including its candidate as a party, and the candidate was declared the winner.
However, Olanipekun urged the court not to uphold the lower court’s judgment.
On the other hand, the lead counsel for the first respondent, Akin Olujuimi, emphasized that the tribunal’s decision did not create a new legal precedent.
He stated that the court had established the requirement for signatures and stamps on ballot papers as early as 2009, under INEC regulations. Failure to comply with this requirement constituted clear non-compliance, not a novel jurisprudence.
Olujuimi highlighted that INEC had acknowledged the invalidity of the ballot papers and urged the court to dismiss the appeal.
He also argued that the lower court’s reference to section 71 rather than section 63 should not be a basis for nullifying the decision.
Regarding Olanipekun’s argument about the candidate not being joined in the case, Olujuimi asserted that votes are cast for the party in an election, and any decision affecting a political party encompasses all its members.
In the APC’s cross-appeal, Olujuimi further contended that the Kano State governor was not a member of the NNPP when he was sponsored by the party.
Counsel for INEC, A.B. Mahmoud, called for the dismissal of the APC’s cross-appeal, stating that it lacked merit.
In a related appeal by INEC, Mahmoud argued that the tribunal had distorted the election jurisprudence with its judgment, going beyond its scope as defined by the Electoral Act. He urged the court to rectify this anomaly and set the jurisprudence right by allowing the appeal.
Counsel for the APC, Offiong Offiong, requested the court to dismiss the appeal, maintaining that a trial court has the authority to scrutinize the documents submitted as evidence.
Ultimately, the court reserved judgments in all the matters, and the parties involved would be informed of the date for the delivery of these judgments.
