Galadima had called on the Supreme Court which removed Emeka Ihedioha as the governor of Imo State to do the same to Ganduje due to the similar incidence.
Ganduje described Galadima’s claim on the state governorship election as baseless and lacking merit.
Galadima while speaking with newsmen in Abuja noted that the votes which belong to Abba Kabiru of the Peoples Democratic Party were also cancelled by the Independent National Electoral Commission, hence, the need to remove Ganduje.
Ganduje while reacting to Galadima’s statement through his elections cases legal team leader, Barrister Mohammad Abdullahi Lawan claimed that the point of view of Galadima has no correlation with the circumstances of the Emeka Ihedioha case and that of governor Ganduje, insisting that points raised by the PDP stalwart was rather unbridled ignorance of the law.
Lawan in the statement wrote: “In the former (Ihedioha case), whilst there was glaring evidence of the cancellation of results by officials other than the presiding officers, in the later case (Governor Ganduje) there was no evidence of such cancellation by officials order than the presiding officers. Instead, there was proven evidence in the Governor Ganduje case, that the cancellation of some of the 207 polling units were carried out by the respective INEC Polling Unit Presiding Officers as was clearly depicted in the numerous Form ECG 40s tendered and admitted in evidence without any objections by the Petitioners.”
“Again, in the Ganduje case, there was the inability of the INEC to collate the results of 62 polling units in Gama ward comprising of over 48,000 registered voters in an election with a lead margin of only 26,000 votes! What is worse is that the disruption of the collation of the said results was caused by the PDP agent, one Dr Yakasai who testified as PW30. He admitted that whilst the said results were being collated, a commotion arose and he carted away the original Results of INEC and hid himself in a room for over one hour with a Biro with him! He kept the sensitive INEC documents in his custody for another hour before allegedly taking the said documents to the Kano Commissioner of Police instead of INEC.”
“In the end, only twelve of those results were tendered in court by the Police. How on earth was the INEC supposed to collate the said results? Could the INEC have declared in an inconclusive election and thus disenfranchise over 48,000 voters in an election where the lead margin is only 26,000 votes. Finally the so called expert witness called by PDP admitted on oath that after his study of all the results, he agreed with the INEC cancellation of the results of 77 polling units on the basis of over voting. This in law is an admission against interest which the various courts are obliged by law to accept and which the two lower courts accepted”. Barrister Lawan maintained.”
Lawan who restated hope in the judiciary, debunked the speculation of putting pressure on the Supreme Court over the judgement of Kano State governorship election slated for 20th, January, 2020