Chief Registrar Of Appeal Court, Kano State, Umar Bangari says Contradictions In CTC Judgement Are Clerical Error

By Musa Umar

The Court of Appeal in Kano state has douse the tension triggered by the conflicting depositions in the Certified True Copy, CTC, of the majority judgment that upheld the nullification, by the Kano State election petitions tribunal, of Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf’s election as the state chief executive.

The Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal, Mr. Mohammed Umar Bangari,who on Wednesday, described the contradictions in the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the majority judgment as mere clerical errors.

This discrepancy led to the protests by irates youth in Kano city, following the governor’s sack by the Court of Appeal. This development worsened the matter, it was the intervention of the police that calmed the protests that would have cause heavy crises.

The fresh protests followed the Certified True Copy of the judgement that filtered into the news media as well as social media showing pronouncements that were at variance with the verdict delivered openly by the appellate court.

It would be recalled that the tribunal sacked Governor Yusuf of Kano state, held that Yusuf’s name was not in the NNPP’s register, making him unqualified to contest the election. The court, therefore, declared the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Nasiru Gawuna, as the winner of the poll.

The chief Register of court of Appeal, Bangari told told newsmen on Wednesday, that the contradictions were nothing serious, adding that the counsels as well as the politicians knew the truth but only chose to play to the gallery.

For effect, the Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal stated categorically that the observable contradictions on Page 67 of the CTC of the judgment was merely a clerical error that sometimes occur.

He further said that the errors did not invalidate the findings and conclusions of the appellate court in any way. In any case, he insisted that the courts have a way of dealing with such problems through the instrumentality of the law.

“What happened in the judgment is just a mere clerical error,” Bangari declared, “and the attention of the court has been drawn to it; and appropriate steps within the ambit of the law will be taken” to rectify it once parties in the matter filed formal application to that effect.