Muftwang described APC’s petition as mischievous, waste of time and energy, saying that the court rightly described them as meddlesome interlopers.
Governor Caleb Mutfwang of Plateau State has hailed the judgment of the Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal for affirming his victory in the March 18 election, saying that the judiciary has spoken with one voice.
The three-member panel, in its judgment delivered on Friday, unanimously held that the petitioner failed in its petition because it lacked merit.
Mutfwang described the All Progressives Congress (APC)’s petition challenging his electoral victory as mischievous, a waste of time and energy. According to him, the court rightly described them as meddlesome interlopers.
He said, “You would recall that before, some of my state and National Assembly members were thrown out supposedly for lack of structure by the PDP.
“Panel 1 had already upheld the election of the Senate minority leader and other members of the National Assembly because ab initio, to anybody who is genuine, to anybody who is fair, anybody who is honest, he knows that leg of the petition by the APC and any other party for that matter is not only mischievous, it is simply a waste of time and energy because they know the truth.
“I want to assure you that the cases are there for anybody to see and what the petitioners have done is what the tribunal has rightly called in line with precedent that they were nothing but meddlesome interlopers and I’m glad that today the judiciary has spoken with a strong voice.”
Speaking on the judgment sacking some PDP lawmakers in the state due to lack of structure in the party, Governor Mutfwang said that the judges will have to answer as the matter goes for appeal.
He noted that the Supreme Court had laid a precedent that on issues bordering on pre-election matters on the nomination of candidates, another party cannot pick into what happened in an opposing party.
Governor Mutfwang is confident that the decision of the panel sacking the PDP lawmakers would be overturned by the higher courts as he maintained that the petition is “abuse of court process and rape on precedent.”
