US embassy cable - 04ABUJA1284

C O N F I D E N T I A L ABUJA 001284 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/22/2014 
TAGS: KDEM, PGOV, PREL, PHUM, NI, ELECTIONS 
SUBJECT: ELECTION NULLIFICATION OVERTURNED, KEEPING 
ADAMAWA'S GOVERNOR IN PLACE 
 
REF: A. ABUJA 588 
     B. ABUJA 539 
 
Classified By: ACTING POLITICAL COUNSELOR RUSSELL J. HANKS FOR REASONS 
1.5 (B) AND (D) 
 
1.  (U) Summary.  On July 5, an appeals court sitting in Jos 
overturned the March 24 election tribunal decision that had 
nullified the election of Adamawa State Governor Boni Haruna. 
 The verdicts of the appeals court and the election tribunal 
differed so significantly on their findings of the relevant 
facts that they beg the question of whether one verdict or 
the other may have been "influenced" by outside parties.  End 
summary. 
 
2.  (U) On July 5, an appeals court sitting in Jos overturned 
the March 24 election tribunal decision (reftels A and B) 
that had nullified the election of Adamawa State Governor 
Boni Haruna, PDP member and protege of VP Atiku Abubakar. 
The original election tribunal had found "beyond reasonable 
doubt" that electoral malpractices had taken place, and that 
the election was noncompliant with the Electoral Law. 
 
3.  (U) The appeals court in Jos, however, found that the 
evidence used by the election tribunal was "absolutely 
inadequate even to prove the simplest of a criminal offence, 
very impotent to affect the appellants/cross respondents, 
ridiculous for convicting any of the appellants/cross 
respondents with commission of any electoral offence," and 
that the evidence was scandalous and naive as a basis for 
nullifying the election. 
 
4.  (C) According to an attorney for Haruna, the outcome was 
ensured in typical Nigerian fashion:  with cash.  The 
attorney, who works for Presidential attorney Afe Babalola, 
said that when President Obasanjo sent Babalola to take over 
the appeal, he also sent cash to be used for the appeal.  The 
attorney claims that he went along for the delivery of 30 
million naira (about $225,000) to each of the five judges on 
the tribunal but did not know if this was all the money 
disbursed.  "This is the normal procedure when it is an 
important case," he averred. 
 
5.  (U) Note.  The appeals court decision is final and cannot 
be appealed to Nigeria's Supreme Court.  End Note. 
 
6.  (SBU) Comment.  While the Embassy has been unable to 
examine the Appeal Court ruling in its entirety, the verdicts 
of the appeals court and the election tribunal differed so 
significantly on their findings of the relevant facts that it 
begs the question of whether one verdict or the other may 
have been "influenced" by outside parties.  Both courts were 
composed of senior members of the judiciary, both operating 
under the same laws, principles, and guidelines.  It would be 
normal for an appeals court to have a slightly different 
interpretation than a lower court, but the radically 
divergent views of the Jos court from the Yola tribunal leave 
little doubt that something other than the law was factored 
in to the final decision. 
CAMPBELL