The Federal High Court No. 2 sitting in Gombe on Friday reserved judgment in a pre-election suit challenging the emergence of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) candidate for the Akko Federal Constituency seat in the House of Representatives, Hon. Bashir Abdullahi.
The suit, filed by Adamu Hassan Kashere, is before Justice Verah Eneibor Ibrahim.
The plaintiff is asking the court to nullify Bashir Abdullahi’s candidature on the grounds that the party allegedly failed to conduct valid primary elections or adopt a lawful consensus process for the nomination.
According to the plaintiff, “there was no primary election or consensus, and no primary election took place in any ward of Akko Federal Constituency.”
Kashere also alleged that Bashir Abdullahi, a staff member of the Federal University Kashere, remained in active employment and continued to receive salaries for the months of January, February, March, April and May 2026 despite contesting for elective office.
He urged the court to disqualify the ADC candidate, alleging misconduct and non-compliance with the relevant electoral provisions.
During the proceedings, counsel to the plaintiff, Mohammed Ahmed, applied for a subpoena compelling the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the Federal University Kashere to produce official records relating to the employment status of the defendant.
Representatives of the university appeared in court with the requested documents.
However, counsel to the defendants objected to the documents being tendered as exhibits, leading to prolonged legal arguments on the admissibility of the evidence.
Counsel to the defendants, Benjamin Sati and Ayuba Rabiu, argued that under Order 7 of the Federal High Court (Pre-Election) Rules, officials producing documents pursuant to a subpoena were only required to submit the documents without giving oral testimony or being subjected to cross-examination.
In support of their argument, the defence cited previous judicial authorities, including Miasu v. Jika and Udohho v. Omighie.
On his part, plaintiff’s counsel, Mohammed Ahmed, insisted that the witnesses “must first affirm on oath before tendering the documents and thereafter be available for cross-examination.”
After hearing both sides, Justice Ibrahim referred to Order 7 Rule 1 of the Pre-Election Rules as well as Sections 113 and 116 of the Evidence Act, noting that the law provides different procedures for the production of subpoenaed documents.
The judge identified three possible options available under the law: compelling the witnesses to testify on oath before tendering the documents and undergoing cross-examination; allowing the witnesses to simply deposit the documents before the court without oral evidence; or permitting the production of the documents without affirmation.
Justice Ibrahim, however, observed that the disagreement between counsel prevented the court from examining the documents brought by the Federal University Kashere officials.
“The disagreement of counsel prevented the court from seeing the documents brought by the university representatives,” the judge observed, adding that the issues raised would be considered in the final judgment.
The court subsequently reserved judgment, with a date to be communicated to the parties.
Meanwhile, the defence maintained that the plaintiff’s request had been duly responded to. According to the defence, the respondent received the plaintiff’s request on December 5, 2025, and replied through a letter dated December 22, 2025, which was allegedly dispatched to the address contained on the plaintiff’s letterhead.
The plaintiff, however, denied ever receiving the letter.
According to court proceedings, the plaintiff “specifically denied receipt of the said document” and further maintained that neither his legal chambers nor his Bauchi office received any such correspondence.
He consequently challenged the respondent to produce credible evidence showing that the letter was properly served.
Judgment in the matter has now been reserved.
