… Substantive trial to
commence next week
…INEC, PDP to present
145 witnesses
The suit filed by the
All Progressive Congress (APC) and its gubernatorial candidate Olorogun O’tega
Emerhor, challenging the victory of Governor Ifeanyi Okowa in the April 14th
governorship election in Delta State, suffered yet another major setback.
The Delta State
Election Petition Tribunal, sitting in Asaba, yesterday, quashed its motion
seeking to call additional seven witnesses to support its petition.
The tribunal which
also ended its pre-hearing conference yesterday, said it has concluded arrangements
to admit no less than 145 witnesses from the Independent National Electoral
Commission (INEC) and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), in the course of the
substantive trial
Chairman of the
Tribunal, Justice Nasiru Gunmi, in a ruling that lasted about an hour on the
motion brought by Otega, through his counsel, Mr. Thomson Okpokor (SAN), held
that the motion lacks merit.
Oterga’s counsel had
sought the leave of the tribunal to invite seven additional witnesses even when
the time allowed for such action has elapsed.
Justice Gunmi posited,
“We are strongly of the view that the applicant have not adduced sufficient
reason before us to persuade us to deviate from the mandatory provision of
section 45 of the Electoral Act, 2010, which enables us to exercise our
discretion in their favour. We are of the view that the issues as conversed are
hereby resolved against the petitioner applicant, this motion is therefore
unmeritorious and same is not only refused but consequently dismissed”.
Counsel to Governor
Ifeanyi Okowa, the, Dr. Alex Iziyon (SAN) had in his opposition to the motion
informed the tribunal that , by the provisions of section 45 of the first
schedule of the electoral act 2010, the word shall is mandatory for the
petitioner to front load his petition to the respondent , adding that the
petitioner , after reviewing their cases decided to come with the application
to call 7 more witnesses which he described as after though .
He averred that for
the petitioner to get the reliefs sought, they must show exceptional
circumstance as stated in section 41(a) of the Electoral Act 2010.
He went ahead to urge
the tribunal not to grant the reliefs sought. In his words ‘”if such relief
should be granted, there should also be a consequential order, as contained in
section 45 of the Electoral Act, 2010, which stipulates that front loading of
evidence should accompany the petition, adding that anything to the contrary
will be unfair to the respondents as the right to respond would have been
breached.
Collaborating the views
of Iziyon, Counsel to PDP, A .T Kehinde (SAN) in his submission vehemently
opposed the motion, arguing that section 14 of the Electoral Act , stated that
any amendment in which ever form in an election petition where the petitioner
seeks to introduce additional particulars in the same petition is an amendment
which the law does not allow.
He submitted that
section 255 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as
amended , and section 4(5) of the electoral act 2010 as amended forecloses any
amendment after 21 days, adding that the tribunal lacks the power to grant
same, averring that bringing application at this stage to file additional
witness by the petitioner is nothing short of amendment as those documents were
not front loaded with the petition, saying if the application is granted , that
it will bring great injustice to the respondents who will not have the
opportunity to file response
Justice Gunmi further
ruled that a review of the petition of the applicant presupposes that they were
trying to upgrade the same petition from which the respondents have all filed
replies and the applicant have also responded to the replies of the respondents
and pleading has subsequently closed.
He said there is no
averment in the affidavit in support of their application that can suggest that
those additional witnesses they intend to call in their application were
unavailable immediately after the election. we do not think that the
realization to call additional witness is sufficient enough to amount to
exceptional circumstance, adding that an election petition matter which is
sui-jeneris are determined under a particular and specific period of time.
He held that the
petitioner had no sufficient reasons in the instance case, hence granting the
relief would amount to an unnecessary elongation of time,
He posited further
that by the provision of section 45 of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended, it
specifies the content of election petition, which he said must accompany by a
list of witnesses that a petitioner intends to call in proof of his petition,
written statement on oath of the witnesses, and copies of writs of every
document to be replied on the hearing of the petition.
Counsel to O’tega ,
Mr. Thomson okpokor (SAN) had averred that the application was not meant to
mean the amend the petition through the back door, neither has the petitioner
introduced any new facts into the matter which is outside their pleading.
However, Justice Gunmi
who concluded the pre-hearing conference in the petition, said the report of
the pre-trial hearing will be ready on the next adjourned date, on 7th August
2015, to enable the counsels in the tribunal commence hearing on the
substantive suit.
Counsels to the
respondents, particularly, INEC and PDP informed the court that a total of 145
witnesses, respectively have been assembled to proof its cases, APC and O’tega
said it shall call only nine witnesses while Ogboru and Labour Party said its
shopping for 36 witnesses at the commencement of trial.
Comments
Post a Comment