TRIBUNAL: DRAMA IN DELTA AS GREAT OGBORU AND LABOUR PARTY FAULTS ITS KEY WITNESS

The Delta State Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Asaba on Monday witnessed a mid-drama following a tense atmosphere after the Labour Party (LP) and its candidate, Chief Great Ogboru accused one of their key witnesses of playing to the gallery. 

The three-man tribunal, headed by Justice Nasiru Gunmi, had subpoenaed the Head of the Department of General Administration and Procurement, INEC Office, Asaba, Mr. Felix Enabor to give evidence in the petition filed by the LP.

But soon after Enabor entered the witness box and submitted his written statement and other documents as exhibit before the tribunal, counsel to Ogboru, Mr. Robert Emukpoeruo raised an objection, by way of a motion, urging the tribunal to label Enabor as a hostile witness.

In his motion, Emukpoeruo contended that some paragraphs in the witness’s deposition were “animus” and injurious to the position of the petitioners.

But his objection was countered by counsels to the respondents, (Okowa, PDP and INEC), Dr. Alex Izyion (SAN), Mr. Timothy Kehinde (SAN) and Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) respectively.

Iziyon described the move as “very basal and unknown to law”, arguing that section 230 of the Evidence Act has not been complied with.

He argued that the petitioner’s request to label the witness as hostile and animus was not automatic as it cannot be invoked.

“The petitioner is the one providing the witness upon an application, it is his witness.

“They have taken a gamble, they either swim or sink with the witness they have called”, Iziyon posited.

The legal luminary reminded the tribunal that the petitioners were the ones that called the witness, and he obeyed the subpoena.

He stated that there was no evidence of hostility with the witness as there was nothing to show such, as he had the mandate of the petitioner to come and testify.

Iziyon further explained that the issues of the Labour Party chairman facing criminal prosecution over stolen INEC materials should not be a hidden thing.

He also said that the issue of hostile witness was not new to jurisprudence, as there were not enough grounds to treat witness from INEC as hostile.

Iziyon argued that Enabor had not made any statement that contradicted the one he deposed to in court that would amount to contradiction, hence there was no need to brand him a hostile witness.

“The tribunal is guided by law, not by sentiment, we are bound by the rules of the procedure the witness has adopted, so they are bound by it”, he posited.

Counsel to the PDP, Mr. Timothy Kehinde (SAN) submitted that his client was opposed to the petitioner’s request to treat the witness as hostile, stressing that the condition for the tribunal to exercise such decision had not been met.

He said: “A party producing a witness is under obligation not to be allowed to impugn on the credibility of his witness by general conduct or behavior.

“There is no doubt that the witness is at the command of the tribunal, whose sole duty it is to help the tribunal to arrive at a just decision.

“The witness is not under any obligation to give evidence that is favorable to the parties except to say the truth.”

Kehinde argued that the position of the petitioner that they do not have confidence in the evidence of the witness was nothing but suggestive of the fact that they have no opportunity to cause the witness to commit perjury.

He pointed out that the fact that the witness was not giving the petitioner a favorable evidence did not mean that he was hostile.

Kehinde further reminded the tribunal that before the petitioner’s application can be granted, there must be sufficient evidence that a contrary statement has been made by the witness and he must be asked whether he has made such statement for the records.

He noted that all the deposition in the witness’s statement on oath were relevant in the case and had explained everything the witness knew about the matter.

According to him, there was nothing in the statement to declare the witness hostile as his deposition ended his duty to the party that called him.

Kehinde posited that the next move was for the respondents to cross examine the witness.

He supported his arguments with section 51(1) of the Evidence Act, stressing that there shall be no oral examination of the witness by the petitioner, but just to tender the document he has listed on oath.

The PDP counsel said that granting the application would be tantamount to helping the petitioner to have an input into the evidence of the witness and that will mean asking the judge to descend from his hallowed chambers as unbiased umpire in the case.

In the same vein, counsel to INEC Mr. Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), opposed the application saying it has no bases as provided under section 230 of the evidence act.

He argued that there was no bases that the petitioner relied upon, hence the tribunal has no facts before it upon which to grant the application.

Tribunal chairman, Justice Gunmi, after listening to the arguments of all the counsels, reserved ruling on the motion for Tuesday, September 1, 2015.