More drama played out as legal fireworks came to an end
Thursday, at the National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Uyo,
Akwa Ibom State, where Minister designate, Godswill Akpabio is challenging the
declaration of Chris Ekpenyong as winner of the Akwa Ibom North West (Ikot
Ekpene) Senatorial District.
Senator Akpabio's counsel, Sunday Ameh (SAN), shocked the
tribunal during the adoption of his written address that that the result of the
February 23, 2019, senatorial election in Ikot Ekpene was prepared even before
the election day.
Ameh told the tribunal that the Independent National
Electoral Commission's Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) in the state, Mike
Igini, falsified Akpabio’s result in favour of the People’s Democratic Party's
candidate, Ekpenyong.
Based on the anomalies observed, Ameh urged the tribunal to
declare Akpabio of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as winner of the
senatorial election.
He submitted that Akpabio is the validly elected senator for
Akwa Ibom North West Senatorial District having scored majority of the lawful
votes cast in the election.
Ameh also submitted that Ekpenyong , who was declared winner
of the election, was not elected by lawful votes cast as evidence showed that
Akpabio had the highest votes scored.
The tribunal was thrown into shock when Ameh stated that the
INEC Returning Officer for Essien Udim Local Government Area, Dr Olosunde
William, after recording the result for the Local Government Area took the
result to INEC office in Uyo and cancelled Senator Akpabio’s votes to give an
edge to his opponent.
According to Ameh, the Returning Officer had admitted that
he collated the result for 11 Wards of Essien Udim Local Government in Form
EC8B1 handed over to him by the various collation officers. He had also stated
that the results were compiled by him in Essien Udim and Akpabio scored 61, 329
votes while Ekpenyong scored 9, 050 votes.
However, in a curious twist the Returning Officer, without
the presence of the party agents and other officials unilaterally reduced the
votes of Akpabio to 6, 241 at the INEC office in Uyo.
Senator Akpabio’s counsel submitted that the alteration of
Akpabio’s votes at INEC office in Uyo was illegal. “Form EC8C1 which showed the
adjustment of the result is dated February 24, 2019. While Form EC8CD1 which
showed the result collated by INEC in Essien Udim is dated February 25, 2019.
My Lord, that is dishonesty,” Ameh submitted.
He went on to affirm that the appropriate person to write
the report of the election not holding, or cancellation of the result is the
Presiding Officer at each Polling Unit.
He posited further that all the Presiding Officers who
appeared in court when cross-examined responded that they did not cancel any
result and they did not know what Form EC40G which should have been used in
event of any cancellation was.
According to Ameh, "in the absence of any valid report
for the cancellation, the respondents cannot impugn the integrity of the result
that was collated by INEC in Form EC81 tendered before this tribunal,” he
submitted.
He drew the attention of the tribunal to the submission by
PDP witnesses during cross examination, alleging that APC thugs carted away all
electoral materials in some Wards in Essien Udim, however, they had no
explanation when shown the card reader reports and voter registers of the same
units they claimed were carted away.
Meanwhile, Senator Ekpenyong urged the tribunal to dismiss
the petition filed by Akpabio for lacking in merit.
The former Deputy Governor also argued that the reliefs
sought by Akpabio, differed from the grounds of his petition.
Senator Ekpenyong through his counsel, Kanu Agabi (SAN), in
his written address said that out of 10 local government areas that make up the
senatorial district, witnesses were called by the petitioner for only two local
government areas.
He also argued that the petitioner was unable to
substantiate his claims, as the depositions he relied on, had no evidential
value.
“My lord, you remember each and every one of his witnesses
saying "my deposition is made up of what I saw and what I was told."
He insisted that all the witnesses could not differentiate
between what they saw and what they heard, and that responsibility cannot be
that of the court.
“The depositions were chorusing one another. Why would A who
was in Jericho have an identical situation with B who was in Jerusalem?”
Chief Agabi averred further that “the relief of being
declared the winner is only available to a petitioner who pleads majority of
lawful votes”.
“In this petition, the petitioners are not seeking
nullification of the election, but rather they are seeking to be declared the
winner. Reliefs must flow from the grounds, and their ground does not avail
them.
Agabi insisted that no single agent was called by the
petitioner, yet all the witnesses called by the respondents alleged malpractice
at the polling units. He said this could be likened to Algebra where one is
expected to show the formula and process he used in arriving at his conclusion.
On his part, Solomon Umoh (SAN), counsel to the PDP told the
tribunal to dismiss the petition due to the absence of polling witness to give
life to the claims of the petitioner.
Umoh maintained that “a petitioner who brings his case on
fraudulent cancellations, must establish two ingredients, that there were
cancelations, alterations or mutilations in the electoral document and that the
cancellation, alteration or mutilation were dishonestly made in a view to falsify
the result of the election.”
He said that the effective way to unravel the truth was
based on the integrity of Form EC8A, the unit result, where votes are
generated.
The PDP counsel wondered why the petitioner failed to
present any unit witness before the tribunal, thereby making Form EC8As to
appear helpless.
Citing various court precedents, Umoh argued further that
“in any matter of this magnitude, Polling Unit agents must be witnesses to how
they were produced and must be signatories to them; otherwise it has a doubtful
and suspicious origin.”
INEC counsel Robert Emukpoeruo citing the poor foundation of
the petition, urged the tribunal to dismiss it completely.
The INEC counsel maintained that the petitioner was obliged
to bring unit results and not just result from the collation centre because
their petition claimed that the first respondent did not win by majority of
lawful votes cast.
Emukpoeruo further
argued that votes are not cast at ward or local government collation
centres, but at Polling Units and reasoned that the petitioners ought to have
led the tribunal to the Polling Units.
On this, Ameh said the respondents completely misunderstood
the case of the petitioner.
According to Ameh, the petitioner case are on the grounds
that Senator Ekpenyong was not validly elected by majority of lawful votes cast
and his return was not in compliance with the Electoral Act.
After listening to the submissions of the parties, Chairman
of the tribunal, Justice W. O. Akanbi said the matter was adjourned for
judgment on a date to be communicated to the parties concerned.
Comments
Post a Comment