The Kogi State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal has reserved judgment in the petition filed by the Social Democratic Party, SDP, and its governorship candidate, Murtala Ajaka, against the election victory of Usman Ododo.
The Tribunal, which sat in Abuja on Monday, reserved judgment following final submission by the parties in the case.
Before the pronouncement, Ajaka’s lawyer, Pius Akubo, urged the tribunal to set aside the respondents’ submissions and uphold theirs.
Meanwhile, the Independent National Electoral Commission, through its lawyer, Kanu Agabi, told the court that their final written address was dated and filed on May 2. He, however, prayed the tribunal sitting to dismiss Ajaka’s petition.
In their submission, the All Progressives Congress, APC, and Ododo asked the tribunal to dismiss Ajaka’s petition in its entirety. They argued that the petitioners petition is incompetent and lacking in merit.
Counsel to the respondents, Agabi, Joseph Daudu, and Emmanuel Ukala, adopted their final written addresses. Presenting their arguments against the petitioners, they prayed the three-member panel of Justices to dismiss the petition.
Agabi contended that the Court of Appeal had decided that if the grounds of a petition are inconsistent with one another and are not consistent with the reliefs, it should be struck out.
He also argued that the evidence of the petitioners was grossly insufficient. Agabi, therefore, cited a Supreme Court decision in a case by Tonye Cole against INEC.
He said, “It is our humble submission that your work in the determination of this petition is simplified in recent judgments by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
“It is to the effect that once the evidence called is grossly insufficient, there is no evidence. In that case, the petitioner filed 305 witness depositions but only adopted 40 of them.
“The petitioner, according to the decision, only adopted about 13.1 per cent of the witness depositions. In this case, the depositions adopted represent just about 3.6 per cent of their witness depositions,” he said.
Agabi also stated that the petitioners only called 25 witnesses out of the scores listed.
He said, “In the mathematical calculation of evidence, 3.6 per cent of Ajaka’s witness deposition adopted in the petition amounted to a failure. And therefore, ought to be dismissed.
The SAN said the petitioners equally failed to file the witness deposition beforehand. And this is in contravention of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obungado’s case.
He argued that the petitioners’ witness who testified about the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, BVAS machines, clearly stated that he could not guarantee whether those were the BVAS used.
Agabi further argued that the BVAS machine was tendered against Section 84 of the Evidence Act. He maintained that there was no certificate of trustworthiness attached alongside it as required by the law.
He said, “Also, the evidence contained in the BVAS machines fell short of what is required of the law.”
Agabi, therefore, described the case as frivolous. He argued that out of 25, not a single election observer was called.
“Besides, the star witness could not distinguish between what he heard and what he saw when questions were put to him”.
Ododo’s legal counsel, Daudu, while adopting his final written address dated and filed on May 1, argued that the petition was statute-barred (filed out of time).
He argued that the action of the petitioners was against Section 122(1) and (2)(a) of the Evidence Act. Daudu said the Act empowers the tribunal to take judicial notice of the time of filing, service and response.
But responding, Akubo objected to Daudu’s citing of the section describing it as a fresh argument. He clarified that the petitioners responded to their service.
source: PUNCH