Akwa Ibom Governorship Tribunal winds down proceedings, adjourns ….Calling Witnesses Will Not Help Our Case – INEC

The Akwa Ibom State Governorship Elections Petitions Tribunal has concluded hearing in the petition brought by Mr Nsima Ekere, Candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and his Party, the APC challenging the outcome of the March 9, 2019 Governorship Elections in Akwa Ibom State on grounds of fraudulent practices and clear violation of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and the Guidelines for the elections issued by INEC. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had on March 10, 2019 declared Governor Udom Emmanuel as winner of the contest. Governor Udom Emmanuel, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) were sued as 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents respectively. 

The Tribunal had adjourned on Monday to allow the 2nd Respondent (PDP) call its last set of witnesses and conclude its defence having already called twenty (20) witnesses in the last two weeks. At the resumed sitting of the Tribunal on Tuesday, the 2nd respondent through its Counsel Tayo Oyetibo, SAN informed the Court of its decision to close its case. According to him, “My lord, we have reviewed our evidence so far and have come to the conclusion that there is no longer need to call additional witnesses. We have decided to close our case at this stage”. The closure of the case of the 2nd respondent signaled the opening of the defence of the 3rd respondent – INEC.

Counsel to INEC Silva Oguemoh, SAN informed the Tribunal that INEC will not be calling witnesses. “My Lord, you gave us the opportunity to review our defence when you mentioned that INEC shall commence its defence after the 2nd respondent. We have reviewed our evidence alongside the Petitioner’s witnesses and have come to the inevitable conclusion to justify our not calling up additional witnesses having diligently considered the evidence led by the 1st Respondent. We are therefore of the opinion that calling additional witnesses will not serve any useful purpose. In the circumstance, we adopt the evidence of 1st and 2nd Respondents as our evidence”, he concluded and received an open commendation from the Chairman of the Tribunal Justice AM. Yakubu.

From the evidence led so far by the 1st and 2nd Respondents in the proceedings through their witnesses, there has been consistent complaint of non-accreditation of voters as can be seen from the manual voters registers tendered as exhibits. The witnesses have blamed INEC for non-accreditation. All the witnesses called by the 1st and 2nd Respondents said it was not their duty to ensure the ticking of voters’ registers, but that of INEC.

The gravamen of the Petitioners’ case is that  all processes required by Law in an election were not followed, hence the elections were not conducted according to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) or the Guidelines issued by INEC. Every valid vote is based on accredited voters. It is strange that majority of the certified true copies (CTC) of the voters registers obtained from INEC and tendered in the proceedings were not ticked to show accreditation. In law, the eloquence of any document is found in the document itself. In other words, documents speak for themselves. 

Mr Ekere while testifying on the proceedings has maintained that election is a process; “My lord, my contention is that the process that took place in Akwa Ibom State on the 9th of March was totally at variance with the provisions of the law, not known to the Electoral Act, to the guidelines for the elections given by INEC neither the manual for electoral officers”.

This position was reechoed by Counsel to the Petitioners JS. Okutepa, SAN while speaking to journalists at the end of the proceedings. “We came to the Tribunal because Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), a supposed Electoral umpire, decided to be partisan. Accreditation of voters is the first foundation any election rests on, and was not carried out by them during the election. Our problem is not who they (INEC) declared as the winner of that election. Our problem is, how did the person so declared emerge?”

He continued, “It may interest you to know that we have tendered certified true copies of INEC documents. We did not get them from the moon. We got them from INEC. In law, documents speak for themselves. We have tendered those documents before their Lordships at the Tribunal. It is on this premise that we want justice in this case because we came for justice”.

It now becomes clear why INEC could not have entertained the risk of calling any witness as the questions relating to non-accreditation of voters remain unanswered. No amount of oral testimony would amount to accreditation in the circumstance where it was obvious there was clear breach of the Law.

The Tribunal consequently adjourned to September 10, 2019 for adoption of written addresses of the parties.

Comments

comments