Bayelsa Guber: Sylva Challenges Tribunal Verdict, Heads To Appeal Court

Timipre Sylva has headed to the Appeal Court to challenge the verdict of the Bayelsa State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal which upheld Douye Diri’s victory.

Douye of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) defeated Sylva who vied on the umbrella of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the Bayelsa governorship election.

While the former petroleum resources minister challenged the victory, the tribunal on Monday upheld Douye’s win.

Unsatisfied, the APC candidate described the verdict as a “miscarriage of justice” and is heading to the Appeal Court to seek redress.

READ ALSO: Gov Fubara: Sen Dickson Leads Bayelsa Delegation On Peace Mission

“No quantum of miscarriage of justice will make me lose confidence in the Nigerian judicial system. It’s all we have. Some of the finest Nigerians I know are in our judiciary. What surprised me in today’s judgement is: an ‘Election Petitions Tribunal’ making conclusive findings on criminal allegations without calling witnesses or experts,” Sylva said in a terse statement.

“Well, considering the antecedents of this Tribunal we are not surprised. Thankfully we can still seek redress in the Appellate Courts.”

The three-man panel led by Justice Adekunle Adeleye dismissed Sylva’s petition in a unanimous decision.

It held that the petitioners failed to adduce any credible evidence to substantiate any of the allegations they raised against the outcome of the Bayelsa state governorship poll.

The tribunal struck out as incompetent, all the additional proof of evidence as well as statements on oath of some of the witnesses that testified for the petitioners.

According to the tribunal, the law expressly provided that an election petition must be filed not later than 21 days after the result of an election was declared.

It held that such petition must at the time it was filed, be accompanied with written statements of all the intended witnesses.

The tribunal held that the decision of Sylva and his party to file their additional proof of evidence and statement on oath of witnesses, long after they had filed the petition, was tantamount to a surreptitious attempt to amend the case of the petitioners.

Comments

comments