Adibe Emenyonu in Benin-city
Counsel to the parties in the Edo State governorship election petition tribunal yesterday adopted their final submissions and addres
ses to the tribunal, just as the Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Ahmed Badamasi, expressed satisfaction with the conduct of the counsel, and ruled that the date for the judgment would be communicated to them.
Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu, the governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the September 28, 2016, governorship election in the state, had approached the tribunal, asking it to declare him winner of the election, and urged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to withdraw the Certificate of Returns issued to the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Mr. Godwin Obaseki ,who was declared winner of the election by the commission.
The adoption of addresses by counsel to parties witnessed another display of legal fireworks as the counsel to INEC, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN); Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), and Lateef Fagbemi, counsel to Obaseki and APC respectively, buttressed their arguments on the point of law, urging the tribunal to dismiss Ize-Iyamu’s petition as it failed to proof beyond reasonable doubt the petition before the tribunal.
But counsel to Ize-Iyamu and the PDP, Yusuf Ali (SAN), insisted that they had provided the tribunal with the evidences needed by the tribunal to annul the election of Obaseki, asserting that there was merit in their petition and that Ize-Iyamu should be declared the authentic winner of the election.
Each of the counsel was given 20 minutes to address the court on the point of law. Counsel to the INEC, Ikpeazu, in his addressed, noted that the PDP candidate invited ward collating officers as witnesses “and they cannot be super human to be in all the polling units where election held to know what actually happened.
He also canvassed the issue of over voting, noting that for over voting to be proved, there must be ballot paper counting and certified before the court.
“As far as this court is concerned there was no counting of any ballot paper here,” he declared.
On the argument made by the petitioner that INEC failed to produce a witness, Ikpeazu asserted that “INEC is not obliged to produce a witness because the burden of proof lies on the petitioner. INEC would have done that if the burden has shifted. We relied on the case of Audu vs Anazodo. It is not for INEC to call evidence it is for the petitioner to proof his case beyond reasonable doubt.”
On his part, Olanipekun pointed out that “we have issues with the identity of the petitioner because we have conflicting names given to us by the petition. Apart from that the petitioners abandoned their case completely and pursued the issue of counting without providing evidence to proof their case. If there is any petition crying for evidence this is one my Lord. It should be dismissed.”
Also, Fagbemi argued that “from all we have seen by the petitioner, there is disconnect between the petition, the evidence and written addresses. The petitioner called witnesses without providing the evidence. In an election matter where there is request for nullification, the onus lies on the petitioner to proof. Your Lordship cannot grant an order which is totally useless.”
He added that “even if my Lords, for instance, decides to grant them the mathematics they are doing, despite all their pitfalls, Obaseki will still win with 58, 696 votes.”
Counsel to Ize-Iyamu, Yusuf Ali, however, countered, urging the tribunal to disregard the submissions made by counsel to the respondents, asserting that “I have ten points why this tribunal should grant our prayers. We have proofed our evidence before this tribunal and everything pointed at INEC, that they did not conduct the election according to the electoral laws. And even the respondent agreed with us that they election was not free and fair during proceedings.
“From what the counsels to the respondents are saying, they are asking the tribunal to jettison the issue of the voters’ register. In Peterside vs Wike, the Supreme Court stated that the voters’ register is even well recognised by the Electoral Act than the card reader. So we have provided the tribunal with the evidences needed in this case and we urge it to declared Ize-Iyamu the authentic winner of the election.”
Chairman of the Tribunal, Justice Badamasi, who commended the counsel for their cooperation throughout the trial, said a date for judgment will be communicated to the parties.
