 |
Plateau Tribunal sets January 2019 to
rule on competence or otherwise of Langtang North, Langtang South, Bassa and
Bokkos Chairmanship petitions.
By Dickson Gupiya
December 22, 2018
The
Plateau State Local Government Election Petition trial tribunal reserved 4th
8th 10th and 19th January 2019
respectively for ruling on the competence or otherwise of petitions filed by
Ubandoma Joshua Laven, Bendel Nancwat Domfa, Amos Samuel Timbau and Monday
Kassa all of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) against Kparnim Nanloh Amos,
Nimchak Samson Rims, Chindo Gona all of the All Progressive Congress (APC).
Other parties in the matter include, the APC and PLASIEC respectively.
The
tribunal had on Tuesday 18th December, 2018 asked counsels to all
parties to consolidate all petitions to enable it take applications and
objection on chairmanship petitions on Friday 21st December 2018 and
counsellorship petitions on Saturday 22nd December, 2018 to save
time.
Consequently
all the 8 chairmanship petitions were on the cause list on Friday which
include, Langtang North, Langtang South, Bassa, Bokkos, Kanke, Pankshin and
Mangu Local Government respectively.
Langtang
North, Langtang South and Bokkos’s
applications and objections were taken on Friday 21st December, 2018
while Bassa and Langtang south were adjourned to Saturday 22nd
December, 2018.
The
petitioners were represented by Chief S Odey Esq, Lawrence Anyia Esq, S Oyewale
Esq, H N Ugwala Esq, F O Shuaibu Esq, Niri Daron Esq, John Joshua Esq and many
others. The respondents which include,
Kparnim Nanlom Amos, Nimchak Samson Rims,Chindo Gona, APC and PLASIEC
respectively.
When
the petitions were called, counsel to petitioners told the tribunal that the
day was slated to take all preliminary objections and further declared their
readiness.
Counsels
to all the respondents in all the Petitions asked the tribunal to strike out
the Petitions for lack of substance stressing that the grounds on which they
sought the petition to be strike out was based in paragraph 3 of the 1st
schedule which contained the rule of procedure in the election petition. They
further argued that paragraph 3, particularly sub paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 all
dealt with certification of all copies in respect of the petition and further
based their main argument on sub section 4 which make it mandatory requirement
of the law that payment, specifically for the purpose of certification must be
made adding that it was very clear that the petitioners had failed in making
such payment.
Counsel
to respondents added that for the purpose of emphasis, they referred the
tribunal to Page 7 Paragraphs 1.8-2.3 of his reply to petitioners reply on his
preliminary objection on point of law. Counsels said that the important issue
the tribunal must consider was whether the petitioners disclosed the votes
scored during the election and whether the inability of the petitioners to do
so has not contravene paragraph 4 sub 1c of the PLASIEC Law. He said his second
point was hinged on paragraph 4.2 – 4.3 of the 2nd responded written
address and also paragraph 1.1-1.7 of the reply on point of law and submitted
that the plead of these petitions were
premature.
 |
| Venue of the Tribunal |
In
the light of the above, counsel said the petition was incompetence and urged
the tribunal to terminate it. r as fundamental. Another issue Counsels for the respondents
asked the tribunal to consider and strike out the petitions was that of
statutory to bar. This is according to Counsels was because, issues pertaining
to election tribunal were generic. Counsel said that one key issue to be considered
by the tribunal was the day election results were declared.
“1st
petitioners said it was announced on 16th October 2018 but there is
no documentary evidence to back up this claim. If at all there was any, the
petitioners inexplicably did not provide it which contravened section 168 of
the Evidence Act. Exhibit R1 which is attached to 3rd responded
affidavit is a copy of declaration of the election dated 10th
October, 2018. By the extant authority, you include the day election result was
declared. You don’t exclude the day.” Counsel cited the Supreme Court decision in
Okechukwu against INEC which
according to him, made it clear that the day election result was declared must
be concluded in the 21 days.
“10th
October, 2018 ought to have been included in computing this case but that was
not done. By implication, this petition which was filed on 31st
October, 2018 was filed out of time. And there should be no room for sentiment
or public opinion. I urge this tribunal to hold that since this tribunal was
filed out of time, be strike out,” said Pius Akubo (SAN) one of the Counsels
for the respondents.
However,
in their response, Counsels to the Petitioners held that they pleaded pointedly
in some of the paragraph of the petitioners reply to 3rd respondent
that the result of the said election was declared on 16th December,
2018 and that the 3rd respondent didn’t have the courage to say that
the election was declared on 10th October, 2018.
“So,
it is settled on pleading between the petitioners and 3rd respondent
that the election was declared on 16th October, 2018”.
“Exhibit
R1 by counsel to 3rd respondent was a scandalized document and should
not be taken with a pinch of salt because it was manufactured. “The point is
clear, that the issue of date of declaration is known so I urge this tribunal
to dismiss the 3rd application of 3rd respondent. The
only document that the tribunal needs to look on is the petition itself. Every
other thing remains to be proved inside the witness box”, said Ugwala, one of
the Counsels for the petitioners.
 |
Counsels for petitioners further said that
they pleaded scores of candidates and referred the tribunal to certain
paragraphs in the petitions stressing that the 2nd petitioner (PDP)
sponsored the 1st petitioner stating that there was no distinction
between candidate, and political parties. Counsel cited Supreme Court judgment
in the case between Wada and Bello. Making more emphasis, counsels submitted
that the petitioners were challenging the declaration of the results
irrespective of who declared it.
Hon.
J K Binjin, Chairman of the tribunal sets
4th, 8th, 10th and 19th January
2019 for rulings on whether the petitions are qualified to be heard or not.
However,
the petitions by Raymond Deshi,(Kanke), Felix Charles (Pankshin) and Ayuba
Gufwan Burki (Mangu) were all adjourned to the 8th and 9th
of January, 2019 for the adoption of answers to the pre- hearing questions.
Post a Comment