 |
Pre-hearing continues
in the National Assembly petition tribunal in Jos
By Joseph A. Adudu
May 9th, 2019
Pre-hearing
continued on Thursday in the National and State Houses of Assembly Election
Petition Tribunal at the high court, West of Mines Jos, venue of the tribunal.
Two
petitions were entertained during the session on Thursday. These are Petition No.
EPT/PL/NA/01/2019 between Hon. Danjuma Haruna of the All Progressive Congress
(APC) and Engr. Solomon Maren of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Petition
no EPT/PL/NA/SEN/01/2019 between Bature Rufus Daniel of the All Progressive
Congress (APC) and Gyang Istifanus Dung of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
When
the case file number 1 on the cause list was called, M.Y Dalung, counsel to
Danjuma Haruna and APC (the petitioners) told the tribunal that indeed, the
matter was slated for today for the adoption of pre-hearing answers. He stated
that the petitioners pre-hearing answer was dated 2nd May, 2019 and
filed the same day. Counsel humbly adopted same as their answers to pre-hearing
information sheet.
 |
| Chief SG Odey, lead Counsel for PDP |
Chief
S.G. Odey, counsel to Solomon Maren and the PDP (1st and 2nd
respondents) told the tribunal that the 1st and 2nd
respondents answer to pre-hearing questions was dated 4th May, 2019
and filed the same day and humbly sought the permission of the tribunal to
adopt same.
Nathan
Umiche, counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the 3rd
respondent told the tribunal that upon received of the pre-hearing information
sheet, they responded on the 3rd May, 2019 and filed on the 6th
May, 2019 and also adopted same as their answers to the pre-hearing information
sheet.
In
his further submission, counsel to the petitioners told the tribunal that the
petitioners had indicated in paragraph 14 of their answers that they intended
to file four applications which include:
1. Motion
on notice objecting to the competence of various replies
2. Motion
on notice praying for striking out of some paragraphs of the various replies to
be listed in the motion
3. Motion
on notice for the disqualification of some of the responses to be listed in the
motion and
4. An
application to subpoena.
Consequently,
counsel asked for five days within which to file the stated applications which
was granted by the tribunal. Counsel to 1st and 2nd
respondents told the tribunal that they have also indicated in paragraph 14 of
pre-hearing answers that they shall be filling three applications and asked for
five days to enable them to do so which was also granted by the tribunal.
Counsel
to 3rd respondents told the tribunal that on their part, they do not
intend to file any application except only to respond to the various
applications upon service on them stressing that in the event of that, they
would need three days for each respondent (1st and 2nd)
to respond. The tribunal also granted the request.
 |
| Counsels in the tribunal on Thursday |
The
case was adjourned to May 20th, 2019 for the applications to be
heard.
In
the 2nd petition, counsel to Hon Rufus Bature and the APC (the petitioners) B.Z. Rimven told the
tribunal that their pre-hearing answers to the pre-hearing information sheet
was dated 2nd May, 2019 and filled on the same day are adopted same
as their answers. Counsel to Hon ID Gyang (1st respondent), H N
Ugwuala told the tribunal that their pre-hearing answers was dated 4th
May, 2019 and filed the same day and adopted same as their answers.
S.G.
Odey, counsel to the PDP (2nd
respondent) said their pre-hearing answers was dated 2nd May, 2019
and filed on the 4th May, 2019 and also adopted same as their
answers. E.O. Akhayere, counsel to INEC (3rd respondent) told the
tribunal that their pre-hearing answers was dated 3rd May, 2019 and
file on the 6th May, 2019 and adopted same as their pre-hearing
answers.
Counsel
to the petitioners and 1st and 2nd respondents all stated
the intentions of their clients as stated in various paragraph in their answers
to pre-hearing information sheet to file series of applications and asked for
five days each within which to file this applications and the tribunal granted
their requests.
Akhayere,
however, told the tribunal that the 3rd respondent do not intend to
file any application but that they will respond upon service to the
applications by the petitioners and respondents. Counsel further asked for four
days each to respond to the petitioner and the respondent.
Before
adjournment, counsel to 2nd respondent told the tribunal that he had
an oral application to withdraw a process, “My Lords, I have an oral
application to withdraw a process which we feel is not necessary. It is titled ‘1st
and 2nd respondents reply to the petition dated 5th
April, 2019’. We subsequently filed another reply which is a valid one and we
intend to rely on it during trial. We humbly apply for the withdrawal of this
process”.
The
tribunal granted the application and the said process was subsequently
withdrawn. The case was adjourned to 20th May, 2019 for hearing of applications.
Post a Comment