 |
Useni vs Lalong: Tribunal reserves date for judgment as parties
adopt Final Written Addresses.
By Joseph A. Adudu
August 22, 2019.
The Governorship Election Petition
Tribunal sitting at High Court 8, West of Mines resumed Thursday after
adjournment for two weeks.
Senator Jeremiah
Useni and the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP who are the petitioners are
challenging Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)' s declaration of
Rt. Hon Simon Bako Lalong of the All Progressive Congress APC, ( who are 1st,
2nd & 3rd defendants respectively), as the executive governor of Plateau
state in the February/ March, 2019 governorship election in the state.
 |
| Chief Ozekhome (l) with Chief Fagbemi (r) at the tribunal on Thursday |
After opening
their case in May, the petitioners called 71 witnesses, tendered over 200
documents and closed their case. The respondents on their parts opened their
defence and called 15 witnesses combined. Thereafter, the tribunal adjourned
until Thursday, 22 August, 2019 for the adoption of Final written Addresses.
When the case
file was called this morning, counsel to INEC ( 1st respondent), Clement
Onwuewunor told the tribunal that the 1st respondent' s Final Written Address
was dated and filed 9 August, 2019 and adopted same as the 1st respondent
submission and argument in the petition. By way of adumbration, counsel said
that the 1st respondent relied on the evidence of PW 71 ( INEC director of
Logistics). " our position is hinged on the evidence of PW 71 who is a
staff of the 1st respondent who both in his evidence in chief and answers under
cross examination, clearly demonstrated that the 2019 Governorship election in
Plateau state was conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act
and the entire regulations in our Manual there under" According to
counsel, the petition was not been proved. " This petition in our view,
has not been proved and same cannot hold " said counsel.
 |
| Chief GS Pwul, counsel for APC |
Lateef Fagbemi,
counsel to 2nd respondent (Lalong), in his submission said that the Written
Address of the 2nd respondent was dated and filed on 8 August, 2019 and adopted
and relied on the same process.
In his
adumbration, counsel submitted that very cogent reasons were required to upturn
the verdict of an electoral umpire. " The first point I want to make is
that cogent reasons are required to upturn the verdict of an electoral body in
respect of any return, in this case, Governor Simon Lalong. I must humbly
submit that the petitioners have failed to proved any intendment to any of the
reliefs being sought ".
 |
| Pwajok SAN (r), Chief Odey (l) counsels for petitioners |
Counsel added
that the petition involved 742 polling units in 69 Wards across the state. He
however said that only 71 witnesses were called who according to counsel, their
performance was abysmally low. Counsel said that the evidence of the witnesses
was caught by the Supreme Court decision in Gundiri and Nyahba which counsel
said was on pages 15 & 16 of the address. counsel further told the tribunal
that on page 25 of their reply to the petitioners written Address,
PW46- PW51 were not listed as witnesses in the list of witnesses. "
My submission is that there is a decision of Court of Appeal which affects PW
12 that since he was not listed, his evidence cannot be taken. Now, it follows
that those that followed after him, ( 21 in all ), their testimonies should be
expunged ". Counsel relied on S B Lalong and J T Useni& others, C A /
J/ EPT/ PL/ Gov/259/2019. He further submitted that the evidence of PW 71, an
INEC official who stated emphatically that he has not seen the various
documents tendered before the tribunal as exhibits by the petitioners after the
election until that day. counsel said that with the development, the Supreme
Court decision in Wike vs Peter side reported in 2016, 7 NWLR, part 1512 page
452 particularly at pages 522-525 will catch up with the petitioners because
according to counsel, PW 71 had no business with the documents. counsel added
that PW 71 testified that the 2nd respondent was qualified to contest the said
election which PW 71 said was free and fair. " In the light of this, I
submit that the case of the petitioners be be dismissed "
In his
submission, Garba S Paul, counsel to 3rd respondent (APC), also adopted the 3rd
respondent final written Address filed on 8 August, 2019 as the final argument
against the petition. Counsel further associated themselves with the submission
of the counsel to 1st & 2nd respondents stressing that by all standard, the
2nd respondent was ably qualified as confirmed by the evidence of PW 71. "
The very first issue in the petition is the qualification of the 2nd
respondent. I submit that the petitioners and others must stand by what they
pleaded from the beginning till the end. By all standard, the 2nd respondent
was ably qualified as confirmed by the evidence of PW 71. The attempt to go
outside the pleading at the address stage was not tenable. Counsel, in support
of paragraph 35 page 97 of the address cited the case of Kakih against PDP,
reported in 2014, 15 NWLR part 1430 page 424 particularly at pages 424-425 and
urged the tribunal to dismiss the ground challenging qualification.
 |
| J T Useni (m) |
Counsel further
submitted that the petitioners concentrated on building their case on over
voting. " My Lords, the petitioners appeared to built their case on over
voting. I submit that over voting is matter of law and not fact as
defined in section 53 sub section 2 of the Electoral Act where the number of
votes cast exits the number of registered voters. There was no single witness
called demonstrated the content of any Registered Voter to proved over
voting." Counsel said that in the light of the above, the petition should
be dismissed.
Chief Mike
Ozekhome, counsel to the petitioners also adopted their Final written Address
dated 16 August, 2019 and urged the tribunal to sustain the pleadings. Counsel said that
the respondents virtually said nothing in their replies. " All their
replies filed by 1st, 2nd & 3rd respondents were replies not based on
points of law but raised either fresh issues or dwell on facts which at that
stag, cannot do. At that stage, it was too late. This is a matter they continue
to dig and hide their evidence the more ". Submitting further, counsel said
“The main issue in the
petition is who contested the election. Form CF001 is INEC’s form which is
prescribed in section 183 of the Electoral Act which also gives INEC powers.
That form itself is a solemn oath; the latest case of the Supreme Court of
Modibo described it as a certificate. When you swear to it, it shows that
everything you are swearing is correct and true. The only certificate which is
supposed to be a qualifying certificate of Governor Lalong bears the name Sule
Simon, meaning in his change of name, he never refers to Sule Simon or that he
never changed his name because on the form given to him, he was asked
whether he had ever changed his name and he put NIL which means no.
“In his
affidavit of change of name from Sule Simon to Sule Simon Lalong he never
referred to Sule and we have a crisis of three names which he ought to have
come to the tribunal to explain or call people from WAEC to come and testify or
swear to an affidavit Sule Simon Lalong which he has in his qualification. This
is a false declaration of fundamental nature which has affected his
qualification to contest that election; so Lalong was never qualified to
contest the governorship election and going by Supreme Court judgment, it means
that the person who came second in the election ought to take possession of the
seat.”
After
adoptions, Chairman of the tribunal Justice Saleeman Halimat appreciated
counsels involved in the petition, members of the media, security and the
audience for the maximum cooperation given to the panel and prayed God to guide
them even as they write the judgment.
The tribunal added that the date for judgment would be communicated to
parties.
Post a Comment