27/06/2023
PRESS RELEASE. 27/6/23
JUBILATION GALORE,AS APC SUPPORTERS THRONGED THE JOS HIGH COURT, VENUE OF GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION PETITION TRIBUNAL SITTING.
Despite the water tight security around the Jos High Court, APC supporters in their hundreds besieged the premises to get first hand information about the happenings at the governorship election petition tribunal.
Security operatives barricaded the major entrances to the high court premises allowing only lawyers, litigants, judiciary staff journalists and political Party officials to have access to the Courts.
Inspite of the blockade,the APC supporters in their hundreds and looking undaunted, lurked around in groups having discussions while waiting anxiously to get the gist of what transpired at the tribunal.
The few PDP supporters seen loitering around wore gloomy faces and hardly wanted be noticed.
On resumption of sitting, Nentawe's lawyer Professor Kayode Olatoke SAN applied to tender the documents which he was instructed to do so .
He told the tribunal, that the parties met and arranged the documents with numbers except that of a polling unit, from Giring in Jos -South local government area.
INEC lawyer Mr S.Bwede said he agreed with the tendering of the documents by the petitioner's counsel except that his objection to their admissibility would be reserved until during the written addresses.
In his submission,lawyer to Caleb Mutfwang, Pius Akubo SAN said even though his team participated in the assignment, certain numbers ascribed to some documents as presented by the petitioner's lawyer were not available.
He pointed out that it is therefore in appropriate to mention certain numbered documents that are not in existence as far as the assignment given to them was concerned.
Counsel to PDP Emeka Etiaba SAN, noted that in order not to jettison the noble suggestion brought by the petitioner's lawyer ,it is better to tender the non controversial ones and subsequently present others after sorting out the grey areas.
Replying to the observations raised by the second and third respondents lawyers,the petitioner's lawyer said what he presented was what the parties collectively agreed during the exercise and that he had earlier drew the attention of the tribunal to a glitch encountered.
The tribunal ruled that the documents that have no problems be presented and adopted subject to the reservations of the respondents lawyers.
The tribunal also directed that the list of the controversial numbers be submitted at the next adjourned date.
Thereafter,the petitioner's counsel applied to the tribunal to commit the INEC residential commissioner in the state for contempt having failed to produced some documents after being subpoenaed.
He therefore applied to invoke section 146 subsection 3 of the electoral Act 2022.
Objection to the application, Counsel to INEC Mr Bwede said it is surprising for Petitioner's lawyer to make such an application, when the representative of Resident commissioner was at the tribunal and also presented some documents.
In the same manner, Caleb Mutfwang 's counsel, Akubo described the application as abnormal and that it improper to invoke provision of the electoral Act as according to him it did not add up.
According to him the said the section invoked by the petitioner's counsel is inapplicable since it deals with supervision of election materials and nothing to do with subpoena.
He urged the tribunal to resist the temptation of invoking the said section to deal with the INEC commissioner.
At a point the petitioner's lawyer took exception to the use vulgar language against him by Akubo noting he can also raw if he wanted.
The PDP lawyer Etiaba in his submission,noted that it is not possible to believe that Section 146 subsection 3 of the electoral Act. refers to subpoena.
He prayed the tribunal to resist the temptation of committing the INEC commissioner for contempt as applied by the petitioner's counsel.
In his replied to all the objections by the respondents lawyers, Professor Olatuke to the admiration of the audience, clearly stated that there is mark difference between the Resident electoral Commissioner and the Staff of INEC Headquarters.
He argued that it was for that reason that he applied for three subpoenas to be issued to INEC chairman,the state resident electoral Commissioner and the commissioner of Police in the state.
According to him, under section 74 of the electoral Act, there are certain documents that can only be obtained from the INEC Headquarters such as the BVAS machines and others from the Resident electoral Commissioner.
He contended that his application was quite in order for the INEC commissioner to be committed for contempt having been duly served with the subpoena.
Ruling the tribunal said since INEC is represented at the tribunal,the counsel should inform the resident electoral Commissioner to produce the documents before the tribunal on the 4th of July.
Immediately after the ruling the petitioner's lawyer announced his preparedness to open his case by presenting his witnesses.
The respondents lawyers opposed the application saying it was late in the day to begin to take witnesses.
At that point, the tribunal ruled that it will be good if the petitioner opens his case on Thursday the 29th of June which was all obliged by the parties.
The case was then adjourned to the 29 the of June for petitioner to open his case.
Sh*ttu Bamaiyi reporting.