Plateau Governorship Election Tribunal Grants PDP’s Request To Have Additional Witnesses

Yakubu Busari

The Tribunal on Monday has agreed with Petitioners Counsel against the objections raised by all the respondent counsels as their objections were overruled by Justice Halima Salesman .

The 1st ,2nd and 3rd respondent’s Counsel on whether a witness who’s witness deposition was frontloaded in a Petition but not listed, can be allowed to testify at the Tribunal.

General Jeremiah Useini Retired and the People’s Democratic Party P-D-P have tendered the third set of exhibit Documents before the Governorship Tribunal sitting in Jos ,Plateau State to support their Petitions Challenging the victory of the State Governor Barr. Simon Bako Lalong at the 2019 Governorship elections.

The petitioners in his Presentation on exhibit Documents before the Tribunal for adoption, Counsel to the Petitioners Chief Mike Ozekhome(SAN), pleaded with the Tribunal to adopt the documents as exhibit in support of Useni and P-D-P’s Petition against the Lalong in the Tribunal.

These documents were INEC duplicates copies of Statements of the results casts, on EC8A forms and their Certified True Copies for Polling Units in some Ward Registrations Areas of Wase and Jos North Local Government Areas of the State.

Some other Polling Units includes, Gobirawa of Kuyanbana wards Registration Area as Pleaded on the Volume one of the Petitioners’ documents earlier admitted before the Tribunal.

Certified true copies of INEC results for Gadan Alasiri, Naraguta A ward, Rikkos , Jos Jarawa , Kasuwan Dare, Yan’shanu, Community Center, Alikazaure, Abdul Salami, are all the polling Units and wards registration Areas across these two affected Local Government Areas of Plateau State.

Others are also includes Yan’kaji, and Asibitin Kutare Polling uit of Ali Kazaure ward registration Area, School Lane-one Polling unit of Abba NaShehu Ward registration Area all in Jos North Local Government Area among others.

Having displayed the Documents before the Tribunal, Counsel to the Petitioner, there after sought to tender them sequencially, as the Tribunal further ruled according to the Petitioner’s prayers.

On their parts, Counsel to the 1st respondents said, they will Object the submission at an appropriate time ,while 2nd and 3rd Respondents both said, they will raise their objections concerning the submission after articulating their views as their comments are been kept reserved for the moment.

Counsel to the People’s Democratic Party also raised a point of note. Saying, the Documents are not what one could add nor subtract .Hence they will also make their own address at the appropriate time regarding the Respondent’s comments.

One of the witnesses Sanusi Nuhu living in Abba NaShehu who admitted signing an exhibit Statement before the Tribunal on the April 13th, 2019, recognized and affirmed his signature, testified during examinations that, he has no querrel with the exhibit B27 INEC results pink sheet but that the results is not same with the one he signed at the polling unit.

Another witness Abdullahi Danbade of Naraguta A, Gadan Alhassan Polling Unit having pleaded with the Tribunal for the adoption of witness Statement to serves as an exhibit, also went through examination by 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents testified that, he was at the polling unit during the exercise and also casts his votes. Danbade said that, he signed the results at the completion of the entry on the results sheet but there were no ultterations as he is seeing on the sheets today. Hence the changes were made not in his presence.

Baba Ali Adam who’s name as called by the Petitioner carries acronyms could not made his point as the Respondent raised an objection to the attached acronyms, not been part of what was contained in the witnesses lists in the Petitioner’s documents leaning their arguments on the paragraph 4,5a of the 1st schedule of the electoral acts, which deals with elections Petitions matter. But said, “except if the Petitioners are seeking to amend the list of their witnesses”.

The responding the Respondent’s objections on that note, the Petitioners described the objection as a Gross misconception of the law of the electoral acts, adding that, the act gave all directions on all matters concerning witnesses dwelling his point on paragraph 6 of the 1st schedule of the electoral acts.

Ozekhome reads the Portions to back his arguments, saying that on that note, ” once a Petition has been accepted for filing ,it has to be taken as it is”.He further referred the court to elections Tribunal and court practice traditions.