Timothy Golu Election Petition Case Suffers Setback As He Fails To Present His Written Address

Yakubu Busari

In a petition No EPT/PL/NA/HR/10/2019, filed by Hon. Timothy Golu and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), challenging the victory of Rt. Hon. Yusuf Adamu Gagdi, in the 2019 House of Representative election for Pankshin/Kanke/Kanam Federal Constituency which was rescheduled by the trial Tribunal to the 31st of July, 2019, counsel to  Hon. Timothy Golu of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP has failed  on Wednesday to present his own written address for adoption.

Hon Golu who is now challenging the election of Hon. Yusuf Gagdi at trial Tribunal sitting in High Court of Jos ,as member representing Pankshin, Kanke and Kanam (PKK) Federal Constituency in the NASS of the March 9th 2019.

Our medium gathered that Hon. Gagdi has earlier closed up his defence with a subpoenaed witness, Mr. Tobias Terzengme, who testified on how some results were canceled and the 17 polling units result sheets not added to him.

The Election Petition trial Tribunal presided over the matter adjourned to 24th 2019 for presentation and adoption of final written addresses by parties.

The Counsel to the petitioners, J.M. Okafor told the tribunal that the matter was actually slated for the adoption of written addresses, but regretted that they could not continue due to unavoidable errors.

According to him, “we regret, this morning our attention has been drawn by the third respondent’s address that, he was just served yesterday by 8.00pm and would need time to respond”.

He admitted that the error was not from the third respondent and sought for an adjournment to enable parties to respond appropriately.

Counsels to the first respondent, Nantok Dashwar said he had no objection to the adjournment sought by the petitioners’ counsel, saying he was also been served Wednesday morning at 9. 04 and would need time to respond.

Counsels to the second and third respondents, Pius A kubo, (SAN) and J.J Usman, all did not opposed to the application for adjournment and did not asked for any cost.

The tribunal was however not happy with the errors that led to the delay the process of services and worn that it would not indulge them for any further lapses aimed at delaying its time.

The adjournment arose, after the panel had listened to constraints expressed by Counsels in the matter, with respect to delays experienced in the course of service of filed written addresses on parties and the need to respond to them on point of Law.

The Tribunal however, while adjourning, affirmed that there was still time, but warned that the Tribunal would not grant such indulgence again.