Tribunal Reserves Judgment In Cirdum Nanbol Against Rimvyat Nanbol  Suit Seeking To Nullify Election Of SHA

Yakubu Busari

The National Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Jos , Saturday, reserved judgment in the petition seeking to nullify the election of Rimvyat Nanbol of the Peoples Democratic party(PDP) State House of Assembly  member for Langtang North Central constituency, by Cirdum Nanbol Josiah of the All Progressives Congress ,APC  .

Chairman of the three-man panel,  Justice Samson Mohammed Tukur , after all parties had adopted their final written addresses, said the tribunal would later communicate the parties on  a date for  judgment.

Rimvyat Nanbol election is being challenged by both the All Progressives Congress  candidate, Hon.Cirdum Nanbol Josiah ; and his party APC for alleged irregularities ,over voting ,sponsorship and nomination by the 3rd respondent (PDP) .

The APC candidate had alleged discrepancies in the conduct of the 25th Day of 2023 general elections

His Lead Counsel, S.S.Obende , while adopting his written addresses, urged the tribunal to grant all the reliefs sought by the Petitioners.

He insisted that “the 2nd Respondent does not have the requisite qualifications” to participate in the election, because he wasn’t validly sponsored and nominated by the 3rd respondent , arguing that “the burden of proof was demonstrated in the recent presidential judgment  as  prove that the 3rd respondent couldn’t comply with the court order on structure up to 2022 .

The lead Counsel further argued that the third Respondent never tendered any certificate before the court to prove that they have comply , saying that “everything he presented are series of judgments from High Court to Appeal down to Supreme Court respectively ”.

He urged the panel to throw away the preliminary objection by the Respondents which, according to him,  “is incurably defective”, arguing that it ought to have been moved by way of motion and not as a preliminary objection.

The APC candidate’s lawyer faulted the claims by the 2nd & 3rd Respondents that they are yet place anything on the tribunal to convinced this trial tribunal .

Nanbol through his Lead Counsel, S.S.Obende ,  adopted his written addresses, explaining that the tribunal should grant the prayers sought by the petitioners .

The 2nd and 3rd respondents  argued that the Petitioners were unable to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt, nor were they able to tender any evidence of forgery against the 1st Respondent.

The Counsel, J.L Zakari therefore, urged the tribunal to dismiss the suit for lack of evidence.

Similarly, INEC lawyer,  urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition which he described as “baseless and frivolous”.

They  argued that the Petitioners had asserted that the 2nd & 3rd  Respondents was not qualified to sponsored as at the time of the election to stand for election, hence, the onus was on them to prove the assertion which he claimed, was a positive assertion.

The PDP  lawyer further argued that a Petitioner was bound  “to give credible, oral and documentary evidence to prove the grounds of his petition”.

Meanwhile, Counsel , while adopting his written addresses, urged the tribunal to upheld  the election, claiming that his client was “validly sponsored and nominated ” were his name was forwarded  to  the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.

The Counsel argued that INEC claimed that the PDP  candidate who was validly nominated and his name duly submitted to the electoral umpire.

But in a swift response, the 1st Petitioner’s lawyer, urged the court to grant the petition, arguing that the  documents tendered by the Petitioners were dated after the closure of submission .

He further argued that the Petitioners did not tender any party valid documents before the tribunal, and urged for the dismissal of the petition claiming that the Petitioners failed to prove their case.

Similarly, Counsel to PDP Mr Zakari, urged the tribunal to throw away the petition on the grounds that the Petitioners based their petition on unlawful exclusion which he said purportedly occurred before the election, hence, it amounted to pre-election matters.

According to him, the tribunal is not vested with powers to hear pre-election matters.

He also said that the Petitioner according to a recent Supreme Court judgment, must prove that he was duly nominated, arguing that the Petitioner could not prove that he was duly nominated within the time table given by INEC.