Yakubu Busari
The National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Jos, the Plateau state capital on a suit filed by Timothy Samuel Golu challenging the victory of Rt Hon Yusuf Adamu Gagdi has adopted written addresses of the petitioners and the respondents and reserve judgment to be communicated to all counsels.
The counsel to the 1st respondent,Barr Garba Pwul ,SAN , told the tribunal that the matter was slated for final written addresses on our part as the first respondent in our reply dated 12-97-2019 to the petitioners response to their final & reply our case .
In reaction ,my Lord to that we have filed our own response on point of law dated 09-07-2019 and we hereby wish to adopt the two address on reply on behalf of the respondent .
The SAN,Garba Pwul urged the Election Tribunal to dismiss their petition by way of emphasize draw the attention of the tribunal Chairman to page 21 of the petitioners that the issues of the cancelation of votes in 9 polling units in Kanam LGA as follow in our address this complaint that this are cancelled in page 7&19 particularly taken time to explain that this pleading can’t stand .
While ,then this complaint shouldn’t be included because this votes are not namely in the 9 polling units that were cancelled they are now calling for a rerun ,adding ,the polling units names weren’t there in their pleading so my argument is that iam urging the tribunal that they are just acting speculation because the numbers of register voters who would be disenfranchised if this rerun is granted most placed high risk before this honourable tribunal .
According to him, that is the only determining factor of the authenticity in the case of 9 polling units ,we still reiterate that there is no voters register for that alleged polling units .
Pwul told tribunal that without the register there’s no how you determine the numbers of eligible voters in that polling units and oral evidence can’t be establish the numbers of polling units .
” I therefore ,submit that the evidence of BW1 under cross examination that numbers of voters which is almost 6,000 is an attempt to differ evidence in contempt ,stressing the section 129,128 of the oral evidence isn’t a prove to fact so I urge that due to lack of prove of evidence in the 9 polling units” ,he explained.
Garba Pwul noted that in Kanke LGA where the petitioners raised issue of 1000 votes denied him as a big surprise what disturbed us voters were generated that is a loss .
The presiding officer in charge from form EC8A couldn’t prove but the prove most come from them so the result maintain and dismissed the petition for lack of merit and evidence that made up of election .
In his response the petitioners counsel ,Barr Sunday Oyawole said he filed his final written address to the first respondent dated 21 July, 2019 ,I humbly adopt the same address as the petitioners final submission to laid down rule in the first respondent .
My Lord section 19 of weekly Law the evidence of BW1 as related to cancellation in 9 polling units in Kanam LGA would continue to hunt the first respondent .It came from their camp that is the basic of submission ,Oyaowale stated .
The 1st respondent had filed a reply on page 14 which my Lord look at its an effort to improve on first address and argument sought by the first respondent in arguing on exhibits R1A -R1B they began to talk about those pages 4 paragraph 14 of the first respondent there’s other paragraph but I won’t border, he said
The Second respondent counsel ,Barr Sunday S.Obende also told the tribunal that the reply is over ruled and strike out on grounds for not arguing on point of law .
The respondent of 2nd filed his response dated 11-07-2019 and served the petitioners with his written address on the 28-07-2019 .My Lord ,you kind permission I adopt the respondent submitted in this honourable tribunal.
Obende said the petitioners has failed to prove his petition in this suit so my Lord ,I humbly providing the tribunal to look into paragraph 25 of the petition which run from pages 22,24,27 where the particular for wrong practice from basic of submission presented .
According to Obende ,the petition is submit on non compliance to its polling units .On the issue my lord conducting fresh election in 9 polling units the circumstances has not been prove .
Again ,the only circumstances here my Lord I invoke the power were this principle section 26,23 of the electoral act no witness the part of the petitioners submission that the prove evidence .No witness neither is there any evidence of that result of a polling units should be nullify .
My Lord interesting the 9 length of the 9 polling units apply that not to be identify in the petitioners ,asking for fresh election on account of is not acceptable ,having know the fact run against them but they only listed 8 which is their claim and then 5 of these polling units are not pleaded or reflected in the petition so this tribunal can’t rule on .
We final address is not substituted evidence no matter how beautiful this prayers can’t take away facts .
The only one that is close is that of sabon Layi but the petitioners didn’t draw his mind to that ,we submitted that the allegations of cancellation ,over voting and mutilation can’t be establish because this is one clear angle that petitioners has dump documents in the tribunal without that of prove facts and evidence.
Obende said to the tribunal dismiss this petition and encourage this petitioner to try again in 2023 .
Barr Oyawole response on the 18-07-2019 written address to the second respondent which seek the tribunal to allow him adopt as petitioners final address in this matter asking the tribunal to grant them their prayers by how the 1st respondent adopted inline with electoral act.
Oyawole explained further that this is sufficient fact evidence from evidence by the petition the evidence tender from respondent written addresses which are very supportive to the petitioners .
He added ,the prayer granted is statutory instruments which was establish but the consequence has been establish is not out of corrupt practices and any fact that supported this complaint should be use by this tribunal to make appropriate finding .
The information front loaded on Joum ward which is PW3 who was brought by the respondent admitted the cancelation of results in Sabon Layi so with this what other prove of evidence are we expected other than the DW3 in Form EC8A-B that is the duplicate .
Oyawole urged the election tribunal to strike out this reply and grant him leave to the election suit .
In their pleading the counsel to the 3 rd (INEC) which dated 23-07-2019 final written addresses to the 3rd respondent reply and adopted ,J.J Usman says ,I most humbly adopt this reply as our final submission against the first respondent .
However, the petitioners counsel Barr Oyawole has challenge that the lack of witness by the 3rd respondent shown that they have abandon their pleading haven’t call no evidence the consequence of that is to strike out .
