Follow Us on Google
From Judex Okoro, Calabar
The counsel to Senator Jarigbe Agom Jarigbe in the National Assembly Elections Petition Tribunal, Mba Ukweni, SAN, says the case instituted against the election by the former governor Ben Ayade requires no opposition to fail.
Counsels to Jarigbe Agom Jarigbe, Mba Ukweni, SAN, Ben Ayade, Professor Mike Ozekhome, SAN, INEC, Haheeb Lawal and PDP, Andrew Egwuaba, on Monday adopted their final written addresses.
Presenting his final written address to the Tribunal headed by Justice M. A. Sambo, Ukweni argued that Ben Ayade cannot be said to have won the elections and at the same time is seeking for its nullification.
During his adumbration, he told the Tribunal that the grounds of the petition and the relief sought is dead on arrival.
He maintained that seeking to be returned winner of the election and at the same time saying the election is null and void is an “inconsistency that is bizarre and strange”.
The Senior Advocate further told the Tribunal that “the petitioners called 34 witnesses and complained of results in 420 poling units and even if the respondent calls no witness, the case of the petitioners fails on its own and requires no opposition to fail.”
He stressed that “the evidence by the witnesses contradicts their written statement on oath and cannot stand.”
He further held that “the written statement on oath of the witnesses contained complaints of corrupt practices, violence, vote buying, inducement of voters and that these are serious criminal allegations and there is no single report from any security agency before the court.”
He, told the Court that “the evidence of witnesses did not disclose manifestly the non-compliance complained about by the petitioner and therefore the petition against the 2nd Respondent (Sen. Jarigbe Agom Jarigbe) be dismissed as it is not been substantially proved.”
In his presentation, counsel to INEC, Habeeb Lawal, told the tribunal to dismiss the petition in its entirety.
He held that before an election is invalidated, it must be on the basis of substantial non- compliance, adding that in this case “there is evidence that there are 874 polling units in Cross River North Senatorial District and the petitioners disputes results in 367 of them and called only 36 polling units agents which is of terrible insignificance.”
He also told the Tribunal that the “Commission did not withhold the BVAS machine and never in the pleadings of the petitioners’ did they list the BIVAS machine as one of the evidence to be relied upon.”
On his part, counsel to the PDP Ruben Egwuabaq told the Court that all the witnesses called by the petitioners pleaded the presidential election results and not the Senatorial elections’ result and this makes their case ‘Sui Generis.’
He held that a party cannot plead a document and then during trial bring another document, urging the court to “dismiss the petition on all grounds the petition was predicated with substantial costs.”
Counsel to the petitioners, Professor Mike Ozekhome, SAN, on his part prayed the Tribunal to uphold their petition and also “tongue lash INEC for committing serial acts of illegalities and seeking to take benefit and advantage from it.”
He said the same INEC that gave them form EC8A instead of EC81 and that they used presidential instead of Senatorial form.
The tribunal after listening to the final arguments adjourned the case for judgment and said the date will be communicated to the parties.
