Ogun: Evidences before tribunal enough for us to defend Abiodun’s mandate –INEC

From Laide Raheem, Abeokuta

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), yesterday, told the governorship election petition tribunal in Abeokuta, Ogun State that the plethora of evidence before the panel was enough to defend the mandate of Governor Dapo Abiodun.

Almost all the witnesses called by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)  across the state presented similar statements, with substantial contradictory positions, after being thoroughly cross-examined.

Also, the star witness and the expert invited by the party came up with huge discrepancies and irreconcilable data in their separate presentations, thereby, making Counsel to the first respondent (INEC), Olumide Ogidan, SAN, to submit that the substantial grounds needed to be argued through witnesses’ statements had been explicitly established before the tribunal during cross examinations.

Ogidan, therefore, prayed the panel for the first respondent to close its case, even as he solicited for more days to attend to issues surrounding the reply of the petitioners, citing exigencies at presidential election petition tribunal in Abuja.

In the same vein, Counsel to the second respondent, Governor Dapo Abiodun, Professor Taiwo Osipitan, SAN, aligned with the prayer of the counsel to the first respondent, saying all the counsels to respondents were on the same page on prayer for more days to move to Abuja and for the new subpoenaed to get prepared.

Also, counsel to the third respondent (APC), Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, restated before the panel of a new application, which had just been served on the petitioners and other respondents on the ground that the paragraphs of the petitioners’ reply and witnesses’ statements on oath sought to be struck out, but introduced new facts, tending to add to the content of the petition. He added that the paragraphs under review were highly prejudicial to the third respondent.

He said the new allegations of fact pleaded in some paragraphs of the petitioners’ reply raised  issues which the third respondent could not have the opportunity to respond to.

Meanwhile, counsel to the petitioners, Gordy Uche, SAN, said: “We have been served with the application, but we shall vehemently oppose the application.”

The tribunal, in its ruling, said the adjournment became necessary despite the fact that it didn’t want to prepare judgement in a hurry. It, however, adjourned the case till tomorrow.