ABIA STATE GUBER TRIBUNAL : ALEX OTTI MOVES AHEAD, COURT STRUCK OUT ALL RESPONDENTS MOTIONS, GRANTS APGA POSITION. Today was filled with twist and turns in the tribunal, while the respondent lawyers were moving motions for the matter to be struck out, the petitioner lawyers were also skillfully opposing their motions. After a long debate, the tribunal judges struck out all the motions moved by PDP, INEC and Ikpeazu's Lawyers, but granted one of the motion of APGA which seeks for election materials of Obingwa to be moved to the court premises for inspection by APGA lawyers. This simply means, the matter will be heard on its merit. Court adjourned to 31st July, 2015. More elaborate detail source AFN

Ikpeazu we know...

Alex otti will win cos he really won that election that's fact

Otti come rain come sun God is on your side, ride on .

Pls, somebody should tell me why TA left the paradise he built in Abia to go and reside at Enugu. Doesn't he want to enjoy things he built in Abia ? Seems he wants to teach Enugu state how to build roads.



Pls catapult that man from that place back to Abia

ABIA GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION PETITION TRIBUNAL UPDATE- TODAY THE 24th DAY OF JULY, 2015. It started at 9:21am. Present in Court today were Dr Alex Otti- the 1st Petitioner and APGA represented by its State Party Chairman- Rev Augustine Ehiemere. While the 1st Respondent- Dr Okezie Victor Ikpeazu- The Executive Governor of Abia State was absent, the 2nd Respondent- PDP was fully represented by its State Secretary- Barr Charles Eseonu. The 3rd Respondent ( INEC ) was absent. APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL For the Petitioners, Chief Akinwunmi SAN lead the team while WALE OLANIPEKUN SAN lead the team for the 1st Respondent. Whereas Paul Ananaba SAN lead the team for the 2nd Respondent, Dr Levy Uzoukwu SAN appeared for the 3rd Respondent with his own team of Lawyers. BUSINESS Starting with the Petitioners, the learned SAN- Chief Akinwunmi informed the Court that the Petitioners have 60 witnesses to call for trial. That they also intend to call one expert witness. With regard to time needed for examination in chief, he suggested 15mins in case there is need to tender a document. As for cross examination, he suggested 50 minutes. The 1st Respondent's Counsel- Wale OLANIPEKUN SAN informed the Court that they will call 75 witnesses but subject to the ruling of the Court. He also asserted that they will call expert witnesses at the discretion of the Court. The learned SAN also left the number of minutes for all examinations at the discretion of the Court. The 2nd Respondent (PDP) will call 28 witnesses. There will also be expert witnesses but time for examinations were also left at the discretion of the Court. According to him, it is the taste of Palm wine that determines the quantity to be consumed. The 3rd Respondent propose to call not more than 10 witnesses. There will also be an expert witness and if a witness is not tendering any document, he won't use more than two minutes to lead him or her. ON THE MOTIONS BEFORE THE COURT! THE PETITIONERS 1st MOTION. This Motion prayed the Court to move all applications to the end of hearing. That all the Motions be heard at the conclusion of hearing and NOT at this pretrial stage. In opposing this Motion, the Learned SAN for the 1st Respondent- Wale OLANIPEKUN quickly cited the Supreme Court case of Oshomulu Vs Airigbe ( 2013) 7 NWLR ( PT 1353 ) page 376@ 397. He vehemently argued that there is a difference between OBJECTION to procedural irregularity and OBJECTION to competence of an action which goes to the issue of jurisdiction. He urged the Court to dismiss the application. The 2nd Respondent toed that same direction. The 3rd Respondent, citing the case of PDP Vs INEC, argued that the type of objection to be taken at the preliminary stage is different from the one to be taken at the conclusion of hearing. THE PETITIONER'S 2nd MOTION. This Motion prayed for the Order of Court for all the election materials to be moved to COURT for inspection. This particular Motion was opposed by all the Redpondents, citing sections 72 and 151 of the Electoral Act. Some arguments hinged on the feasibility of that exercise as those materials are presently situate at the various Local governments across the state. The 3rd Respondent further argued that the exhibits attached to the application are completely and legally worthless. THE 1st RESPONDENT's 1st MOTION. Argument on this Motion by the Learned SAN for the 1st Respondent was the most interesting as far as I am concerend. This Motion, interestingly prayed the Court to dismiss the Petition in its entirety as the reliefs and grounds contained therein are not obtainable in law. According to the learned SAN, by section 138(1) of the Electoral Act and paragraph 14(2) (ii) of the 1st Schedule, it is obvious that they are parallel reliefs and therefore in breach of the sacred provision of the Act. He referred the Court to pages 83-84 of the petition. They are self contradictory, incomprehensibl e and meaningless that no Tribunal of any kind can even have time to sneeze or look at it. The petition was said to be dead on arrival. After drawing the Court's attention to the Counter Affidavit of the Petitioners and their written address wherein they relied on the case of HDP Vs INEC, Wale OLANIPEKUN sharply distinguished that case by putting the Court on a proper perspective. He unequivocally asserted that where a Court can proceed to formulate grounds assuming none is visible or well formulated is where there are no grounds. But in the instant case, the Petitioners have typewritten their grounds such that they can no longer be amended. The Learned SAN pressed the Court to operate based on law and not sentiment as it is a Court of Law. Ladies and gentlemen, all other Motions were heard today. The Court arose sometime around 3:15pm and resumed some minutes after 4pm. The Court resumed to rule on only one Motion and that was one of the Motions filed by the Petitioners praying for the movement of the election materials to Court for inspection. The Court ruled and GRANTED that application. The Court went further to state that ruling on all other Motions will be taken at the conclusion of hearing. FINDINGS! Friends, I was not surprised at that ruling. I believe it was predicated on the principle of fair hearing. Let the materials be moved to Court for inspection. Simple! Note! I was told some people were celebrating victory. For what? Matter was adjourned to 31st July for more Motions. ON A 2nd THOUGHT. If a Court does not have jurisdiction in a matter, can that Court make a valid order? Assuming the Court in ruling on the application challenging its jurisdiction discovers it has no jurisdiction, what will happen to the orders already issued? Why did the Court refuse to entertain the issue of jurisdiction that has already been raised? If would have been a different thing if the applicants had remained silent. Then, one can say it can be raised for the 1st time even on appeal as the Chairman rightly said today. But it has already been raised and the Court pushed it to the conclusion of hearing. Hahahahahahahah a! Odi egwu! By Ugochukwu Amaraizu

This is the bigining of the end wailing wailers party in Asia state! !!!