The Rivers state Government has dismissed the testimonies of some witnesses that have appeared before the Rivers Governorship election petition tribunal sitting in Abuja.
The state Government in a statement signed by Opunabo Inko-Tariah, the Special Adviser on Media to Governor Nyesom Wike took a swipe at the Military personnel that discredited the elections in the state.
The state government also downplayed the testimony of the Senior INEC Official, Charles Okoye who also claimed the elections were marred by violence and intimidation.
Inko-Tariah said all the testimonies so far were in contradiction to the facts before the Justice Ambrosa-led Tribunal.
He accused the Army of playing the script of the petitioner, the All Progressives Congress, adding that the Military men “merely lied on oath”.
The statement reads, “The news making the rounds that an INEC staff at the ongoing Governorship Election Tribunal for Rivers state, gave testimonies confirming alleged irregularities, violence and ballot box snatching is entirely meaningless and of no consequence to the substance of the matters at the Tribunal.
“Although this should not ordinarily be an issue for media debate, being a matter before a Tribunal, it is important to straighten the records for public information to the effect all that all the bogus claims by the busybody INEC staff represented were not only entirely scripted but dead on arrival.
“This is because INEC itself which is his employer and a key defendant in the matter at the Tribunal had conducted an independent investigation into the alleged malpractices and purported violence in Rivers state through three national Commissioners assigned for that purpose and they respectively reported that elections in the state were free, fair and credible and that it was indeed the APC that fermented trouble during the elections in Rivers state.
“It is important to note however that it was the then INEC Chairman Prof. Atahiru Jega who read out this report on national Television and abroad in various fora, thus revalidating the election of Nyesom Wike as Governor of Rivers state.
“It should also be recalled that the Tribunal under the current Chairman, Justice Ambrose, in his recent ruling, struck out paragraphs touching on electoral violence and parties mentioned in the petition who are not before the Tribunal, thus rendering the petition against Governor Wike almost useless and very weak.
“Counsel to Governor Wike Adedipe SAN had confirmed that the testimony by the said witness contradicts that of INEC since he claimed he monitored elections in several parts of the state, although he gave testimony not in his capacity as an INEC staff, thus raising questions around his locus to testify if not speaking the mind of INEC which he claims he works for.

RockMaxi:


Wike can't be the judge in his own case. He should allow the judges to do their part. He should know better by now what the outcome of the tribunal will be and that is what he should be working upon.

prof1990:
never liked the man. he looks and talks like a tout and he was part of the people that made us sit at home for 6 months when he was education minister. I hope the tribunal [size=18pt]those[/size] the right thing. if he truly won the election (which I highly doubt) then [size=18pt]use[/size] has nothing to fear

TonyeBarcanista:
APC can't govern Rivers

LastSurvivor:
“Counsel to Governor Wike Adedipe SAN had confirmed that the testimony by the said witness contradicts that of INEC since he claimed he monitored elections in several parts of the state, although he gave testimonynot in his capacity as an INEC staff, thus raising questions around his locus to testify if not speaking the mind of INEC which he claims he works for."

I think he gat a point there irrespective of who we support, I think since the INEC staff is not speaking on behalf of his employer (INEC), his testimony is almost useless..

LastSurvivor:
“Counsel to Governor Wike Adedipe SAN had confirmed that the testimony by the said witness contradicts that of INEC since he claimed he monitored elections in several parts of the state, although he gave testimonynot in his capacity as an INEC staff, thus raising questions around his locus to testify if not speaking the mind of INEC which he claims he works for."

I think he gat a point there irrespective of who we support, I think since the INEC staff is not speaking on behalf of his employer (INEC), his testimony is almost useless..