SUMMARY REPORT OF THE PETITION: EPT/AN/SHA/15/2023 BETWEEN HON UCHE OKAFOR AND HON BENARD ABUCHI UDEMEZUE & 2 ORS


PETITIONER(Hon Uche Okafor), Lead Counsel Chief Emeka Agbapuonwu Esq

IST RESPONDENT (Hon Benard Abuchi Udemezue), Lead Counsel Chief Arthur Obi Okafor SAN

2ND RESPONDENT (INEC), Lead Counsel Ekemezie Obidigwe Esq

3RD RESPONDENT (PDP), Lead Counsel Hon Clems Ezika Esq

Recall that Rt Hon Uche Okafor former speaker Anambra State House of Assembly lost his third term bid to a 30years old Boy Hon Benard Abuchi Udemezue the current member representing Ayamelum constituency.

Former Speaker Anambra State Hon Uche Okafor spent 8years in the house of Assembly without any constituency project in his local govt and still contested for 3rd term against the wish of his people and he failed woefully because of his poor performance and zoning agreement in Ayamelum local govt Area of Anambra State,
Hon Benard Abuchi Udemezue polled a total of 12,993 to defeat speaker who got 11,455.

After the election Hon Uche Okafor filed a petition challenging the outcome of the election on the ground that the election was not in compliance with electoral Act 2022, and that the Respondent was not elected by the lawful votes cast, ( that there were multiple thumbprinting of ballot papers in Omor 1 2 3,) and the petitioner vowed to thwart the choice of the masses at the tribunal by all cost despite the fact that the election was free and Fair, funny enough they were unable to prove their petition and allegations since in an election petition, the onus of proof lies on the petitioner.

The petitioners called 2 star witnesses and 9 other witnesses and close their case.

The two star witnesses are the petitioner and his forensic expert, their evidence bordered on multiple thumbprinting of ballot papers in Omor ward 1,2, 3, but they failed to prove their allegations in the cost of trial.

During cross examination, the forensic expert report was not tendered because the respondent's counsel raised an objection that it was not pleaded and as well not served on any of the respondent and their objection was upheld by the tribunal.

During the cross examination of Pw2, the witness agreed with the Ist Respondent counsel submission that ballot papers have serial numbers and also acknowledged the fact that he did not include the serial number of the ballot papers in his report, the Respondent counsel equally established the fact that the identity of a ballot is tied to their serial numbers, and as a result of that it will be very difficult to identify thumbprint of ballot papers without their serial number, which implies that the forensic expert did a faulty report since he fails to include the serial number of the ballot papers which is an essential in ingredients in proving multiple thumbprinting of ballot papers.


Also in the cost of cross examination, the Respondents counsel also established the fact that the expert witness was paid for the job he did and as well if the expert was called by the respondent that he will still give report in favour of the respondent because his company operates like every other company for purpose of profit making.

At the cost of cross examination it was also extablished that the expert witness does not know the number of polling units in Omor 1,2,3 and as well he did not specify each polling units in his report showing that he didn't carry out his research very well.

The petitioner futher called Nine witnesses who made allegations in the their Written deposition that agents from Omor 1,2,3 chased voters away from the polling units and thugs forced INEC staff to do accreditation without voting but the witnesses failed to prove those allegations as they have nothing to show that such a thing happened.

They did not have photo or video to prove their allegations and they did not make any complaint to police or INEC with respect to those allegations.

So from the evidence before the court the petitioner fails to prove his case against the respondent and tribunal is likely to dismiss the petition and award a punitive cost against the petitioner for wasting the time of the honourable tribunal.