The Edo State Governorship Election Tribunal Today after the last Adjournment.

At today's all counsels to both the Appellant and Respondents submit their written brief and addresses.

The Edo elections tribunal today adjourned ruling in the petition brought before it by the Peoples' Democratic Party, PDP, and its governorship candidate in the 2016 governorship elections, Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu.


The PDP and Ize-Iyamu are challenging the declaration by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC of Mr Godwin Obaseki of the All Progressives Congress, APC winner of the election.

The adjournment came after Counsel to the Peoples' Democratic Party, PDP and its governorship candidate, Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu, Yusuf Ali, SAN, asked the tribunal to rule that Ize-Iyamu is entitled to be declared winner of the 2016 governorship elections in the state.

Ali's arguments were based among others on several motions and counter affidavits which he presented before the court as well as the written addresses which he adopted even as he called on the tribunal to strike out all the applications by the respondents.

Ali had impressed it on the tribunal that all the allegations raised by the petitioners in their petition before the tribunal were in actual fact against the INEC and as such only the INEC can answer them. 

He said that whereas INEC did not call a single witness to defend the allegation against them, none of the respondents pleaded that the INEC manual labelled as an exhibit was for the training of only Its officials.

He also argued that the fact that the second respondent Mr Godwin Obaseki expressed dissatisfaction with the results of the election in many polling units as contained in his written address showed that the petitioners were not alone in their submissions on the issue.

On the identity of the petitioner's candidate which was raised by the second respondent the legal luminary argued that even the respondent's witnesses had identified Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu as the petitioner in the open court.

He said, 'the identity of the petitioner is not in doubt', as he was the candidate identified by even the INEC as the one the PDP presented for the 2016 governorship elections in Edo state.

On the use of the INEC manual he said that, "if ticking is useless the Manual will not say it is relevant", adding, "ticking is to identify the voters and whether or not he has voted in an election".

He also cited a 2016  Supreme Court case between INEC and APC representative, Faleke where the court heard that INEC Manual for election officials and guidelines becomes a subsidiary law when released by INEC before election and as such it must be invoked, enforced and applied.

Counsels to INEC, Obaseki and APC as first, second and third respondents were however united in their submissions in asking the three member tribunal chaired by Justice Ahmed Badamasi to dismiss the said petition. 

Chairman of the three member tribunal Justice Ahmed Badamasi announced the adjournment at the end of the adoption by all parties of their final written addresses at today's sitting.

He said, "the parties after having adopted their written addresses the court will now adjourn to deliver judgement on a date to be communicated to all parties.

We now await the date of the Judgement to be communicated to all the parties.

Good evening Nairalanders

engineerboat.

Cc: lalasticlala

Summary as it happened in the court today.

The sitting commenced at exactly 9:15am with the usual introduction of all counsel to parties present in court to the panel of judges headed by Justice Ahmed Badamosi.

Counsel to the petitioner Yusuf Ali (SAN) starting deliberations suggested to the judge's to grant all counsel's 20 minutes each to make a brief summary of their final written addresses and 5 minutes each to all respondents to reply, this the judge final granted.

Yusufu Ali (SAN), "My lordships we seek your permission to withdraw the application we filled on the 27th of March 2017 concerning the case of the final address but rely on the one filed on the 28th of March 2017 against the 2nd respondent. This the judge granted by withdrawing the motion filed as identified by the lead counsel to PDP.

1ST RESPONDENT (INEC)

The lead counsel to INEC asked the judge to dismiss the petitioner's case on the grounds that the petitioner called only just 21 polling unit agent which is small to prove their allegations, he also pointed that the way the petitioner's gave their evidence through their witnesses, the administering of the form EC8A and EC8B while citing section 128 of the electoral act explaining the irrelevance of ticking on the voters register either to the left or to the right.

The counsel tried so hard to convince the judges that the noncompliance of the INEC officials to the electoral guidelines without breaching the electoral law shouldn't be an issue for the petitioner to build on as an argument. He added that INEC's refusal to call witnesses shouldn't also be a burden to the petitioner, since they called their witnesses to substantiate their case.

Conclusively, he adopted his address and called on the judge to dismiss the petitioner case because he described it as a compound error.

2ND RESPONDENT (OBASEKI)

When it was time of the 2nd respondent represented by lead counsel Wole Olanipekun (SAN), he charged the judge to dismiss the petitioner's case.

He asked to withdraw the motion filled by them on the 29 & 30th of November 2016, this the judge obliged by granting the dismissal of that particular motion. The written address was dated 23rd March and 1st April respectively. He adopted his case and called on the judge to dismiss the petitioner's case.

He argued that there is no basis for this case because he doesn't know who the petitioner is.

He admittedly opined that he isn't aware of the ballot paper recount. In his words,

"My Lord I am a counsel in this case and I am unaware of the petitioner's claims concerning the ballot papers recount, my Lord where are the exhibits?" Olanipekun added.

3RD RESPONDENT (APC)

Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), he began by bringing some issues to the attention of the panel of judges, motion dated and filed 30th of November 2016, the motion dated and filed 1st of December 2016 challenging the petitioner's reply, another motion dated on the 22nd of March 2017 but filed on the 23rd of March 2017. He later craved the indulgence of the judge to adopt the submissions of the 1st and 2nd respondents and also all his motions. He went further to say that the petitioner's case violated all laid down principles of the law concerning electoral issues. "My Lord there is a great difference between calling witnesses and tendering evidence. What the petitioner has done is only calling witnesses without tendering evidences." He called on the judge to dismiss the petitioner case on the ground that it's a carcass which lacked substance.

He also accused the petitioner of not itemising in clear terms the distinction between over voting, recounting of ballot papers and those lost from lack of accreditation. "My Lord the figures from these different areas ought to have been displayed in their charts, this they failed to do.

He concluded that the case be quashed and dismissed.

COUNSEL TO PETITIONER (PDP)

When it was the turn of Yusuf Ali (SAN), he indicated that these activities happened:

Document Date and filed November 2016 seeking to dismiss the reply of the 1st respondent.

Document dated and filed 1st of December 2016 asking the tribunal to strike out the reply of the 2nd respondent.

A counter affidavit and written address, dated and filed 2nd December 2016 in opposition to the 2nd respondent motion of 30th November 2016.

On the 2nd of December 2016, another counter affidavit and written address filed against the motion of 2nd respondent for the dismissal of our petitioner filed on the 5th of December, this the counsel pleaded that these applications be struck out, which the judge granted. The document dated and filed on the 5th of December 2016 against the motion filed by the 3rd respondent on the 1st of December 2016. He then moved that the judge should strike out the replies of all respondents.

I thereby adopt the written addresses of the petitioner and pray the judge to grant the prayers of the petitioner, even the respondents all agreed to this fact through their various submissions.

"My Lord this is an unusual petition been fought by using usual but crude methods, it explains the fact that this is a 21st century case been challenged with 18th century arsenal by the respondents." He then cited the ruling of the Supreme Court over total compliance with the electoral act.

My Lords before I go further, I will like to educate my learned colleagues with what I call the 10 Commandments, which are as follow my Lord:

1. All the allegations of noncompliance with electoral act were all made against the 1st respondent (INEC).

2. By virtue of the petition, it's only INEC that can answer.

3. The respondents all agreed that the 1st respondent failed to bring any witnesses to substantiate their case by deciding to blow a noiseless trumpet.

4. Exhibit PO 3(91) is a subsidiary legislation bound by law, which is the electoral manual.

5. The 2nd respondent agreed with the petitioner, expressed their dissatisfaction over the conduct of the election as stated in paragraph 812-817 of their reply.

6. I made bold to say that we demonstrated all documents admitted as evidence in this petition even using PW01 who happens to be the petitioner Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu, he gave a graphical illustration of how the election was marred with irregularities in the areas been challenged.

7. The case between Wike Vs Peterside, the Supreme Court decision in the case was concerning the Voters register not Card reader. He added that the Voters register is embedded in the law but not for the Card reader.

8. Buhari versus Obasanjo, the case of using that authority by the 2nd respondent clearly contradicted the use of documentary evidence to illustrate this case, which the Supreme Court has decided over. The case was not founded on any case of ballot snatching which makes it peculiar.

9. My Lord we all know there was ballot papers recount, which took place inside the court premises. Even in the worst case scenario, the 1st petitioner still proved that they won majority of the votes.

10. Ngige Vs Obi (2006), the issue of charts was stated as very sacrosanct, my Lord we even went further help the court draw a chart which my Lord should carefully look into and use it as a basis for the dispensing of unbiased judgement.

On the issue of name of the petitioner, it was the party that sponsored the candidate not the candidate sponsoring himself, the identity of the 1st petitioner is not in doubt at all in this instance.

Y. Ali (SAN) added that the use of CPC Vs INEC was wrongly applied as an authority which was cited out of context. The electoral manual 2016 was the certified document which enforced the issue of ticking to the left and right.

Furthermore, the Ngige versus Obi (2006), LWLR Part 330, Page 1041 particularly (1138-1139), is an example. Using this authority, since the tribunal has all these results, it's duty bound to do a computation on how the different parties scored their votes.

My Lord, there is great merit in all complains of the petitioner, on this ground, the petitioner should be declared winner of the election.

The court erupted in jubilation. It took the clerk to restore order.

The Tribunal Chairman Rulling:
After the judge had adopted all final written addresses of all parties, he informed the court that the date for final judgement will be communicated to all parties.


Good evening all once again.

engineerboat

Wow!

Arguments by Obaseki, APC and INEC...

Counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Onyechi Ikpeazu, ‎told the tribunal to dismiss Ize-Iyamu’s petition as the petitioners failed to establish instances of over-voting by not tendering the voter register, ballot papers, the recounted ballot papers and the outcome of the recounting exercise as evidence.

Ikpeazu ‎said the proof of over-voting must be done polling unit by polling, rather than covering only 29 out of all the polling units in the state.

The INEC counsel said the petitioners relied on invented figures not before the court and failed to provide competent evidence before the tribunal when they called witnesses who merely flipped through documents.

Ikpeazu stated that Section ‎138(2) of the Electoral Act, as amended, said that ticking to the left or right for accreditation and voting emphasised by the petitioners, could not be grounds for non-conformity with the electoral process.

Lead counsel to Obaseki, Chief Wole Olanipekun, urged the tribunal to dismiss the Petition on grounds that the identity of the first petitioner and who was sponsored by the PDP were different.

Olanipekun stated that the petitioners abandoned their claims in the petition and are holding onto any straw.

His words, “They could not prove anything. They are holding onto any straw. They don’t know what they want. They didn’t tender anything. What is remaining is carcasses.”

“The straw of corrupt practices and non-compliance raised by the petitioners was weak as they could not prove anything. The first petitioner’s claim that he got majority votes and won the election was undoable”.

Olanipekun opined that the name of Pastor Osagie Andrew Ize-Iyamu used in the petition was different from Osagie Andrew Izs-Iyamu used for the election.

He said there was no pastor in his name in the document used for the conduct of the election but it was only added in the petition.

He said that with the conflict in identity of the first petitioner the petition was deemed as incompetent and doom to fail.

Counsel to the APC, Lateef Fagbemi, told the tribunal that the petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of electoral irregularities in their pleadings, evidence and address.

Fagbemi argued that the petitioners failed to establish fact before calling witnesses.

“I urged your lordship to hold that the petitioners have failed. There is no leg on which the deposition stand. They did not establish over-voting. If there was deduction in the recount of results declared by INEC, APC will still win by 58, 696 votes.

Culled from the The Nation

http://thenationonlineng.net/edo-polls-obaseki-ize-iyamu-know-fate-soon/

The counsel to the fake pastor should refund his money back to him, he is too dull to be a lawyer.

Jesusloveyou:
The counsel to the fake pastor should refund his money back to him, he is too dull to be a lawyer.

To dull to what.

I hope you follow all the tribunal proceedings.

If you did not, kindly go back and read the tribunal proceedings from last year

MabraO:
Nobody commenting nd non made fp
But on the final judgement u go see traffic that day

Comments will be flying here and there

Abi hoooo.

We shall surelly see thag day.

May God spare our lives

We await the outcome

seems its going in size iyamu favor