The court is an independent institution that operates with set guidelines viz.-evidence, exhibit and facts. What is presented in court in form of documents and materials when accepted in court are marked as exhibits, and are foundations for cross examination. In other words, the defense counsel or that of the plaintiff may choose to cross examine anyone at the witness stand or whoever is involved in the case using the documents or facts tendered.

Having followed the case of Sen. Bassey Albert from the beginning, it could be said that his arguments are laden with inconsistency and discrepancies alien to modern day judicial proceedings. Those he brought to court as witnesses have had their fair share of confusion, and if not that judges are those trained in legal matters for years, they would have been misled.

Since the beginning of the case between Bassey Albert and Umo Eno, the former had submitted many affidavits where he swore to certain statements he made. But when he is face to face with the counsels through his witnesses, he goofed by saying something different.

It should be noted that, in addition to whatever legal exercise one has undergone, what will help such a person to have an edge in a case is the witness(or witnesses as the case may be) presented. The court believes in witnesses and expected them to have authority in the matter at hand. But in OBA's case, he could not bring witnesses who would support his position on many issues, only those who made matters worse for him.

For instance, after the election, Bassey Albert alleged that he was rigged out, and that Umo Eno does not have a certificate and was not qualified for the contest in the first place. With this, he approached the court for a possible redress.

However, quite disappointing is the fact that the witnesses he presented made contradictory statements. When they were cross-examined, what they said at the witness box were different from the written statements they earlier made.

Recall that last week, an official of the University of Uyo, Dr Ime Akpan had testified that Umo Eno graduated from the institution, and that he was not expelled as alleged by OBA's camp. An official of the West African Examination Council (WAEC) also confirmed the authenticity of Umo Eno's WAEC certificate, which exonerated Umo Eno from the orchestrated controversy from OBA aimed at tarnishing Umo Eno's reputation.

Tuesday's hearing was hilarious as the witness OBA brought who claimed to be a staff of the University of Uyo (UniUyo) fumbled when he was cross-examined. From the beginning of his statement at the witness box, he did not make a single statement that was helpful to either the court or OBA.

When he tendered his employment letter, it was discovered that it was a temporary appointment letter. He brought out his promotion letter, and everyone was shocked how someone with temporary appointment letter could be given promotion without any confirmation of appointment as a permanent staff. But that is a story for another day.

He even told the court that he was not sure whether the university of Uyo gave him a permanent employment or not. Even the one he tendered was a photocopy. When the judge asked about the original copy, he said he was given the photocopy. He couldn't give the court any vital information.

His confusion was empowered when asked how he got the subpoena, he said he got it in his house at Nsit Ubium. Whereas his official address is UniUyo, how is it possible that he was traced to his village at Nsit Ubium? When also asked who he reports to at the office, he said he "was not reporting to anyone, and did not obtain permission from anyone to appear in court." This is insubordination raised to power 10.

The counsel asked further about his level of education, he said he got admission in 1999 to study Quantity survey, graduated in 2020(more than 20 years in school). This shows so much incoherence and confusion in his assignment at the tribunal.

The statistician OBA brought could not prove how he arrived at his earlier conclusion that election was marred by irregularities. When asked whether he had a foreknowledge of forensic analysis, he said no. So what brought him to the tribunal has been the common question on the lips of people when he could not prove even one point.

Statisticians are more concerned with numbers, and the work of forensic analysts are very different from theirs. When asked where he got information from about the alleged malpractices, he said it was based on what the party agent told him. This implies that he was depending on hearsay, when the court is much more concerned with facts and evidence, and not hearsays.

As it stands, OBA knows that based on the evidence he presented, and the controversy that surrounded his witnesses and the statements they made, he is not going anywhere. That, he knows better, but does not want to say so.

Before any court will pass judgement in one's favour, one must be able to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt. But OBA's witnesses have all goofed and messed up the case for him.

Now, after realizing that he couldn't prove any point, he brought thugs and some of his supporters to the court on Tuesday. After the first witness was being cross-examined, he went outside and out of anger for his poor defence, pointed at a journalist whom he accused of snapping him at the witness box. The thugs OBA brought to court did not waste time before descending on the journalist and started lynching him, one Daniel Etim, and seized his camera. It was the judge who intervened and asked that his camera should be released to him.

To show that they were out for war, OBA's boys came to the tribunal with tyres and petrol. Their intention was to set the court ablaze so that the tribunal can be relocated to Abuja.

OBA feels that if the case is relocated, he could influence the case through some power brokers at Abuja. But that is not healthy. He even came with a truckload of mobile police officers and DSS operatives. When OBA boys lynched on the journalists, these officers did not try to stop them, rather they were aiding and abetting such vice by their silence and care-free attitude.

The summary is that Bassey Albert's dream of becoming the governor is tall and empty. How can he dream of becoming the governor with such mindset of intimidating the people with thugs. That means the state would not be safe for anybody.

The poor outing in the court is enough to tell him that he is not going anywhere. The court is not a place for practicing magic and voodooism. He could have prepared well before coming out. Nobody should rely on luck, charm or strange prophecies to win a case in court. His evidences have been marred with discrepancies and inconsistency. Bringing boys around the court premises is even unbecoming, threatening the lives of witnesses and other people who had something to do with the case. Akwa Ibom people should be aware of Bassey Albert's antics and rise to defend the peace enjoyed in the state.
Bassey Albert has a tall dream, but that dream is empty.

By Richard Peters

edikandavid:
The court is an independent institution that operates with set guidelines viz.-evidence, exhibit and facts. What is presented in court in form of documents and materials when accepted in court are marked as exhibits, and are foundations for cross examination. In other words, the defense counsel or that of the plaintiff may choose to cross examine anyone at the witness stand or whoever is involved in the case using the documents or facts tendered.

Having followed the case of Sen. Bassey Albert from the beginning, it could be said that his arguments are laden with inconsistency and discrepancies alien to modern day judicial proceedings. Those he brought to court as witnesses have had their fair share of confusion, and if not that judges are those trained in legal matters for years, they would have been misled.

Since the beginning of the case between Bassey Albert and Umo Eno, the former had submitted many affidavits where he swore to certain statements he made. But when he is face to face with the counsels through his witnesses, he goofed by saying something different.

It should be noted that, in addition to whatever legal exercise one has undergone, what will help such a person to have an edge in a case is the witness(or witnesses as the case may be) presented. The court believes in witnesses and expected them to have authority in the matter at hand. But in OBA's case, he could not bring witnesses who would support his position on many issues, only those who made matters worse for him.

For instance, after the election, Bassey Albert alleged that he was rigged out, and that Umo Eno does not have a certificate and was not qualified for the contest in the first place. With this, he approached the court for a possible redress.

However, quite disappointing is the fact that the witnesses he presented made contradictory statements. When they were cross-examined, what they said at the witness box were different from the written statements they earlier made.

Recall that last week, an official of the University of Uyo, Dr Ime Akpan had testified that Umo Eno graduated from the institution, and that he was not expelled as alleged by OBA's camp. An official of the West African Examination Council (WAEC) also confirmed the authenticity of Umo Eno's WAEC certificate, which exonerated Umo Eno from the orchestrated controversy from OBA aimed at tarnishing Umo Eno's reputation.

Tuesday's hearing was hilarious as the witness OBA brought who claimed to be a staff of the University of Uyo (UniUyo) fumbled when he was cross-examined. From the beginning of his statement at the witness box, he did not make a single statement that was helpful to either the court or OBA.

When he tendered his employment letter, it was discovered that it was a temporary appointment letter. He brought out his promotion letter, and everyone was shocked how someone with temporary appointment letter could be given promotion without any confirmation of appointment as a permanent staff. But that is a story for another day.

He even told the court that he was not sure whether the university of Uyo gave him a permanent employment or not. Even the one he tendered was a photocopy. When the judge asked about the original copy, he said he was given the photocopy. He couldn't give the court any vital information.

His confusion was empowered when asked how he got the subpoena, he said he got it in his house at Nsit Ubium. Whereas his official address is UniUyo, how is it possible that he was traced to his village at Nsit Ubium? When also asked who he reports to at the office, he said he "was not reporting to anyone, and did not obtain permission from anyone to appear in court." This is insubordination raised to power 10.

The counsel asked further about his level of education, he said he got admission in 1999 to study Quantity survey, graduated in 2020(more than 20 years in school). This shows so much incoherence and confusion in his assignment at the tribunal.

The statistician OBA brought could not prove how he arrived at his earlier conclusion that election was marred by irregularities. When asked whether he had a foreknowledge of forensic analysis, he said no. So what brought him to the tribunal has been the common question on the lips of people when he could not prove even one point.

Statisticians are more concerned with numbers, and the work of forensic analysts are very different from theirs. When asked where he got information from about the alleged malpractices, he said it was based on what the party agent told him. This implies that he was depending on hearsay, when the court is much more concerned with facts and evidence, and not hearsays.

As it stands, OBA knows that based on the evidence he presented, and the controversy that surrounded his witnesses and the statements they made, he is not going anywhere. That, he knows better, but does not want to say so.

Before any court will pass judgement in one's favour, one must be able to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt. But OBA's witnesses have all goofed and messed up the case for him.

Now, after realizing that he couldn't prove any point, he brought thugs and some of his supporters to the court on Tuesday. After the first witness was being cross-examined, he went outside and out of anger for his poor defence, pointed at a journalist whom he accused of snapping him at the witness box. The thugs OBA brought to court did not waste time before descending on the journalist and started lynching him, one Daniel Etim, and seized his camera. It was the judge who intervened and asked that his camera should be released to him.

To show that they were out for war, OBA's boys came to the tribunal with tyres and petrol. Their intention was to set the court ablaze so that the tribunal can be relocated to Abuja.

OBA feels that if the case is relocated, he could influence the case through some power brokers at Abuja. But that is not healthy. He even came with a truckload of mobile police officers and DSS operatives. When OBA boys lynched on the journalists, these officers did not try to stop them, rather they were aiding and abetting such vice by their silence and care-free attitude.

The summary is that Bassey Albert's dream of becoming the governor is tall and empty. How can he dream of becoming the governor with such mindset of intimidating the people with thugs. That means the state would not be safe for anybody.

The poor outing in the court is enough to tell him that he is not going anywhere. The court is not a place for practicing magic and voodooism. He could have prepared well before coming out. Nobody should rely on luck, charm or strange prophecies to win a case in court. His evidences have been marred with discrepancies and inconsistency. Bringing boys around the court premises is even unbecoming, threatening the lives of witnesses and other people who had something to do with the case. Akwa Ibom people should be aware of Bassey Albert's antics and rise to defend the peace enjoyed in the state.
Bassey Albert has a tall dream, but that dream is empty.

By Richard Peters

Fake Revrd, you are alone on this matter, keep deceiving the gullible, not the tribunal, meanwhile you are not the mouth piece of the state government neither the chief press secretary to spew rubbish always on net