Aba Daily News Update

<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
 <script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>

<ins class="adsbygoogle"
     style="display:block"
     data-ad-client="ca-pub-8376079553520515"
     data-ad-slot="2033089187"
     data-ad-format="auto"></ins>
<script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script>

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9OI84XxDVLdfIm7OIy7jSayB-9j_rQ9vNCp1IxWZd11HcVo3awwU4QvF09YRClkEboTviINg2X5LBizpqQmfxcWW8ide5XpEYFAuLGHPz9piKme9u6QotnTrMOf4R2kD9QW0s0mjgPTrq/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="191" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9OI84XxDVLdfIm7OIy7jSayB-9j_rQ9vNCp1IxWZd11HcVo3awwU4QvF09YRClkEboTviINg2X5LBizpqQmfxcWW8ide5XpEYFAuLGHPz9piKme9u6QotnTrMOf4R2kD9QW0s0mjgPTrq/s400/1.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
The Judgments of the Akwa Ibom and Rivers States governorship election 
tribunal have generated controversy and confusion in both the affected 
states and the political and legal landscape . In the case of Akwa Ibom 
the tribunal nullified election in 18 Local Government Areas while the 
Rivers State tribunal  nullified the entire election and orders a rerun 
of the  election that produced the incumbent Governor, Nyesom Wike. The 
tribunal also sent 20 House of Assembly members in Rivers packng .It 
insisted that both governorship and state assembly elections were  
riddled with irregularities.<br />
While delivering judgment in the petition by the All Progressives 
Congress, and its candidate, Umana Umana, challenging the election of 
Mr. Emmanuel of the Peoples Democratic Party, the tribunal cancelled 
election in 18 LGAs of Nsit Ubium, Nsit Ibom, Ibiono Ibom, Uyo, Etinan, 
Udung Uko, Oruk Anam, Etim Ekpo, Ikoono, Ini, Ibesikpo-Asutan, Nsit 
Atai, Eket, Ikot Abasi, Ibeno, Uruan and Onna after holding election was
 not properly conducted in the affected areas.<br />
The three-member tribunal, led by Justice Sadiq Umar, consequently, 
ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to conduct 
re-run election in the affected 18 local government areas. However, the 
judgment created more confusion as there was no categorical 
pronouncement on whether Governor Udom Emmanuel should leave office.<br />
In addition, the judgment did not also spell out the time frame for the 
conduct of the rerun election in the affected local governments. This 
development has indeed thrown many Nigerians into confusion culminating 
into mixed reactions.<br />
Even among legal minds, the judgment of the tribunal has left them 
rather confused. For instance, a constitutional lawyer and author, 
Sabastine Hon [SAN] said thejudgment is confounding .<br />
The senior member of the Bar contended that even if it had nullified 
election in half of the local government areas in the state, the 
tribunal ought to have removed the governor and called for a rerun.<br />
He said, “I think an error of judgment has been committed, by nullifying
 election in 18 local government areas, it means the governor was not 
validly elected and should not continue in office.<br />
“However, under the Electoral Act, even if a governor is removed, he cannot vacate the seat until the time appeal is exhausted.<br />
 <script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>

<ins class="adsbygoogle"
     style="display:block"
     data-ad-client="ca-pub-8376079553520515"
     data-ad-slot="2033089187"
     data-ad-format="auto"></ins>
<script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script>

“But it was the duty of the tribunal to have made that pronouncement as a
 consequential order. It is an order that flows naturally from the 
judgment.”<br />
He, however, advised INEC to conduct rerun election in the affected 
local governments within one month or at the expiration of the appeal 
window so the people of Akwa Ibom state would know who their real 
governor is.<br />
Another legal practitioner, Emmanuel Gbanfa, equally expressed surprised
 at the judgment saying the judgment left some gaps which were difficult
 to understand.<br />
According to him, by cancelling election and ordering rerun in 18 out of
 the 31 local government areas in the state,  the tribunal has left some
 questions unanswered.<br />
He said “For instance, we know that the governor of Akwa Ibom State 
cannot be deemed to have been elected on the basis of 13 local 
government areas given the fact that the state has 31 local government 
areas”.<br />
He continued“The governor could only be validly elected if he had scored
 at least 25 per cent of the votes in 24 local government areas of the 
state.<br />
“By upholding election in 13 local government areas effectively means 
that the present governor was not validly elected. But because the 
tribunal did not expressly say so at the end of the day, gives room to 
confusion.”<br />
Again, Mr. Gbanfa faulted the tribunal for calling for rerun in the 18 
affected local government areas without indicating a definite time frame
 within which INEC should conduct the election.<br />
He insisted a lacuna could be created where all the parties fail to appeal the judgment of the tribunal.<br />
He said, “I believe the tribunal could have said since election has been
 cancelled in the 18 local government areas and therefore the present 
governor was not validly elected, they should be a rerun within three 
months or a specified time frame.<br />
“In that case, if any of the parties goes on appeal, the court would either uphold the ruling or change it.”<br />
The confusion is not resricated to the lawyers alone .Leaders of some  political parties  believe the judgment is vague.<br />
Reacting to the ruling, the PDP Chairman in Akwa Ibom state, Paul Ekpo, 
said the judgment was confusing.Mr. Ekpo said the only good thing about 
the judgment was that the governor, Mr. Emmanuel, remained in office.<br />
“The judgment is very confusing except that my governor, who had won the
 election overwhelmingly still remains the governor,” Mr. Ekpo said.<br />
 <script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>

<ins class="adsbygoogle"
     style="display:block"
     data-ad-client="ca-pub-8376079553520515"
     data-ad-slot="2033089187"
     data-ad-format="auto"></ins>
<script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script>

At the national level, the PDP through its National Publicity Secretary,
 Chief Olisa Metuh described as unacceptable and bizarre the election 
tribunal verdicts in both Rivers and Akwa Ibom. PDP National Publicity 
Secretary, Chief Olisa Metuh, in a statementon Saturdaysaid “indications
 to this spurious judgment had months ago been hinted to the PDP, which 
in turn, alerted the nation and the international community of the 
heinous plot by the APC government, to use the judiciary and various 
security agencies to reverse the victory of the PDP in Rivers, Delta, 
Akwa-Ibom, Taraba and Abia states.<br />
“We invite Nigerians and the international community to recall various 
reprehensible steps taken by the APC government that culminated in this 
ruling as well as the ridiculousWednesday’sverdict of the Akwa-Ibom 
state governorship election tribunal, also sitting in Abuja.”<br />
Metu listed reasons for his party’s objection to the rulings thus   “The
 curious and controversial relocation of the elections tribunals from 
their states to Abuja without any justification.<br />
“ The constant juggling of judicial officers and members of governorship
 elections tribunal in PDP states, especially, Rivers and Akwa-Ibom 
states.<br />
“Constant harassment of judicial and electoral officers involved in the 
governorship election cases in these state, using agencies of 
government, particularly, the Directorate of State Services (DSS) under 
the direct command of a known APC member, Alhaji Lawal Daura.<br />
“ Constant threats, intimidation and coercing of witnesses against the PDP in the tribunals.<br />
“The recent mass transfer of security operatives, especially the DSS and
 police personnel that actually participated in the conduct of the 
elections in Rivers and Akwa-Ibom, ostensibly to frustrate the course of
 genuine evidences in the process.”<br />
The statement added “The bias in the judgment against the PDP in Rivers 
as well as Akwa-Ibom is evidenced in the contradictions inherent in the 
trial process of the two cases and the verdicts therein, whereby the 
tribunals clearly disregarded standing legal norm that a petitioner must
 establish prove of claims.<br />
“Also curious is the fact that after both the petitioner and respondent 
agreed before the tribunal that both card reader and manual 
accreditations were used for the election, the tribunal still went ahead
 to base its decision on issues of card reader.”<br />
It further said “While it is convenient to them to use legal 
technicalities to deny PDP victory in Imo, Lagos, Ogun and Yobe states, 
the same rules are misapplied to wickedly favour APC petitioners in 
Rivers and Akwa-Ibom states.<br />
“It is therefore evinced that these contradictions are direct fall-out 
of compromises as well as boasts by the APC of being in direct and 
remote control of the tribunals. If not, how can one explain the fact 
that while governorship elections are being upturned in PDP states, in 
APC states, where similar claims and facts are in contention, elections 
are being upheld.<br />
“Further proof of bias by the Rivers tribunal is the fact that less than
 24 hours after various counsels submitted nine written addresses and 
documents, the tribunal rushed its notice of judgment, an action 
ostensibly aimed at ambushing the pending Supreme Court action on the 
issue of jurisdiction regarding the relocation of the tribunal outside 
River state, which was due to be deliveredon Tuesday.<br />
“This is not withstanding the fact that the tribunal has up to seven 
days after of receipt of addresses, to deliver its judgment, but chose 
instead, to rush to deliver this spurious verdict even on aSaturday, a 
development eliciting suspicion that the judgment may have since been 
predetermined and written even before the commencement of the case.<br />
“The PDP calls on all Nigerians and the international community to note 
this growing manipulation of the judiciary by the APC government, a 
factor which portends great danger to our democracy and the stability of
 our country.<br />
“Nigerians would want to recall that under the PDP-led government with 
former President Goodluck Jonathan’s commitment to the tenets of 
democracy as encapsulated in the safeguard of ‘one man one vote’ and the
 independence of the judiciary, the PDP conceded electoral defeat in 
Edo, Anambra, and Imo states without attempting to collect victory 
through executive manipulation of the judicial process.<br />
“The PDP restates unequivocally that this judgments must not stand in 
view of the prevailing inherent contradictions, in addition to the huge 
threat they portend to our democracy and national stability.<br />
“Finally, the PDP charges all lovers<br />
APC VOWS TO APPEAL AKWA IBOM JUDGMENT<br />
In his response, the APC chairman in Akwa Ibom  State, Dr. Amadu Atai 
said his party will not leave any stone unturned in redressing the 
judgment saying the party would have won the election but for the 
irregularities.  He insisted that the party would also proceed to the 
Supreme Court after the appeal to pursue the issue of removing the 
governor before the re-run election.<br />
Atai said the party was expecting outright cancellation of the 
governorship election since it nullified the elections in 18 out of the 
31 local government areas.<br />
He said “The tribunal has cancelled the governorship elections in 18 
local government areas and ordered the Independent National Electoral 
Commission to conduct elections in the affected areas.<br />
“But we are going to file an appeal because we expected cancellation in 
more local government areas where discrepancies were pervasive,” he 
said.<br />
Another APC chieftain  who spoke on the issue but refused to be named 
for security reasons said “The issue of Governor Emmanuel Udom still 
remaining in office after the judgment of the tribunal is also causing 
considerable argument in the state as many are of the opinion that there
 will never be a free and fair rerun without the governor vacating his 
position.<br />
“As long as a sitting governor remains in power while a rerun is 
conducted there will never be a free and fair contest. So what is the 
essence of the rerun. The governor and hs deputy should be made to step 
aside for the Speaker of the State House of Assembly to take over until 
after the rerun. This will create room for a level playing field for the
 candidates and their political parties.<br />
 <script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>

<ins class="adsbygoogle"
     style="display:block"
     data-ad-client="ca-pub-8376079553520515"
     data-ad-slot="2033089187"
     data-ad-format="auto"></ins>
<script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script>

Arguments for and against Rivers tribunal ruling<br />
In a swift reaction,to the judgment nullifying his election  Governor 
Wike expressed dissatisfaction with the judgment and vowed  to challenge
 the verdict  at the Court of Appeal.<br />
His Counsel, Chief Chris Uche [SAN] who spoke on behalf of the 
respondents said they will surely test the popularity of the judgement 
at the Court of Appeal and even to the Supreme Court.<br />
Questioning why the tribunal hastily delivered its judgment in less than
 48 hours after the adoption of final address by parties in the suit, 
Uche said it was wrong of the tribunal to have heavily relied on the use
 of card reader when INEC itself admitted that both card reader and 
manual can be used where the card reader malfunctioned<br />
The senior lawyer accused the tribunal of trying to pre-empt the 
judgment of the Supreme Court challenging the jurisdiction of the 
tribunal which has been fixed for Tuesday next week.<br />
After reviewing the arguments and submissions of counsel to parties to 
the petition, the tribunal said it agreed with the petitioners, All 
Progressives Congress [APC] and its governorship candidate, dr. Dakuku 
Peterside that the April 11, 2015 election was characterized by 
intimidation, harassment, snatching of ballot boxes, diversion of 
electoral materials, ballot stuffing and allocation of figures in favour
 of the PDP candidate.<br />
It further held that the failure to use Card Reader Machine as was 
instructed by the INEC robbed the election of its credibility and made 
the outcome of the poll a sham and a mockery of democracy.<br />
Besides, the tribunal held that the petitioners had through their 
witnesses established allegations of non-compliance to the Electoral Act
 and that the petitioners adduced credible evidence backed by documents 
to prove that Governor Wike was wrongly declared winner of the election.<br />
The discordant of tune that trailed the ruling was not surprising . 
thetwo sides had,  prior to the judment plied different legal roads in 
arguing their positions.  Whereas the petitioners, through their 
counsel, Chief Akinolu Olujimi, SAN, urged the tribunal to sack Governor
 Wike and order the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to 
conduct fresh governorship poll in Rivers State, all the respondents, 
sought the dismissal of the petition for want of merit.<br />
While adopting their final written argument dated October 19, counsel to
 the petitioners, Olujimi, SAN, urged the tribunal to hold that “no 
governorship election known to any law in Nigeria, took place in Rivers 
State on April 11, 2015. My lords, the central issue in this petition is
 about the pleadings of the parties.<br />
“It is the nature of the pleading that defines the issue in dispute 
between the parties. It is the case of the petitioners that there was no
 election conducted in Rivers State known to the law.  The 2nd 
 respondent (Wike) has the burden to justify the over 1 million votes 
that were allotted to him by INEC. What we are simply asking for is the 
nullification of the election.”<br />
On his part, Wike, through his lawyer, Mr. Emmanuel Ukala, SAN, relied 
on the provision of section 85(1) of the Electoral Act to insist that 
Dr. Peterside was not validly nominated by the APC to contest the 
governorship election.<br />
Wike argued that instead of the 21 days provided by the Electoral Act, 
APC, only gave INEC 16 days notice before it conducted the primary 
election that produced Peterside as its governorship flag-bearer in the 
state.<br />
“My lords, this goes to the issue of qualification. The Appeal Court had
 in its decision in Labour Party vs. Wike, held that the 21 days notice 
is mandatory. There is, therefore, no locus standi in the petitioner 
before this court.”<br />
On the issue of whether or not Wike secured the lawfully cast votes to 
warrant his declaration as winner of the April 11 governorship poll in 
the state, Ukala relied on the decided case-law in Buhari vs Obasanjo 
and contended that the petitioners failed to effectively discharge the 
burden of proof placed on them by the law.<br />
“What they were expected to do was to call all officers who conducted 
the election, as well as tender all the electoral forms that were used. 
So far, aside calling only 56 witnesses, the petitioners only tendered 
3,157 copies of the Forms EC8A, whereas from their own calculation, 
there were supposed to have tendered 5,792 copies. It is, therefore, our
 position that the petitioners did not meet the standard of proof set by
 the law,” Ukala added.<br />
Besides, Wike also relied on the case of Ngige vs INEC, 2015, 1-NWLR, 
part 1440, and argued that the burden of establishing that the election 
was conducted in substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 
rested on the petitioners.<br />
Similarly, INEC, through its lawyer, Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, urged the
 tribunal to dismiss the petition and affirm the governorship election 
result it declared in Rivers State.<br />
INEC relied on the case of Gundirin vs Nyako, and argued that APC and 
Peterside ought to have proved that the election was flawed, by calling 
witnesses from each of the polling units in the state.<br />
“We pray this tribunal to dismiss the evidence of the PW-40. Assuming 
that the issue of irregularity was brought to the attention of the INEC 
and it looked into it and took the decision to declare the result, it 
means that INEC did not accept the opinion expressed by the PW-40. It 
also means that INEC rejected those reports, it can therefore never 
amount to admission against the election,” INEC lawyer submitted.<br />
Earlier, lead counsel to the PDP, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, also 
prayed the tribunal to dismiss the petition and uphold governor Wike’s 
election. After listening to all the parties the tribunal reserved its 
judgement for today on the matter.<br />
The tribunal had while reviewing the case in its judgment stated that 
Peterside/APC called 56 witnesses and of the respondents: INEC-16; 
Wike-24; PDP-none. The panel states that the petitioners submitted three
 issues for determination.<br />
INEC had argued that the petitioners failed to prove their case polling 
unit by polling unit in line with Supreme Court earlier decisions.   The
 Tribunal thereafter reviewed Mr. Wike’s second major argument. Governor
 Wike’s first major argument is that most of the petitioners’ witnesses 
gave hearsay evidence, while the other major arguments, include: 
Petitioners are required to prove polling unit by polling unit but they 
only called few polling unit agents; non-usage of card reader cannot be 
grounds for nullifying election.<br />
Mr. Wike also argued that the election was free and fair and he was duly
 returned governor. He asked the tribunal to strike out the petition. 
The tribunal states that PDP’s final address was on October 16.<br />
The PDP argued that the Petitioners leveled allegations of crime against
 the military which was not joined as a party and that such should be 
expunged from the record of the court.<br />
In addition, PDP also argued that non-usage of card reader cannot be 
grounds of nullification of election. PDP thus argued that the 
petitioners failed to prove their case and case should be struck out.<br />
The petitioner, Mr. Peterside, argued that the card reader machine was 
made mandatory by INEC’s guideline and has the backing of the Electoral 
Act.<br />
In its judgment, the tribunal adopted only one issue for determination –
 whether or not the petitioners have proved their case after dismissing 
the preliminary issues concerning the competence of the tribunal raised 
by the respondents.<br />
The tribunal restated the petitioners’ allegations including poll being 
marred by intimidation of voters, non-availability of result sheets, 
snatching of electoral materials, non-collation of results at wards and 
LG levels and held that the evidence of the petitioners’ witnesses is 
relevant and reliable in this regard.<br />
The tribunal stated that INEC has the power to insist on card readers 
and it therefore is not open to anybody to act otherwise. According to 
the tribunal, Exhibit A9 presented by the petitioners, which is a report
 by head of election monitoring team of INEC office in Rivers State, 
Charles Okoye, confirmed the allegations of the petitioners.<br />
The tribunal stressed that card readers were introduced by INEC to 
ensure credibility and transparency of the election, adding that “We 
don’t see any conflict between the introduction of card readers and the 
provisions of the Electoral Act.”

<ins class="adsbygoogle"
     style="display:block"
     data-ad-client="ca-pub-8376079553520515"
     data-ad-slot="9503932789"
     data-ad-format="auto"></ins>
<script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script>
</div>

Akwa Ibom/Rivers guber: Judgments of controversies

The Judgments of the Akwa Ibom and Rivers States governorship election tribunal have generated controversy and confusion in both t...

Akwa Ibom/Rivers guber: Judgments of controversies

Contact Form