There was mild drama at the Enugu State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, Wednesday, as 1st Respondent, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC); 2nd Respondent, Governor Peter Mbah of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP); and 3rd Respondents, PDP, opposed an attempt by the petitioners, Labour Party (LP) and its governorship candidate, Hon. Chijioke Edeoga, to amend errors in their final written address.
The petitioners had in their final written address prayed the court to declare LP winner of the Rivers State governorship election instead of the Enugu State governorship election.
The petitioner’s lead counsel, Chief Adegboyega Awomolu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), had after the adoption of the final written address by the Respondents, made an application seeking to correct some fundamental errors in their final written address earlier submitted to the tribunal.
Apart from using Rivers in place of Enugu, the Petitioners also said they used the word “negative” instead of “positive” at In paragraph 4.4 line 1, while they also observed another ‘error’ at paragraph 4.3 (a) line 2, where they wrote 2nd Respondent (Peter Mbah) instead of the ‘Petitioner’.
However, INEC, through its counsel, Abdul Mohammed Rafindadi (SAN), opposed the application, asserting that it was a calculated attempt to change the position the Petitioners had earlier taken in their written addresses.
Citing several authorities, including Fingesi v. INEC (2019) where the court refused to grant application for such amendments, INEC said it was a procedural defect to ask for an amendment of a final written address and therefore enjoined the court to throw out the application.
INEC insisted that it was not a typographical error, but an admission by the Petitioners that they had lost the case.
Also opposing the application, the lead counsel to Peter Mbah, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), said the injustice the Respondents would suffer if the application was granted could not be remedied, insisting that the Petitioner wanted add a further address.
He said that the Respondents had already adopted their final written addresses, hence for them, the matter was closed.
Meanwhile, the LP, in their final written address hinged their case on Dr. Peter Mbah’s National Youth Service (NYSC) discharge certificate, which they alleged was forged.
They also alleged falsification of election results as well as over-voting in some polling units.
However, the Respondents – INEC, Mbah, and PDP – in their written addresses, dismissed the allegations and equally carpeted the witnesses of the petitioners, including the LP Polling Unit agents, who, during their cross-examination, admitted that they were not documented by INEC in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 and the INEC Guidelines.
They also held that the Petitioners failed to prove allegations of falsification of results and over-voting. They maintained that while the Petitioners failed to present witnesses to prove over-voting, the fact that agents of LP signed the contested results nullified their allegations, going by several judicial authorities.
Describing the reliance of the Petitioners on Mbah’s NYSC discharge certificate as “a no moment”, the Respondents held that not only should the issue of NYSC discharge certificate not have arisen in the first place since it is neither a qualification for the position of the governor as listed in Section 177 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) nor an educational qualification, which could be considered as a document required in aid of qualification, the Petitioners also failed to prove a case of forgery against the Governor.
The Tribunal panel led by Honourable Justice Kudirat Akano then reserved judgment in the petitions saying a date would be duly communicated to the parties.
Independent
Discussion about this post