Gideon Benson, Abuja
As the Akwa Ibom Election Petition Tribunal resumed sitting thursday in Abuja before Justices A.S. Umar, K.O. Dawodu and P.T. Kwahar, counsel for the first respondent, Mr Udom Emmanuel has adduced a long list of multiple errors riddling the petition of the APC governorship candidate, Mr Umana Umana, asking for the cancellation of the April 11 elections.
Mr Udom Emmanuel’s lawyers have pointed out fundamental contradictions and inconsistencies in Mr Umana’s pleadings and evidences.
Mr Umana’s petition in paragraph 22 had claimed that “Card Readers were not used at all” and yet they expect the Judges to rely on Exhibit 317, the Card Reader data which they tendered and which clearly confirms that there were successful accreditation for the Election using the Card Reader. “Those two positions are clearly irreconcilable,” the lawyers have posited.
Mr Umana in his petition in paragraphs 37 to 47 held that elections materials were not distributed or supplied to polling units in Abak, Eastern Obolo, Eket, Esit Eket, Essien Udim, Etim Ekpo, Ika, Ikono, Ikot Abasi, Ikot Ekpene, Itu, Mbo, Mkpat Enin, Obot AKara, Okobo, Onna, Oruk Anam, Ukanafun and Uruan Local Government Areas of Akwa Ibom State. But curiously, Exhibit 317 which Mr Umana tendered confirms the exact opposite of what he had alleged, to which that there was Card Reader accreditation in each of the Local Government and locations afore-listed.
The respondents therefore posit that “there could not have been Card Reader accreditation, the details of which were captured by Exhibit 317, if ‘election materials’ – which, for the avoidance of doubt, includes the card reader machines – “were not distributed or supplied to polling units in” these Local Government Areas as claimed by the Petitioners!”
Part of Mr Umana’s case in paragraphs 37 to 47 of his petition is that “elections took place” in the polling units and locations named in the said paragraphs and that “the results were recorded in the respective Form EC8As but on the way to the ward Collation Centres, agents and hired thugs of 1stand 2nd respondents hijacked the electorsl materials and prevented collation and announcement at the Ward Collation Centres.”
Citing several legal authorities, Mr Udom Emmanuel’s lawyers have pointed out that Mr Umana had not, in his petition, howsoever impugned the integrity and validity of the Forms EC8A for the various polling units or any other polling unit for that matter. They said it mattered little if at all that the wards collations were disrupted – assuming they were, and they do not admit that fact, – as long as the Forms EC8As for the respective polling units remained intact and unchallenged. “In this instance, the Petitioners have not at all claimed that the final announced results for the Election do not derive from the Forms EC8As for the various polling units. It is not their case that the final announced results are at variance with these Forms EC8A howsoever.”
“Perhaps, we merely need to add the fact that a Petitioner can only impugn the integrity of Form EC8A by calling evidence ‘polling unit and ward by ward’ in respect of the disputed polling units and wards; this is the standard consistently prescribed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in decided authorities such as Buhari v Obasanjo (supra) and Ucha v Elechi (supra). The evidence that is admissible in this regard is of course the direct evidence of party agents who were present at the disputed polling units and not the hearsay evidence of persons who were not present at the polling units and specifically when the alleged hijack took place,” the lawyers have pointed out.
Mr Umana in his petition had also alleged in paragraph 60 that: “Petitioners’ agents who reported, waited and stood by their various units/centres throughout the state were bewildered that election msterials did not arrive at the various polling units and voters who registered to be accredited and to vote were not accredited, and neither were they issued with ballot papers to cast any vote.”
However, picking holes in this, Mr Emmanuel’s legal counsel said even the card reader data tendered by Mr Umana shows the number of voters who were accredited to vote, “the blatant and brazen falsehood in this allegation is best unmasked by reviewing the evidence of the 1st Petitioner (Umana) who testified as PW 48 in regard to his own voting experience.
In his petition, Mr Umana had claimed that he was a registered voter in Comprehensive School, Ndiya in Nsit Ubium Local Government Area and was issued with a PVC by INEC official, reported for accreditation with other registered voters at his polling unit as early as 8 am on April 11, 2015 and they were there till past 12 noon, but no official of INEC showed up and neither did accreditation nor voting take place at the polling unit on that day.
However this is a contradiction of the of the compact disc video which Mr Umana tendered and was accepted as exhibit 312A. In the CD, Mr Umana who is being interviewed contradicted himself by stating that he arrived at his polling unit by 8 am on the day of the election and that a quick audit by his polling agent confirmed that ALL the electoral materials were supplied by INEC save for ballot papers which he claimed were less than the number of registered votersfor the polling unit- for emphasis, not that there were no ballot papers at all; the complaint was that it was less than the number of registered voters for the polling unit. According to Mr Umana, the INEC staff at the polling unit had no explanation for the shortfall in the supplied ballot papers in consequence whereof, he and other voters at the polling unit took laws into their hands and concluded that there was “sabotage” – his exact word- pursuant to which they disrupted and prevented the elections from holding in that polling unit.
According to Counsel to Mr Emmanuel, “Now, if the 1stPetitioner (Umana) could approve of such criminality and lawlessness (and has the audacity to acknowledge it on tape) and yet could lie so glibly and brazenly, in his Witness Statement on Oath in regard to what happened in his polling unit on the election day, how does he expect Your Lordships to take seriously his allegations in paragraph 60 of his Petition to the effect that “election materials did not arrive at the various Polling Units and voters who registered to be accredited and to vote were not accredited, neither were they issued with ballot papers to cast any vote”? they queried.
Counsel for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) adduced four grounds
why Umana’s Petition should fail:
1.That the petitioners contend there was no election in Akwa Ibom State but rely on figures of the card readers which proves there was election
2. That the petitioner says1st respondent did not score the highest number of valid votes, which contradicts their earlier assertion that there was no election. PDP counsel cited the case of Chime Vs. Ezea on what a party must prove where it alleges of no election.
3.Petitioners alleged there was no election in Akwa Ibom state but in the middle of their case they said elections did not take place in 19 Local Government Areas.
4. That the petitioners alleged that there was no collation of result in the state. Mr Oyetibo maintains that non collation of result cannot invalidate an election. He further states that the Petitioners did not attach any Form EC8A.
Judgment is reserved for a latter date which will be communicated to counsel.
