Udoka had in paragraph 2 of his witness statement on oath before the tribunal said he registered in Etinan Local Government Area to vote in Essien Udim even as he declared that in his own Essien Udim, only 10 political wards exists. The area has 11 wards. His statement on oath reads, "I am a registered voter and having registered to vote at my polling unit in Etinan Local Government Area, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. My PVC is photocopied and exhibited in the 1 Respondent’s bundle of documents". He ended his written deposition with a signature MU.
Barr Udoka told the tribunal that he could not front load the Certified True Copy (CTC) as prescribed by law because INEC could not give him a CTC of his voters Card hence his decision to tender the original copy.
His request for an application for leave of court to tender the document was vehemently opposed to by counsel to the petitioner, Assam Assam SAN, who told the tribunal that the application has no merit. "The document the 1st Respondents counsel said they did not get from INEC is a CTC of the PVC not the PVC itself. The witness in paragraph 2 of his Evidence in Chief averred to his PVC as the document he intends to rely on as proof to his registration. He does not need to rely on the CTC. He has not said his PVC is in INEC's custody in order to invoke the provisions of paragraph 104(1) of the Evidence Act. It is that PVC which is pleaded. The only thing to be considered is if the tendering of the PVC complies with paragraph 12(3) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act. Certification is at the point of tendering of the document. The purpose of rules is to ensure consistency in the administration of justice and they must be complied with", he submitted. The tribunal went on a short break and reconvened at exactly 12.10pm.
In his ruling, Chairman of the tribunal, Hon Justice Goddy Anunihu said the tribunal is not satisfied with the reason given by the witness as to his inability to front load the document as required as non compliance violated the provisions of paragraph 12(3) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act and therefore upheld the objection of petitioners counsel thus application for leave was rejected.
Testifying before the tribunal, Udoka who as witness to Akpabio admitted being the PDP agent for the House of Representatives election on paragraph 4 of his witness deposition, but on his deposition on oath as witness for the 3rd Respondent said he was the PDP agent for the senatorial election. Asked by counsel to petitioner Chief Assam Assam if as a lawyer he knows the consequences of swearing to an oath, he answered in the affirmative. In his two statements on oath before the tribunal, Udoka's signatures were different. He was given a sheet of paper and asked to sign his signatures five times. He told the tribunal he has two signatures he uses. The first being his normal signature, the second being the initials of his names he uses if signing documents that are much. Sign both signatures five times, Assam demanded of him. His specimen signatures were admitted by the tribunal and marked exhibit R4. He told the tribunal that he was testifying for all the respondents and that election was free and fair in Akpabio's Local Government, Essien Udim. He was given the Card Reader analysis of the area and the final result sheet he signed to state the figures. Card Reader showed 23,022 as number of total voters accredited while in the result sheet the figure was inflated to 90,053.
Also testifying was Dr Anthony Usoro from Ikono. The lecturer famous for telling the Governorship tribunal that alteration on result sheets is not mutilation but readable correction of computational errors. He told the court that he voted but can't recall if he was accredited by INEC or if he signed his unit result sheet as his party's agent. He is a witness to both the 1st and 3rd Respondents with two version of PVC number on both statements on oath before the tribunal. He is witness number 41 on the 1st Respondent list of witnesses to testify and number 5 on the list on 3rd Respondents list of witnesses. He was shown his unit voters register which he confirmed his name was 683 on the list. No proof existed that he voted in any of the election as all column were blank. Attempt however by counsel to the petitioner to tender the voters register as exhibit to prove a fact that he lied was opposed to by the Respondents counsels forcing the tribunal to rise for another break after hearing arguments from both petitioner and respondents counsel before reconvening to rule on the matter.
Ruling on the matter after reconvening the tribunal upheld the objection of the respondents counsel that the voters register cannot be tendered through the witness.
Dr Usoro also told the tribunal that the PDP has been a tradition in the area and that the party won the 2015 polls. He was asked who won the Ikono House of Representative seat in 2007. "Prof Ini Udoka of the then Action Congress (AC). He contested against Hon Ikwo Inyang of the PDP. Ikono people rejected the PDP," he replied. He was shown the Local Government result to state the total number of votes cast. 24,438 he declared. Also he was asked to state the total number of accredited voters on the same result sheet. 25,648 he said. The Card Reader report was shown him to state the total number of Card Reader accreditation. 13,076, he declared. The discrepancies in the figures embarrassed Akpabio's legal team who pleaded for an adjournment after the testimony of two out of the seven witnesses initially billed to testify. The case was adjourned at about 6.25pm to Tuesday, September 15, 2015 for continuation of hearing.
No comments:
Post a Comment