Complete Update Of Abia Governorship Election Petition Tribunal On The 10th Day Of August 2015,
CASE BETWEEN DR ALEX OTTI THE PETITIONER ,DR OKEZIE IKPEAZU ABIA STATE GOVERNOR IST RESPONDENT , PDP AND INEC 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS
PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING ABBREVIATIONS :
P = Petitioner, R = Respondent, PW = Petitioner Witness, RW = Respondent Witness, J = Judge.
ATTENDANCE/APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Judges headed by W.B Wakali, (APGA): Lead counsel Chief Akin Olujinmi(SAN), Chief Awa Kalu(SAN) and 65 other lawyers
Chief Theo Nkeire is leading the Council for 1st Respondent Ikpeazu today and he is ably supported by Emeka Etiaba. Chief Paul Ananaba, SAN, lead counsel for the 2nd respondent is also present with his team of lawyers
S.O Hagla Esq leading the 3rd respondent counsel with his team of lawyers
BUSINESS OF THE DAY
The Tribunal judge has just announced that the hearing proper commences
The judge has ruled that d examination of witness without documents is 5mins and cross examination of witness-in-chief while documents is 15mins
Judge concludes on 20/20 minutes for each examination & cross examination of chief witnesses who will not tender evidence
The judge says the star witnesses must not be more than 3
The judge has ruled a total of 20mins for examination and
Final stand on that is that there's be 30' each for examination & cross examination of star witnesse
Emeka Etiaba raises a point & said 10 minutes should be added in the case of a witness that needs an interpreter & all agreed
The judge rules that all CTC docs that are certified, listed and admissible, and INEC docs can be tendered across the bar.
The Petitioner Argues that INEC has not complied in the inspection and the judge orders INEC to produce all necessary documents. Olujinmi is also arguing that INEC should be given a limit.
Chief Olujinmi argues dat all d effort to seek clarification & amendments to the application of pre-hearing has been in vain that is if they are moving over to hearing today's matter. The judge then assures the counsel to petitioner that he would be Fair to all. Therefore, he agrees to give petitioner additional transferable time that can be interjected into proceedings
The judge calls on the petitioner to call on his first witness
Olujinmi calls on the first witness. PW1 (363 - AAN) from Umuahia north LGA, a retiree, he swears to an oath.
He has formally introduced himself...as a retiree and lives in Umuahia.
For security reasons, we won't avail you the names of witnesses
PW1 is examined by the Petitioner, he tenders an evidence and the judge calls it 'exhibit PW1, So an exhibit has been admitted as Exhibit PW 1.
1st R Ikpeazu argues that PW1 is not the make of the docs and the evidence is not listed.
2nd R argues that one of the paragraphs in the evidence states 'a protest by the community' and PW1 mentioned his name
2nd R argues that the docs was not listed, that the listed docs were letters written to the electoral commissioner.
2nd R argues that the judge should throw away the evidence for lack of merit.
3rd R adopts D positions of 1st & 2nd Rs on PW1. He says that the evidence is not specifically listed & by so it's a surprise.
1st R argues that the docs was not from APGA or other political parties as stated in the petition, but rather from Afaraukwu Comm.
Chief Olujinmi counters the position of the respondent which argues that the people of Afaraukwu can't qualify as members of a political party and APGA. He argues that it should be supported with evidence and not mere talk
SAN Olujinmi pleads with the Judge to refuse the requests of the Rs citing paragraph 40, page 56 where the evidence is specifically listed
Olujinmi argues that the document has original stamp of INEC and that makes it valid.
Chief Olujinmi ask the judge to overule the objections
The judge overrules the objections meaning that PW1 will go on.
Cross examination of PW1 by 1st R going on now. PW1 said he was the Collation Officer in Afaraukwu ward 1 in the last election.
1st Respondent asks where was the collation centre?
PW1 says Local Government HQ.
2nd Respondent Cross Examines PW1
2nd R : Were results forwarded to the Local Government?
PW1 : There were No Results, Everything was vandalized
2nd R asks Pw1 if his deposition was made up for D purpose of this petition, PW1= yes, 2nd R says 'thank U', (laughter) ( I think he got confused)
The court is heating up now
3rd R is requesting that PW1 signs his signature but P objects that it should be what he signed in witness register.
PW1 is done now. And P asks for lunch break but Rs refused.
P Calls on PW2.
PW2 is now being administered to oath. PW2 speaks Igbo, lives in Osisioma LGA. PW2 a public servant from Osisioma LGA speaking in Igbo and the court clerk interprets.
PW2 is shown his witness evidence and he adopts it.
Cross examination Of PW2
2nd R cross examines PW2. He asks PW2 if he was there when the materials were brought,
He said No, the materials were dumped at RAC in the night
3rd R cross examines PW2. He asks him how many polling units in his ward.
PW2 says 8 Polling units
3rd R asks PW2 if he still maintains he is a public servant, he said YES, and he asks where do you work? Olujinmi objects
Olujinmi argues that the question of 'where do you work'? Is of intimidation
3rd R asks PW2 again, where do you work? And the court was rowdy, people asking 3rd R if he wants to go and kill him.
PW2 is done, he leaves the witness box.
Petitioner Calls PW3
PW3 a lady, takes oath, speaks English, lives in abayi, Osisioma LGA. She is been examined by the P and she adopts her signature.
CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW3
1st R cross examines PW3 and asks if she slept at the RAC on the 24th April, but she said NO.
PW3 explains that they waited for INEC materials till 11 at night but they didn't come and the next morning they (Inec) didn't come too
1st R kept asking PW3 if she was there when the results were written, she maintains that there were No Materials.
1st R tells the judge to mandate PW3 to answer the question Yes/No,
J asks if she was there, she said "No Election, No Materials"
1st R says "I put it to you that there was election in ward 4", PW3 says "I was in ward 3 and there was No election, No materials".
2nd R examines PW3. He asks her if she saw a INEC officer writing results, she maintains "there was no materials, no election"
3rd R cross examines PW3. Asks her if she saw INEC staff on 11th April, she says yes but no reault sheets, so no election.
3rd R asks if PW3 saw INEC staff on 25th April, she said, "No, no election, no materials".
PW3 is done now, she leaves the witness box.
NOTE
Chief Akin Olujinmi raises a point now that the material outside that INEC says is for Osisioma is just checked and it's for Aba south
Court adjourns till tomorrow 11th August, 2015
NOTES:
1. PW2 was quite impressive. He gave a good account of himself. There was no election in Osisioma. QED.
2. It will be extremely difficult for INEC to produce Osisioma elections hence this cover up with Aba materials as has been pointed out by SAN Olujinmi
3. They went to produce that of Aba south presidential and HoR materials to confuse the court but this was detected so its unsuccessful
4. They know what they're trying to hide. Elections didn't hold in Osisioma LGA and we have evidence for that.
Court adjourns sitting . Today is another day.
Analysed By Igwe Samuel Obinna
Comments
Post a Comment