APC and PDP lock Horns Tribunals

Controversies, intrigues as APC, PDP lock horns at gov election tribunals

 0

BY OUR REPORTER ON AUGUST 8, 2015COVER

FROM GODWIN TSA, ABUJA

After the announcement of the 2015 governorship elections result by the Independent National Elector­al Commission (INEC), the con­test has since shifted to the tribunals which are the final battle ground for the race. No wonder, the combatants are understand­ably not taking things lightly. So, in the states where the governorship election is under contention, petitioners are making grave allegations of rigging, malpractice and other forms of manipulation that re­sulted in the announced result which they are contesting.

It is important to note that victory at the tri­bunals is determined primarily by logical pre­sentation of facts or evidence as proof of being the preferred candidate. So, issues and facts, rather than mere display of real or artificial support at election rallies, are the central kernel that determine the final winner.

As a result, one of the most recurring pre­liminary requests of petitioners is for leave to inspect the ballot papers and result sheets used in the elections. So far, the tribunal judges have granted such requests with ease, a development observers say may signal prompt dispensation of justice within the specified period of 180 days. Another major issue so far is the demand to compare the number of accredited voters with the aid of card reader with the number of votes cast. The contention is that in some of the states hotly contested, the petitioners are alleg­ing that the accredited voters do not tally with votes cast. Interestingly, however, some of the tribunals have ruled on this intriguing matter.

CONTROVERSY OVER RELOCA­TION OF TRIBUNALS TO ABUJA

The constitution and the Electoral Act pro­vide for aggrieved candidates to seek legal re­dress in election cases which ordinarily should sit in the state capital or the nearest state.

Section 285(1) of the constitution provides for the establishment of one or more election tribunals to be known as the National Assem­bly Election Tribunals to look into petitions on the National Assembly elections.

It is, however, the sub section (2) that pro­vides for the states elections stating:

“There shall be established in each state of the federation one or more election tribunals, which shall to the exclusion of any court or tribunal, have original jurisdiction to hear and determine petitions as to whether any person has been validly elected to the office of gover­nor or deputy governor or as a member of any legislative house.”

The tribunals are also expected to sit in their states or the closest jurisdiction to the litigants.

But circumstances in some of the states, in­cluding Borno, Yobe, Adamawa, Akwa-Ibom and Rivers, where aggrieved politicians are seeking redress made it imperative to relocate the tribunal sittings to Abuja.

The President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa approved the tribunals’ relocation to Abuja pursuant to the combined effect of section 133 (3) (a&b) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended, sections 239 (1&2) and paragraph 3 (a & b) of the Sixth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, as amended.

However, the relocation rather than address­ing the fears of the people, the supposed ratio­nale only ignited fresh round of antagonism between the leading political parties, All Pro­gressives Congress (APC) and Peoples Demo­cratic Party (PDP).

The APC, which lost elections in the three states of Rivers, Akwa-Ibom and Taraba is leaving no stone unturned at ensuring that they upturn the elections they claimed were mas­sively rigged by the PDP.

Since the relocation saga began, both parties have been throwing tantrums at each other with the PDP accusing the ruling party of planning to wrestle key South-South states from the party.

The APC had maintained that the PDP is afraid of its shadows having allegedly rigged the elections.

Lawyers are not also left out in the argument.

In his submission, human rights activist, Mr. Festus Keyamo, said since it was the Chief Justice of Nigeria that ordered the relocation, the decision remained lawful given the reasons cited.

“Once violence is threatened or there is like­lihood of breakdown of law and order, there is no reason the safety of its members that the tribunal cannot sit elsewhere. Don’t forget that by sitting in Abuja it does not lose its nomen­clature or its character. It remains the state’s election tribunal; it’s only that there is a sitting somewhere else for the purpose of security. There is nothing wrong about that,” he said.

But another legal practitioner, Mr. Arm­strong Chinagorom, who is a senior Legal and Advocacy Officer, International Centre for Development & Budget Advocacy, countered Keyamo’s position insisting, “ section 285(2) of the 1999 constitution (as amended) provides that “there shall be established in each state of the federation an election tribunal to be known as the governorship election tribunal which shall to the exclusion of any court or tribunal, have original jurisdiction to hear and determine petitions as to whether any person has been validly elected to the office of governor or dep­uty governor of a state.”

He further said: “The section reads that there shall be established in each state of the federa­tion, not that there shall be established for each state of the federation. This shows that the tri­bunal shall be established in the state in ques­tion and not outside the state”.

PDP REJECTS TRIBUNAL RELO­CATION

Governors elected on the platform of the PDP also rejected the development, saying they have harmonised their positions on the issue and will present it before President Muhamma­du Buhari. The governors are insisting a rever­sion to the status quo.

Speaking after their meeting, the newly elected Chairman of the PDP Governors’ Fo­rum, Governor Olusegun Mimiko of Ondo State said: “The governors of the 13 PDP-con­trolled states condemn the relocation of the governorship election tribunals of Rivers, Tara­ba and Akwa-Ibom states to Abuja”.

The National Publicity Secretary of the PDP, Chief Olisa Metuh, alleged that President Bu­hari is part of a plot to influence the election petition tribunals in Akwa-Ibom and Rivers states and other states to reach a verdict in fa­vour of APC.

Metu maintained that PDP worked very hard to get victories particularly in the Niger Delta states, adding that it will not watch the APC take away its victory.

Notwithstanding the divergent of opinions expressed by various stakeholders and political parties for and against the relocation, the var­ious tribunals on their part have forged ahead with their onerous task of dispensing justice, after assuming territorial jurisdictions to sit in Abuja.

Although there are six states governorship election tribunals currently sitting in Abuja, this analysis will focus on the issues arising from the Akwa-Ibom, Rivers and Taraba state tribunals respectively, because of the intense politicking and struggle for power between the APC and PDP.

AKWA-IBOM

According to the result announced by the INEC chief returning Officer for the gover­norship election in Akwa Ibom State, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Calabar, Pro­fessor James Ekpoke in the presence of the state Resident Electoral Commissioner, Mr. Austin Okojie, the PDP governorship candi­date, Mr. Udom Emmanuel polled a total of 996,071 votes to defeat his closest opponent, the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) who came a distant second with 89,805 votes. Thus, Mr. Udom Emmanuel emerged as the governor-elect of Akwa Ibom State with unexpected landslide victory.

But in a swift reaction, the APC flag bearer, Mr. Umana Okon Umana, and the party leaders in the state rejected the results of the election as announced by the state INEC and called for its outright cancellation due to what they allegedly described as widespread irregularities such as hijacking of election materials by armed PDP agents across the state which prevented accred­itation and voting from taking place.

The APC alleged that, in most cases the hijacked election materials were taken to the residences of PDP chieftains where falsified results were filled on the result sheets whereas, elections did not take place in most parts of the state.

In the petition before the tribunal, the APC had argued that to perfect rigging during the governorship election, high elements of vio­lence, arson and intimidation were employed by the PDP government.

It further argued that the essence, was to re­press voters from exercising their rights.

The opposition party felt cheated and saw the need to take its case to the Election Petition Tribunal, armed with what it claimed are ava­lanche of evidence to support its allegations.

After dealing with preliminary issues includ­ing the motion by Governor Emmanuel Udom challenging its jurisdiction to sit in Abuja, which it dismissed for want of merit, the Ak­wa-Ibom State Governorship Election Tribunal headed by Justice Sadiq Umar went into full business.

From the outset, the sitting of the tribunal attracted the attention of keen watchers of po­litical events in Akwa Ibom State. First, con­troversy had trailed the issue of the venue for the tribunal.

While the PDP preferred the tribunal to open hearing on the APC’s petition in Uyo, the state capital, the opposition trumpeted security chal­lenges as reason a place like Abuja would have been appropriate.

The tribunal eventually resolved to make Abuja, a neutral ground, as venue for the sit­ting. With that Nigeria was set to witness the most epochal and nerve-wracking judicial process which may soon become a reference point in the history of election petitions in the country.

The Election Petition Tribunal allotted only 14 days for hearing of the APC’s petition. It be­gan sitting on Monday, July13. Both the PDP and the APC have high calibre legal teams they assembled to show that the legal battle is going to be titanic. Lawyers to the petitioner, Umana Okon Umana, representative of the APC and those standing in for the Akwa Ibom State gov­ernor, Emmanuel Udom, PDP candidate, took to intrigues while also treading on technicalities to gain upper hands. Nothing created palpable tension during the sittings of the tribunal than the frantic efforts by the opposing counsels to outsmart one another.

From the start, lawyers to the Akwa Ibom State governor, Paul Usoro, and Tayo Oyetibo both Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN) made no pretence about their preparedness to knock down the petition by the APC. They had argued trenchantly that the tribunal should disallow all key witnesses brought by the APC on the basis of the omissions they sited on concealment of names of the witnesses by the lead lawyer to the petitioner, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN).

Usoro and Oyetibo had separately raised ob­jections to the statements on oath made by all the APC witnesses on the ground that their real names were not on the statements but initials and acronyms. Oyetibo argued that the mere use of initials or acronyms should not be al­lowed by the tribunal to confer originality on the witnesses since their real names were not printed on the statements they had sworn to.

He posited that his client would be denied fair hearing, if amorphous witnesses whose names were not on the statements on oath were allowed to testify before the tribunal against his client.

However, Olanipekun proved a good match when he defended the use of acronyms for the witnesses, insisting that they had the right un­der the law to use their initials or acronym on their statements on oath.

He cited different authorities to back up his claims, as he adduced the issue of security as reason names of witnesses are often concealed. According to him, there have been instances in Nigeria where witnesses after testifying in court got killed, threatened, harassed or intimi­dated by interested parties as a means of silenc­ing them. Olanipekun latched on to the Practice Direction produced by the Court of Appeal to firm up his argument. The Practice Direction as approved by the Appeal Court, based on past experiences, allows the use of initials or acronyms in place of names of witnesses. The essence, according to the law book, is to protect witnesses from being easily identified, while preventing them from intimidation and harass­ment by the opposition parties.

After hours of arguments and counter argu­ments by the counsels, the tribunal in its ruling dismissed the request by the Akwa Ibom State governor that all the APC witnesses be disqual­ified from testifying against him on the ground that they used initials in place of their names in their statements on oath.

Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Sadiq Umar, described the request by the governor and PDP as strange and hence could not be supported by any law.

Umar further held that the Practice Direction formulated by the Court of Appeal, and guid­ing the procedures of the election petition tri­bunals, clearly allowed the use of initials or ac­ronyms in place of the names of the witnesses.

He also held that witnesses in an election pe­tition can use initials or acronym to safeguard themselves from being attacked, molested or intimidated by the opposing party in an elec­tion petition.

This, he said, was to protect the witnesses from intimidation and harassment by the op­position party in view of the volatile nature of politics in the country.

APC CRIES FOUL PLAY OVER FO­RENSIC EXERCISE

Another controversy trailing the Akwa-Ibom State governorship election tribunal is the alle­gation by the APC that the INEC and PDP are working together to frustrate the inspection of election materials used for the election in ques­tion.

Although both the PDP and INEC have since denied the allegation, the APC has main­tained its grounds.

In order for the petitioner – Umana .O. Uma­na of All Progressives Congress (APC) to sup­port his case before the Akwa Ibom Election Tribunal, the forensic team hired by the peti­tioner needed to scan the entire ballot papers by polling unit used in the gubernatorial election as part of the inspection process, in line with the order of the tribunal. This was necessary in order to facilitate the cross matching of the fingerprints on the ballot papers to ascertain whether finger prints on the ballot papers used in voting on the day of the election match with the fingerprints of the accredited voters via the card reader; whether the fingerprints on the bal­lot papers used in voting match the finger prints on the INEC permanent voter’s card PVC data­base and if the prints in A or B turn up multiple voting on the ballot papers.

In order to achieve this, INEC by the order of the tribunal, were directed to move all of the materials used in the elections that are in their custody to Abuja and make said materials available to the APC team, starting from the 6th of July 2015 to the 19th of July 2015.

Although it is the Petitioners constitutional right to conduct a forensic examination on the election materials, the petitioner has spent 12 weeks on trying to conduct a simple exercise that should take two weeks maximum due to serious impediments and delays that made the goal of scanning the ballot papers near impos­sible.

The Counsel to the APC in the Akwa Ibom Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal, Sol­omon Umoh, stated that the four-day extension granted the APC forensic team to audit elec­tion materials used in the April 11 election was stalled by the Independent National Electoral Commission and the PDP.

The petitioner had, however, complained that the forensic team has not been allowed to carry out its work since the last court order given on Wednesday July 22, that mandated that it should be given extra four days due to the delays allegedly caused by “the perennial non-compliance of INEC Uyo and the Sallah holidays”.

The Counsel to the APC, governorship can­didate, Victor Iyanam, had also issued a state­ment earlier accusing the INEC of trying to sabotage proceedings at the tribunal.

He said officials of the commission delib­erately allowed the ballot papers to be soaked with water making it difficult to be analysed.

The Electoral Act had envisaged a situation like this where a party may want to delay pro­ceedings and provided in

Section 134 (2) of the Electoral Act 2010 “that an election tribunal shall deliver its judg­ment in writing within 180 days from the date of filing of the petition”.

Specifically, one of the mischief that the Electoral Act 2010 was meant to correct is a situation whereby a petitioner would be in the Court or electoral petition tribunal, challeng­ing the validity of an election while the person whose election was been challenged remains in office for as long as four years tenure awaiting determination of the case.

In fact, it has been a cat and mouse game since May 15th 2015 as INEC Uyo and the PDP were alleged to have used every trick un­imaginable to frustrate the process.

“The question is how can INEC Uyo allow the Respondent (PDP) control the process that they are only meant to observe in the first place? How can they reduce their role as an electoral umpire to be facilitating vile delay tactics to make a mockery of an institution that should be respectable? How can INEC Uyo be given so much room to manipulate the process in Abuja and the INEC Headquarters (HQ) is rendered useless as the materials remain in the sole custody of INEC Uyo? Even though the main reason on June 24 that the Judge ordered the materials to be brought to Abuja (accompa­nied by SSS and police) was for it to be handed over to the INEC HQ. It is not clear why elec­tion materials were delivered after office hours on Friday July 3rd, with no one to officially re­ceive it. It was eventually dumped at the Elec­toral Institute as the Electoral Officers immedi­ately returned to Uyo knowing the implication of not handing over to anyone officially would mean no one could access the materials since legally it remains their property. On July 6, when they were summoned by INEC HQ, the Electoral Officer’s insisted their only mode of transport to Abuja was by road which took days before they finally appeared. The delays were costly as the tribunal clock doesn’t stop and the seven days given by the courts for inspection elapsed. Again the need for the petitioner to re­quest an extension from the court was made.”

At this rate, it is doubtful if the tribunal would be able to deliver its verdict within the 180 days’ time frame as envisaged by the Elec­toral Act 2010, without running into serious problems.

RIVERS STATE GOVERNORSHIP TRIBUNAL

In Rivers State, the main combatants are the incumbent Governor, Nyesom Wike of the Peoples Democratic Party [PDP] and the All Progressives Congress [APC] candidate, Dr. Dakuku Peterside.

The scenario at the Rivers State Tribunal is not quite different from that of Akwa-Ibom State.

In Rivers State, where the Independent Na­tional Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Peoples Democratic Party’s governorship can­didate, Nyesom Wike, as the governor- the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and its candidate, Dr. Dakuku Peterside are con­testing the result. Wike was declared winner of the election, having polled 1,029,102, which represents 87.77 per cent of the votes while the All Progressives Congress governorship candi­date, Dr. Dakuku Peterside, came second with 124,896 votes (10.65 per cent).

The APC has since condemned and rejected the result even as some international monitors insisted there was no election in the state. Also, APC in the state accused INEC of frustrating its petition before the tribunal. The first major controversy was on alleged refusal of INEC’s Resident Electoral Commissioner’s refusal to release relevant electoral documents to APC to enable it file its petition.

The contest is so hot that Rivers Governor­ship Election Petition Tribunal was relocated to Abuja instead of in Port Harcourt.

Before finally filing the petition, the state Chairman of the APC, Davies Ikanya, had to call on the world to prevail on the REC, Dame Gesila Khan, to release the election documents to enable it meet up with the deadline in filing its petition at the election tribunal.

He said the party had severally, officially written to INEC in the state and appealed to the commission’s Chairman, Prof. Attahiru Jega, for the release of election documents, stressing that the REC had refused to provide the mate­rials.

Ikanya said the party resorted to calling for the world’s intervention because it had exhaust­ed available means to get the election docu­ments from the REC.

According to him: “The difficulty in getting the documents has confirmed our fear that the result sheets never existed.” He also alleged that out of the 17 documents requested only one was released to his team.

But the INEC denied the allegation as said it never denied APC access to documents to chal­lenge election results at the tribunal.

Mr. Roy Obijuru, the Administrative Sec­retary of INEC in the state, said the Resident Electoral Commissioner, Mrs. Gesila Khan, had released documents to the APC on demand.

He said INEC received an application from APC on April 12 to release Certified True Copy of forms EC8C, EC8C (1) and EC40 (G) for the Governorship and House of Assembly elections for the 23 local government areas.

“Records show that representatives of APC in the state and other political parties that ap­plied commenced the collection of the request­ed documents from April 16 to April 29.”

The statement said a second application for Certified True of Forms and Electoral Doc­uments for the Governorship and House of Assembly elections in the 23 local government areas of the state was received on April 28.

Another controversy was on service of court summons. Peterside had to file a mo­tion ex-parte which, amongst others prayed an Abuja court to grant a leave to the petitioner to bring his application outside or before the hearing session.

Other prayers sought by the petitioner in­cluded an order for him to argue some issues outside or before the hearing session.

He also sought for an order for the petitioner to deliver to the third respondent, the PDP, the court processes through the state chapter of the party.

His counsel, Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN) told the court that the bailiff of the Court of Appeal in Rivers has tried twice to affect the service of court processes on the governor-elect but was not successful. According to Akeredolu, the motion ex-parte is supported with a 19 para­graph-affidavit of non-service and a written ad­dress to support the argument. Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Mu’azu Pindiga, granted the application after listening to a motion ex-par­te brought by the petitioner’s counsel, Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN).

APC IS HAVING UPPER HAND

Since after rejecting the application by Gov­ernor Wike which challenged its jurisdiction to sit in Abuja instead of Port Harcourt, the APC candidate has been enjoying the momentum as the tribunal has so far decided all preliminary issues in his favour.

For instance, Wike had moved the tribunal through his counsel, Mr. Emmanuel Ukala [SAN] to suspend all other issues and take his application challenging its jurisdiction first.

In moving the Application, Counsel Ukala argued that the matter of jurisdiction was not a matter of judicial prerogative but that of the Constitution. Ukala, maintained that the Tri­bunal lacked any jurisdictional prerogative to hear the main matter without first dispensing the question. Such a mater, he further present­ed, were beyond determination based on Court Rules. “It is a matter of the Constitution and not to be determined by the Tribunal based on Court Rules”, he said, citing Section 6 of the First Schedule of the Constitution.

However, moving a counter motion, Chief Akin Olunjimi, leading counsel to Dr. Peter­side, argued that election matters ought not to be treated as civil cases. He described the prayer and motion for the determination of jurisdiction as a deliberate attempt and “game-plan” by Wike to delay the Tribunal’s sitting.

In a short ruling, which came after one hour recess, the Tribunal overruled Wike’s counsel, rather declaring that in as much the issue of a court’s jurisdiction was important, in the mat­ter before it, the motion on jurisdiction and the pre-trial hearing would be heard simultaneous­ly.

Again, the tribunal overruled Wike’s appli­cation against its jurisdiction. The governor claimed that the sitting of the Tribunal in Abuja was in breach of section 285 (2) of the 1999 Constitution and provisions of the Electoral Act 2010.

However, in his ruling, Justice Pindiga held that the tribunal had not violated any provision of the law since the relocation to Abuja was based on security reasons

The Justice disagreed with the claim by the Governor on proximity and accessibility, as the two major factors that ought to have deter­mined the venue of the sitting.

He said: “proximity and accessibility cannot be determined in the absence of security of the Tribunal members and litigants”.

Justice Pindiga also said that the President of the appeal court acted within the ambit of the law which laid emphasis on ensuring a condu­cive atmosphere for the Tribunal to hold pro­ceedings before it could be set up.

Also attempts by Governor Wike to have the petition of Peterside thrown out by the tribunal was refused when the tribunal held that the pe­titioner was qualified to challenge his election.

Wike and his political party, the Peoples Democratic Party [PDP] had challenged Dr. Peterside’s eligibility to contest the 2015 gov­ernorship election in Rivers on the ground that he did not complied with the statutory 21 days’ notice for the All Progressive Congress (APC) primaries as provided in the Electoral Act.

But in his ruling on the issue, Justice Pindiga held that Peterside met the mandatory 21 days and that the tribunal had jurisdiction to enter­tain the petition since it was properly consti­tuted by the President of the court of appeal. After dispensing with the preliminary issues, the tribunal will proceed into proper hearing by taking witness testimonies.

TARABA STATE TRIBUNAL

At the Taraba State tribunal sitting at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, it is a battle of wits between the governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the April elec­tion, Senator Aisa Jummai Alhassan, her party and the incumbent governor, Darius Ishaku.

The petitioners-Alhassan and APC, are chal­lenging the outcome of the last governorship election in Taraba State, won by Ishaku of the PDP, with o the view that the election was marred with irregularities.

She said she was determined to reclaim her mandate, which, according to her, was stolen by the incumbent governor and his political platform-PDP, adding that her struggle is for all Nigerian women, who for a long time, were being shortchanged because of their gender.

Governor Ishaku was declared winner of the governorship poll with 360,318 votes while the APC flag bearer got 275,985 votes.

Nicknamed ‘Mama Taraba’, the petitioner explained that her prayers at the tribunal are that results from areas marred by irregulari­ties should be discountenanced while invalid votes should be cancelled and the valid votes be recounted and re-allocated and the winner be declared.

“All I can say since the matter is before the court is that, I have confidence that we shall succeed (by the grace of God)”, she added.

INEC CHALLENGES RELOCA­TION

The Independent National Electoral Com­mission [INEC], expected to be a neutral um­pire has challenged the jurisdiction of the tribu­nal to sit in Abuja instead of Jalingo, the state capital.

INEC through its counsel, Mr. Aji Akamode, had filed a motion on notice dated and filed on June 24, 2015, praying the tribunal for an order to relocate to Jalingo.

Akamode urged the tribunal to set aside the decision to relocate the tribunal sitting from Jalingo to Abuja by the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa.

He also sought an order directing on whether or not the tribunal could or ought to sit outside Taraba, and if so, in what capacity.

Akamode submitted that the application was brought pursuant to paragraph 47 (2) and (3) of the 1st schedule of the Electoral Act 2010, and sections 36 (1) and 285 (2) of the Constitution.

Magaji argued that since INEC was, by its motion, challenging the Court of Appeal Pres­ident’s exercise of her constitutional power, it should go before the Federal High Court.

While urging the tribunal to note the deci­sions of the Akwa-Ibom and Rivers states gov­ernorship tribunals in similar motions, the law­yer urged the tribunal to dismiss the motion by INEC.

He also prayed the tribunal to grant his ap­plication for extension of time, which INEC objected to.

Meanwhile, the Counsel to Ishaku and the PDP, whose electoral victory on April 11, are being challenged by the petitioners, Kanu Aga­bi (SAN) and Solo Akuma [SAN] were indif­ferent to the tribunal’s sitting venue.

Both Agabi and Akuma noted that they would leave the decision on the issue to the discretion of the court.

In his ruling on the matter, the tribunal chairman, Justice Musa Danladi Abubakar dismissed INEC’s application and assumed jurisdiction to sit in Abuja based on security concern.

APC SHAKY IN BENUE

The National Working Committee, NWC of the All Progressives Congress, APC has been making desperate efforts to resolve the crisis rocking the Benue state chapter of the party. The problem, a complex legal web is current­ly threatening to unseat the state governor, Dr Samuel Ortom.

It was gathered that because of the dispute on who the authentic governorship candidate of APC was in the recently concluded general elections and the court case instituted by Hon Emmanuel Jime who was in January adopted as the party’s consensus candidate, Senator JKN Waku, and others at the Federal High Court, Abuja in suit number FHC/ABJ/ CS/1057/14, the PDP had gone to the Benue governorship election petition tribunal in Makurdi to claim that APC had no candidate at the time of the election and as such, its candidate Terhemen Tarzoor be declared winner of the poll.

The PDP through its governorship candi­date, Hon. Terhemen Tarzoor in its petition number EPT/BEN/GOV/01/26 is asking that it be declared winner of the guber poll with a total of 313,878 votes. The request is based on their claim that APC, though scored the highest 422,932 votes, did not have an authentic candi­date for the election.

Consequently, the tribunal had this week ad­mitted two evidences against APC including a document from INEC to confirm that the ruling party didn’t hold any primary election to pick its governorship candidate and another; a video tape where Ortom admitted that he was given the party’s ticket in former Governor George Akume’s house.

Faced with the danger of losing the party’s electoral victory to the PDP, the APC’s Nation­al Legal Adviser, Dr Muiz Banire was said to have recently drawn the attention of the party’s leadership to the imbroglio through a letter ad­dressed to its National Chairman, Chief John Odigie Oyegun.

According to the letter dated June 17, 2015 and titled- “Re: Legal tussle over the gover­norship seat of benue stste: a call for urgent ac­tion”, a copy of which was sighted in Oyegun’s office at the party’s headquarters in Abuja, the legal adviser urged the leadership to step into the matter before the party is embarrassed by a judicial pronouncement.

“Please recall that after the emergence of Dr. OrtomSamuel Ioraer as the Governorship candidate of our party for the April 11, 2015, Governorship election in Benue State, other Governorship candidates who felt aggrieved by his emergence, protested against the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of our par­ty’s constitution and guidelines for the conduct of primaries. Eventually, four of the Governor­ship candidates jointly commenced an action in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1057/2014 by which they challenged the process of the emergence of Dr. Ortom Samuel Ioraer as the party’s Gov­ernorship candidate. This suit is still pending in court.

“It is equally imperative to draw your at­tention to the fact that, upon the conclusion of the election, the PDP candidate filed a petition challenging the election of Dr. Ortom Samuel Ioraer. Part of the grounds of the Petitionfor challenging the election is that the process, which produced Dr. Ortom Samuel Ioraer as our party’s candidate, breached the provisions of the Electoral Act. To substantiate his pe­tition, the petitioner is also relying on several documents which the Plaintiffs in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1057/2014 pleaded in support of their case.

“Mr. Chairman, there are grave issues which are at the root of this impasse which I have constrained myself from revealing through this medium but which I shall share when the lead­ers of the party are gathered. Suffice however to say that with the present happenings in the various courts, we may be endangering that seat in favour of the opposition People’s Dem­ocratic Party.

“It is in the light of the foregoing that I hum­bly advise that the party considers setting up a high-powered panel to intervene in this Benue State impasse urgently with a view to recon­ciling all the parties and saving our party from public opprobrium”, the letter read in part.

One of the APC leaders from Benue, Tor Gowon Yaro had earlier written a letter to the National Leader of APC, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu intimating him about the legal moves that could rob the party of the Benue governor­ship seat if urgent interventions are not made.

Share on Google Plus

About Unknown

Teryila Ibn Apine is a public affairs analyst and a blogger.