Delta State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal Concludes Hearing, Deliberates on Dismissal
ASABA/Nigeria: The Delta State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, convened in Asaba, has reached a pivotal moment as it wraps up proceedings related to the challenge brought forth by Ken Pela, the Labour Party candidate, against the election of Governor Sheriff Oborevwori of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
During the recent session on Monday, the tribunal witnessed the adoption of final written addresses by the counsels representing various parties involved in the case. The legal representatives for the first, second, third, and fourth respondents seamlessly presented their arguments, which were accompanied by their respective replies to the petitioner’s written address. They all fervently urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition while requesting the imposition of costs on the petitioner.
However, a noteworthy development arose during the proceedings when Mathias Emeribe, counsel for the petitioners, encountered difficulties in adopting his final written address, which had been dated and filed on September 21. This challenge seemed to stem from inconsistencies found between the main petition and the address itself.
While urging the tribunal to consider the petition, Emeribe outlined the three primary grounds for the challenge: the qualifications of the second and third respondents, non-compliance with electoral laws during the March 18 election, and the majority of lawful votes cast.
Regarding the qualification of the third respondent, Monday Onyeme, who serves as Governor Oborevwori’s deputy, Emeribe argued that Onyeme had not resigned from the public office he held before the election.
However, when pressed by the tribunal chairman, C.H. Ahuchaogu, to clarify the position held by the third respondent, as it was not explicitly stated in the address or the petition, Emeribe repeatedly stated that Onyeme was the Commissioner for Internal Revenue.
In response to the tribunal’s inquiry about evidence supporting the allegations of non-qualification for the second and third respondents, Emeribe pointed to the petitioner’s witness statement on oath as the source.
Regarding the ground of non-compliance with electoral laws, the petitioners’ counsel shifted the burden of proof to the first respondent, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
During the preceding address, A.T. Kehinde, counsel for the first respondent, succinctly argued for the summary dismissal of the petition, citing inconsistencies with the Practice Direction as grounds for such action.
Similarly, counsel for the second and third respondents, Samson Egege, relied on his final written address and reply to the petitioner’s final address. He urged the tribunal to strike out the petition, citing that the allegations of non-qualification against the second respondent relied on forged documents, which were not submitted as evidence.
Egege also emphasized that the petitioners failed to provide substantial evidence for their claim of non-compliance, relying on the failure of INEC to upload results to IReV.
Counsel for the fourth respondent, Ekeme Ohwovorhiole, advocated for the dismissal of the petition, asserting that it lacked merit. He also urged the tribunal to impose costs on the petitioners.
With these arguments presented, the three-member tribunal adjourned the case for judgment, marking a crucial milestone in this election petition.
