The Kogi State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal, sitting in Abuja, has described 96 percent of the witnesses presented by the candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in the November 11, 2023 governorship election in Kogi State, Alhaji Muritala Ajaka, to prove that the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Alhaji Ahmed Usman Ododo did not win the election, as incompetent, inconsistent and unreliable.
The three-member panel of justices, headed by Justice Ado Birnin-Kudu, in dismissing Ajaka’s petition and confirming the validity of the election of Ododo, held that the poll was conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.
In an unanimous decision, the judges held that the petitioners failed to prove the allegations of over-voting and non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022 in the petition.
The Tribunal held that all the witnesses’ evidence filed before it were incompetent and full of inconsistencies.
It agreed with the submissions of the respondents that the allegations of forgery raised in the petition were pre-election matters, which ought to have been raised 14 days after the documents were submitted to INEC.
“I agree with the respondents that most of the exhibits tendered from the Bar without the makers constitute documentary hearsay.
“This is because any witness who must testify before the tribunal must have his witness statement on oath, and be allowed to bring and demonstrate evidence to be made per incuriam.”
The tribunal held that Prosecution Witness 1, who was an INEC staff, was not the maker of the documents tendered, hence the documents were inadmissible.
The judge, Birnin-Kudu said: “Unfortunately, PW1 is not a competent witness.
“All documents tendered through him are hereby expunged.
“PW4 and PW24 did not demonstrate the documents tendered.
“They could even not, if they wanted to, because they were not the makers of the documents
“Again, considering the evidence of the expert witness (PW25), exhibits 1 to 55 and (a lot more) are hereby rejected and expunged from the record.
“I agree with respondents that exhibits 1-207 are inadmissible hearsay as they were tendered from the Bar without linking them with the case or calling the makers, so they attract no probative value.”
The tribunal held that the witnesses were petitioners’ witnesses and not the tribunal’s witnesses.
On whether the petition was filed out of time (statute barred), the tribunal chairman held: “It was validly presented and filed within time.”
On the Ododo’s qualification to contest the election, the tribunal chairman rejected the qualification documents of the expert witness on the ground that they were not pleaded.
It said that the petitioners failed to prove the allegation of forgery as they failed to show that Ododo submitted the documents to INEC.
The panel restated that the allegation of forgery against Ododo was a pre-election matter.
“Once the petitioners tie their allegation of forgery to the content or documents attached to INEC Form EC9 submitted to INEC, the matter is clearly a pre-election one which the tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain.
“Tribunal agrees that the alleged falsified document was not a certificate as an affidavit of loss is not a document capable of disqualifying the 2nd respondent (Ododo).
“Also the evidence to establish non-compliance must be of those who witnessed the election or those who made the documents.”
The Tribunal held that out of the scores of witnesses listed in their petition, the petitioners only called 25 witnesses, describing it as insufficient to establish their case against the respondents.
It said that in the instant case, the petitioners only called 3.4 percent of their witnesses.
It said that the petitioners abandoned 96.6 percent of the witnesses they set out to call at the tribunal and the depositions of the witnesses adopted were full of inconsistencies and contradictions.
The panel held that out of the 25 witnesses called, none of them was either a polling agent or presiding officer who could have been regarded as makers of the documentary evidence tendered.
“The entire expert evidence/report of the PW25 is documentary hearsay.
“No probative value will be placed on the same.
“Section 137 of the Electoral Act is not a magic wand; the petitioners are to demonstrate their documents and tie them to their case.
“Again, the witness who demonstrated the BVAS stated that he could not tell if those machines were the ones deployed in Kogi simply because the witness was not in Kogi on the day of the election but was in Imo.
“My conclusion is that the petitioners have failed to establish the grounds of non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022.
“Consequently, this petition has failed in its entirety.”
The panel, therefore, held that the petition was bereft of substance and was accordingly dismissed.
When contacted for comments , Special Adviser the the Governor on Information and Communication told Radio Kogi that the governor has already dedicated the victory to the people of Kogi state.
According to Jacob Edi, Governor Ododo’s victory in the guber polls is authoritative and the court has said so without mincing words.
Edi emphasised that the opposition should take advantage of the governors’ magnanimity in inviting them to joins hands with him to develop the state.
Source:Greenbarge Media & Communications Limited
