Stats: 3,172,899 members, 7,886,431 topics. Date: Thursday, 11 July 2024 at 10:16 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / Edo Governorship Battle: Obaseki, Ize-iyamu Wait For Appeal Court Verdict (427 Views)
Edo: APC Enlists University Dons, Lawyers To Screen Obaseki, Ize-Iyamu, Others / Five Aspirants To Battle Obaseki For APC Ticket / Edo 2020: Obaseki, Ize- Iyamu To Battle For APC Ticket (2) (3) (4)
(1) (Reply)
Edo Governorship Battle: Obaseki, Ize-iyamu Wait For Appeal Court Verdict by Nobody: 1:47pm On Jun 04, 2017 |
Legal fireworks dominated the appeal filed by
the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)
candidate in the September 28, 2016
governorship election in Edo State, Ize-Iyamu,
at the Appeal Court in Benin-City, last week.
The five-man panel of judges was led by
Justice M.B Dongban-Mensem. Other
members are Justices S. Tom Yakub, M.O.
Bolaji-Yusuf, U.A. Ogakwu and Mohammed
Mustapha. Ize-Iyamu is asking the appellate
court to upturn the ruling of the Edo State
Election Petition Tribunal, which, on Friday
April 14, 2017, upheld the election of
Governor Godwin Obaseki of the All
Progressives Congress (APC).
The court was jam packed with senior
lawyers leading the onslaught from both
sides. Wole Olanipekun (SAN) led the Obaseki
team, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) led that of the
INEC while Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) and Yusuf
Ali led the teams of the APC and Ize-Iyamu/
PDP respectively. Obaseki and his deputy,
Comrade Philip Shaibu, were in court
optimistic that they have the mandate of the
people, while Ize-Iyamu and his running
mate, John Yakubu, were hoping for a
judicial miracle.
The appellate court commenced proceedings
by first dealing with the notice by Ize-Iyamu
pursuant to Order 6 Rule 1, Court of Appeal
Rules, 2016, and Section 36(1) of the
Constitution for the correction/amendment of
the lower court’s record of his evidence-in-
chief.
Ize-Iyamu and Obasek
He prayed for a leave of court to rely and use
the evidence of the first appellant as
recorded by Justice Gilbert Ngele (Member 1)
of the trial tribunal instead of that of the
tribunal’s Chairman, Justice Ahmed
Badamasi. The appellant also sought an
order affirming the record of his evidence by
Ngele, made on January 30, as the correct
record of his evidence-in-chief at the lower
court.
Raising five grounds for the application to
the appellate court contained an incorrect
rendition of Ize-Iyamu’s evidence by
Badamasi, the appellant prayed for a leave of
court to correct the said record of appeal and
use the supplementary record of appeal they
transmitted to the court. But that motion
drew the ire of Olanipekun, Fagbemi and
Ikpeazu, counsel to Obaseki, APC and INEC
respectively. Olanipekun said the motion was
academic and lacked substance, adding that
what Ize-Iyamu wanted the court to allow
was not comprehensible. According to him,
Section 285 (4) of the Constitution indicates
that the quorum of the lower tribunal
consisted of the Chairman and one member,
wondering why the appellant wanted to
substitute the recording of the Chairman.
Citing Section 41 (3) of the Electoral Act, he
said oral evidence was forbidden except in
cases where a witness was adopting his
written position.
The counsel averred that it was trite law for
the appellant to request a substitution of the
record of the Chairman of the Tribunal with
that of Ngele, adding that the appellate court
was bound by the proceedings written by
Badamasi.
His words: “The appellant has not moved any
application and it is a misconception to
submit the motions have been served on the
respective judges. The justices, having
delivered their judgements, how were they
served? Where and when? With due respect
to my Lordships, this court does not have
jurisdiction to countenance or grant the
applicants their request that the record of the
evidence-in-chief of the first appellant be
amended. Section 41 (3) of the Electoral Act
forbids oral evidence…The appellants
themselves, submitted in their main brief
(page 35, paragraph 10.40) that no oral
evidence is allowed after adoption of
witnesses statements on oath. Briefs have
been presented, notices argued. There was
no grounds of appeal challenging the record.
So, where would his Lordships situate the
motion if granted? I submit that the
application is academic and lacking in
substance. The appeal is empty and of no
legal value. What they want the record for is
not stated. It is hanging in the air”. INEC
Counsel, Ikpeazu, took his turn, citing the
case of Ngige vs Obi, which held that there
was no way the record of proceeding by the
Chairman would be substituted with that of a
member, arguing that the members jottings
were side notes. Counsel to APC, Fagbemi,
concurred with the arguments of both
counsel, urging the court to dismiss the
application.
Having heard the arguments, the five-man
panel called for an hour break before ruling
on the matter. On resumption of proceedings,
Justice Dongban-Mensem held: “Having
listened to the arguments canvassed by the
lead counsel of the appellants and
respondents, I hold that no exceptional
circumstance has been shown to warrant the
amendment of the record of the Tribunal as
taken by the Chairman. I hereby dismiss this
application”. The ruling elicited jubilation
from supporters of the APC inside the court.
The court now entered into the substantive
appeal filed by Ize-Iyamu. The appellant, in
his appeal, argued that the decision of the
Badamasi-led tribunal, which upheld Obaseki
as governor lacked merit. Raising 41 grounds
for appeal and nine issues for determination,
he prayed the court to determine whether the
trial tribunal was correct in its approach in
considering and dismissing their case
considering the defence of the respondents.
Ize-Iyamu prayed the court to allow the
appeal, upturn the judgment of the tribunal
and grant the main reliefs sought pursuant to
Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act.
The appellant posited that the lower court
unjustifiably destroyed, discredited,
disbelieved and dismissed their case before
considering the case put forward by the
respondents before it. According to him, the
tribunal wrongly discredited and disbelieved
the testimonies of prosecution witnesses but
believed and acted on the testimony of the
respondents’ witnesses, adding that the lower
court did not properly evaluate the oral and
documentary evidence placed at its disposal,
which led to its erroneous conclusion to
dismiss the petition. “The decision of the trial
court was perverse, having erroneously
ignored necessary materials while taking
irrelevant and extraneous matters into
consideration to reach its decision. It is in
the interest of justice to allow this appeal.”
Olanipekun punctured the argument, urging
the court to dismiss the appeal on the
grounds that it lacked merit, noting that the
crux of the petition, which was alleged non-
compliance, was abandoned at the trial by
the petitioner. He recalled that the petitioners
raised three issues for determination viz:
whether the lower court did not come to the
right decision in holding that the orchestrated
complaints mounted against Obaseki’s return
on the issue of how the voters’ register were
ticked was of no moment.
“Whether the painstaking manner the lower
court reviewed the presentation of the parties
and came to its conclusion and findings can
rightly be faulted, and whether the findings
and conclusions of the lower court can be
assailed”, the counsel said.
He said: “Therefore, the point being made is
that the appellants have claimed before this
court and the lower Tribunal that their case
on non-compliance with the Electoral Act was
made to ground the return of the first
appellant (Ize-Iyamu).
The entire case of the appellant is that there
was irregularities and non compliance in
certain polling units and wards complained of
in the petition and when the elections in
those areas are annulled, the computation
based on the remainder of results for valid
election would show that they are winners.
Can this court nullify election in the affected
areas complained of to ground the return of
first appellant as having majority of lawful
votes in the unaffected areas without a relief
for nullification of the election being sought
by the appellants in their notice of appeal?
The obvious answer to this question is no,
since this honourable court would lack
jurisdiction to tamper with the results of the
election without a relief for nullification of the
election being sought and having not sought
that relief, this court would also be without
jurisdiction to grant the main relief in the
notice of appeal for the return of the first
appellant.”
The counsel to the respondent continued:
“With respect to the appellants, their
presentation both at the lower Tribunal and
at the Court of Appeal is confusing and
convulated. They have only central relief
before this honourable court which is also
ungrantable for diverse reasons including but
not limited to the fact that: “Declaration of a
petitioner as being validly elected in an
election is not made as a matter of course,
but is subject to constitutional, stator abs
evidential imperatives, including evidence that
the mandatory provision of Section 179 (2) of
the Constitution regarding the number of
votes scored in each local government area
and that the prescribed geographical spread
has been met and satisfied.
There is no scintilla of evidence supplied by
the appellants as to their meeting these
constitutional requirements, and in the entire
gamut of their brief, there is also no
percentage the votes represent.
From the pleadings of the appellants in their
petition, which the respondent admitted,
respondent polled 319,483 votes as against
253,173 voted polled by the first appellant.
Thus, it would be illegal and illogical for the
appellants to seek for the return of the first
appellant as having been validly elected as
governor.
The client is not making any case for the
return of the first appellant based on their
having polled majority of lawful votes cast at
the election, but basically, according to them,
because the trial Tribunal unjustifiably
destroyed, discredited, disbelieved and
dismissed the appellants’ case… The
appellants made a half-hearted attempt to
draw a table based on an abandoned/
inconclusive ballot recount exercise falsely
claiming that they own majority of lawful
votes case.
They have abandoned that line of
presentation, finding fault with the Tribunal’s
judgment as the basis for trot return, rather
than victory at the polls. Appellants have
abandoned their brief altogether. On the
premise of the foregoing, we urge the court
to resolve this issue in favour of the
respondents and against the appellants. Your
Lordships are urged to uphold the preliminary
objection, and on it alone, strike out this
appeal; in the alternative, dismiss the appeal
in its entirety.”
After hearing the arguments, Dongban-
Mensem reserved judgment indefinitely.
The court also reserved ruling on the cross
appeal filed by Obaseki and the APC which
faulted the lower tribunal for allowing the
counting of ballot papers during the trial.
Asked if his client will head to the Supreme
Court to contest the motion that was
dismissed by the Appeal Court, Ali said: “We
will wait for our clients. Lawyers just don’t
act on their own. We work based on
instructions and we have not had time to
have meeting with our clients, may be after
these proceedings. As a lawyer you win some
you lose some. My attitude is that we have
done our best, the court has done its own
side. The ultimate of what happens lies with
our client. I have no need to doubt the good
faith of the court”. On his part, Olanipekun
said: “The ruling speaks for itself; a motion
was brought, the Court of Appeal dismissed
it, we went into the main appeal and it has
been argued. The court has adjourned for
judgment, let us await the judgment of the
court”. The appellate court is expected to
deliver its judgment on the matter before the
end of June 2017.
|
(1) (Reply)
Ibom Mega Alliance Charts A New Course For Udom Emmanuel's Re-Election / Buhari: I Belong To Nobody . / Residents Praise Ambode Over Repair Of Abule Egba Inner Roads
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 31 |