Enugu guber: Tribunal reserves judgment as parties adopt final address

The petition filed by Labour Party candidate Barr Chijioke Edeoga, who is contesting the election of Peoples Democratic Party candidate Peter Mbah as governor in the state’s March 18 governorship election, has been placed on hold by the Enugu State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal.

The Independent National Electoral Commission, or INEC, declared Mbah the victor of the State’s governorship election; however, Edeoga is contesting this result.

Before the tribunal on Wednesday, each party adopted their final speeches.

Justice Kudirat Morayo Akano, the panel’s chairman, stated that the parties would be properly informed of the date.

Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, Edeoga’s attorney, adopted his final address and asked the tribunal to uphold his clients’ stance and provide the requested remedy.

He explained that this was because it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mbah had given INEC a fake National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) certificate, rendering her unqualified to run for office at the time of the election under the constitution.

According to him, the first petitioner’s witness was a representative of the NYSC, the director in charge of corps certification, and his testimony established beyond a reasonable doubt that the NYSC did not issue the certificate.

“Every piece of evidence demonstrated that Mbah, the second respondent, did not pick up his certificate.

“There is unquestionable proof that the second respondent, Mbah, succeeded Chimaroke Nnamani as Chief of Staff of Enugu State on July 3, 2003.

“Udeh, the third defense witness, stated he was unsure if he had his certificate despite claiming to have given him letters.

“The third Defense witness’s (DSS) testimony demonstrated that there is no proof anywhere that DSS looked into the procedure. He claimed that Exhibit 63 demonstrated both his lack of DSS authority and the illegality with which the second respondent obtained his NYSC certificate.

Due to erroneous calculations, he pleaded with the court to call off the election in 19 polling places in the Udenu Local Government Area and 14 polling places in the Nkanu East and Igbo-Etiti council areas.

The tribunal is tasked with upholding justice, and it has the authority to order the revocation of certain polling places.

Edeoga’s attorney, meantime, had earlier asked the tribunal to grant him permission to change a passage in his address where he mentioned using Rivers in the location in Enugu.

But Mr. Abdul Mohammed, the INEC’s attorney, embraced his speech and pleaded with the tribunal to reject Edeoga’s case at great financial expense.

Mohammed maintained that Mbah’s NYSC credential should not be accepted based on the alleged letter from the NYSC.

Because the court has never seen any documentation proving they had paid for their certification, this document did not meet the requirements for admissibility.

He stated, “Since the second petitioner’s witness was not the document’s creator, we submit that there is no document for the court to rely on having presented substantial evidence in proof of the allegation that NYSC is forged.”

Chief Wale Olanikpekun, the second respondent’s attorney, requested that the tribunal reject Edeoga’s petitions on the grounds that they were purely theoretical and had no validity.

It is not necessary to be a member of NYSC to run for governor.

“They haven’t offered any evidence. PWs 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 22, and 28—agents without identities—who appeared before the petitioner’s court to testify acknowledged that there was no overvoting, the petitioner stated.

Mr. Alex Izinyon, the third respondent’s attorney, requested that the petition be dismissed in its entirety because it was a shadow chasing action.

They veered from their argument because there was no proof of forgery in the certificate that was presented to the court, Izinyon said, adding that the evidence needed in the polling units was not the evidence of the agents.

The petitioners’ written final address was requested to be corrected, but the three respondents initially objected, claiming that they had already chosen their own final addresses.

Mohammed fiercely objected to the application, claiming that the adjustment was an addition of a new address.

The petitioner’s attorney, S.T. Hon, urged the tribunal to reject the arguments made by the three respondents, pointing out that the Supreme Court had already addressed the matter in the INEC v. Yusuf, 2020 case, which was reported in the Nigeria Weekly Law Report Part 1714, pages 374–399, among other cases.(A-C).

He claims that the Supreme Court has declared that an amendment encompasses addition, subtraction, and correction.

According to Justice Akano, the decision on the petitioner’s request to have their final written address corrected would be made in conjunction with the verdict.