The Rivers National and State Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja, has reserved judgment in the petition filed by Mr Okwuwolu Elechi Benjamin of the Labour Party challenging the victory of Onyesoh Allwell Heacho of the Proples Democratic Party in the Rivers East Senatorial District Election of February 25.
Other respondents in the petition marked EPT/RV/SEN/10/2023 are the Independent National Electoral Commission, and the PDP.
Daily Independent reports that various counsel had adopted their written addresses as their final arguments, the Tribunal announced that the judgment date would be communicated to parties.
Specifically, the Labour Party’s petition dated 17th March, and filed on March 21st, 2023 is challenging the declaration of Heacho by INEC as the winner of the National Assembly election for Rivers East Senatorial
District.
Elechi Benjamin and his party called six witnesses including an INEC staff in a bid to prove their case against Heacho, who was declared winner of the senatorial election for Rivers East Senatorial District by the electoral body.
In their statement of facts, the Petitioners submitted that while the collation of the results, which was “unreasonably prolonged by the 1st Respondent (INEC), was still going on, the electoral umpire proceeded to issue the 2nd Respondent (Heacho) with a Certificate of Return as the winner of the election on March 1st, 2023.
The Petitioners stated that after INEC had issued Heacho with a Certificate of Return on March 1st, then declared him winner of the said election on March 2nd, in a premeditated move to push the 2nd respondent to the Senate by all means.
Replying to INEC’s submission, the Petitioner’s counsel, Bonaventure Ugwu held that the electoral body’s final written address was “premature and incompetent being contrary to Paragraph 46(10), (11), (12) & (13) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022”.
Ugwu noted that the INEC counsel picked quarrel with the heading of the election petition in the “National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal” in breach of Section 130 (1) & (2) of the Electoral Act, 2022.
“The 1st Respondent (INEC) appears to be saying that the correct heading should have been “National and State Houses of Assembly Election Tribunal” Ugwu held.
“In Ngige v. Obi (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 999) P. 1 at 229 para E-F, the court held that wrong heading of an election tribunal does not affect the competence of the petition” Ugwu submitted.
He also noted that INEC had argued that failure to state the occupier in the address for service on Petitioners offends Paragraph 4(4) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022 and that failure to do so is fatal to the petition.
On the contrary, Ugwu submitted in his reply that “such an irregularity is not fatal to the petition. See Egolum v. Obasanjo (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt. 611) P. 355 @ 409B-C & 413B-D; Nze v. Nwaeze & Ors (1999) LPELR-6622(CA) @ 20”.
In view of the submissions canvassed in the address and evidence adduced, Ugwu urged the Tribunal to uphold the petition of the Petitioners and grant the reliefs sought.
He argued that failure of INEC to defend the Petitioners’ petition amounted to admission of the Petitioners’ case, citing Ajadi v. Ajibola (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt. 898) 91.
Ugwu insisted that the Petitioners having discharged the burden of proof on them to prove their case, can rely on the admission of the 1st Respondent to strengthen their already established case.
The Petitioners held that the 2nd Respondent (Heacho), the only Respondent that tried to defend the petition is not INEC, which conducted the election and consequently the INEC’s admission of the case of the Petitioners has definitely weakened the defence of the 2nd Respondent and robbed it of any probative value.
“INEC could not have even defended the petition as Exhibits P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8 & P2A (certified true copies of Form EC8A(I) series) and Exhibit P11(duplicate copies of Form EC8A(I) series) coupled with evidence of PWI (INEC’s staff who testified on subpoena for the Petitioners) show that the Petitioners won the election for Rivers East Senatorial District held on 25/2/2023” Ugwu submitted.
“We submit that the INEC even before the election had made up its mind to return the 2nd Respondent as the winner of the election irrespective of the outcome of the election at the polling units.
“This explains why INEC ignored the polling units’ results of the election, which are the bedrock of the election, because it had predetermined the winner of the election ahead of the conclusion of the election process.
“This is discernible from the certificate of return given to the 2nd Respondent by INEC (Exhibit RB6A) which is dated and issued on 1st March, 2023 before the conclusion of the collation of results and declaration of winner which took place on the 2nd March, 2023.
“In other words, Certificate of Return (Exhibit RB6A) dated 1st March, 2023 predated the final declaration of result (Exhibit R5) dated 2nd March, 2023.
“The DWS stated under cross-examination on 19/6/2023 that he did not receive the collated results for either Port Harcourt or Obio/Akpor LGA until the 2”! March, 2023. Therefore, before the Senatorial District Collation Officer (DW5) received the collated results of the election from the LGAs on 2nd March, 2023, the INEC had on 1st March, 2023 issued the 2nd Respondent with a Certificate of Return as the winner of an ongoing election.
“The DW6 admitted under cross-examination on 4/7/2023 that before a Certificate of Return is issued by INEC, election process must have been concluded and final result announced.
“DW6 also admitted that he was returned winner of the election on 2nd March, 2023 and that INEC issued him with a certificate of return on 1st March, 2023” the Petitioners submitted in a bid to prove they won the election.
However, the PDP candidate, Onyesoh asked the Tribunal to dismiss the petition for lacking in merit, incompetent, and constituting an abuse of court process as well as on jurisdictional grounds.
