How INEC Rigged My Election For PDP- witness

The Second Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Akure, Ondo State capital was on Saturday stunned by revelation on how the April 14, 2007 House of Assembly election was allegedly blatantly rigged in favour of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in Okitipupa Local Government Area.

Specifically, the Justice J.S Ikyeh-led Tribunal was startled by tales of alterations on the poll result sheets, differences in the figures recorded in respect of number of registered voters and votes cast in the various polling units during the election.

When the Labour Party (LP) candidate in the Okitipupa Constituency II who is the Petitioner, Barrister Jumoke Akindele again mounted the Witness box, there was pin silence in the courtroom throughout her demonstration to the Tribunal how the INEC documents and materials were used against her.

The documents which had earlier been admitted in evidednce constituted the results from polling Units in Okitipupa, Ode-Aye, Ayeka\Igbodigo and Ode-Erinje Wards.

Displaying both the Counterpart Originals and Certified True Copies (CTC) of the documents, Akindele for instance showed the Tribunal how 586 was recorded in Exhibit I (1) as the number of total votes cast at Unit18 in Okitipupa II while 58,690 was recorded in Exhibit I (2) of the same Unit.

More curiously, the stamp on Exhibit I(1) was that of the defunct National Electoral Commission (NEC) which had ceased to exist since 1993 while Exhibit I(2) had INEC stamp on it.

The same scenario played itself out at Ode-Aye2 Ward where the Counterpart original and the CTC of Exhibit M bore both NEC and INEC stamps as well as Exhibit K in Okitipupa I Ward 1w2.

The witness also showed that results marked Exhibit M, Unit002, Exhibit T Ward 002 and Exhibit L1 Unit 004 were all signed by one Akinbo Kehinde as both PDP agent and Presiding Officer respectively. The most intriguing was in L4 Unit 011 where 300 ballot papers were issued by INEC to the Polling Unit. Surprisingly however, 300 of these ballot papers were said to be un-used by INEC, it nonetheless returned a total votes cast of 300 to the PDP while the other political parties scored no vote!

The demonstration of the witness was however interrupted midway by Chief Wale Omotoso, counsel to First Respondent, who was the PDP Candidate returned by INEC in the Constituency, Obagbemi Oladunjoye, who objected to the exercise. He insisted that the procedure being used by the Tribunal was not proper adding that Akindele should merely adopt her statement on oath and leave. According to him, it was not necessary for her to read the content of the exhibits as the Petitioner did not seek the consent of other parties as required by law.

Justice Ikyeh how ever told Omotoso that  the Court rules were not meant to do injustice. His words: “If you say the witness is supposed to just come here, adopt her statement on oath and go, the Practice Direction and the Evidence Act are not at war, the two are not clashing. How many times shall we tell you that all your objections should be in the address stage in order not to waste the time of this tribunal?”

advertisement

But the Respondent’s counsel and that of the Police, J.C.A. Idachaba kept interjecting to the witness’s mode of tendering her evidence insisting stridently that it was wrong for her to continue reading from the evidence which had already been admitted as exhibits by the court. Citing Ojugbele vs Lamidi and others 1999, 10NWLR part 621page 167 at 177, Omotoso insisted that the no such favour is granted to the Plaintiff under the law. He added that the Practice Direction was opposed to F front loading as Akindele was being allowed to do stressing that no proper foundation had been laid for such a development. He also added that beside, she was not the maker of those documents and as such she should be made to stop reading from the exhibits.

But in his reponse, counsel to Akindele, Remi Olatubora wondered at the intermittent objections saying that Section 4, sub-section 1 of the Practice Direction takes cognizance of the rules of evidence in spite of the totality of the Practice Direction. To him, rules of the court and the Practice Direction are made to ensure that justice is done to the litigants. He buttressed his argument with UNILAG vs. Aigoro, 1984 NSC cases page 745 at 782 adding that Paragraph 4 subsection 5 of the Practice Direction gives the Tribunal the powers to provide the direction in which the presentation of evidence would be given by any
party.

Besides, Olatubora added that the his client had protection of the law to carry on with her evidence as provided for by the fundamental rights to fair hearing as guaranteed by section 36 of the  Nigerian Constitution.

The series of objections made the earlier order by the tribunal to open the bags of the INEC ballot material used for election in the Constituency for counting before the court impossible as the tribunal adjourned hearing till Wednesday, December 12 for further hearing.