…We are determined to uphold our practice of civility and responsibility in expressing our disapproval of the judgment which we believe is QUESTIONABLE, UNSOUND AND LACKS EVERY INGREDIENT OF JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE. Juxtaposing what transpired in court and THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY OUR LEGAL TEAM WITH THE SAID JUDGMENT, one would be left with the undisputed conclusion that technicality was allowed to override facts at the expense of adjudication of Justice”.
This was part of the statement released by Alex Oti in response to his defeat at the Election Petitions Tribunal which dismissed his watery case against the election of Governor Okezie Ikpeazu.
Oti believes that the unanimous judgment of the three man Tribunal is unsound, questionable and doesn’t reflect the “overwhelming evidence” presented by his legal team.
Overwhelming evidence? Really?
Oti, in his petition, alleged that there were incidences of electoral fraud in about 790 polling units across the state. That was what was contained in his petition. In all, he called witnesses from about 60 units and left a total of 723 units without one single witness.
In Isuikwuato LGA, Oti alleged that in about 38 polling units, there was fraud and other forms of malpractices which bordered on criminal conducts, yet he didn’t call even a single witness from the entire local government. Not one! I was in court and listened to the judgment.
In Ugwunagbo LG, Oti failed to call even a single witness to testify to the allegations of electoral fraud which he alleged took place in close to 40 units in that local government.
Indeed, there was no single local government area where Oti called up to 10 witnesses, yet he alleged in his petition that there was massive electoral fraud in almost all the polling units.
The position of the law in Election Petitions is very clear, namely that if you allege infractions in a polling unit, you must call witnesses from that unit to testify. If you allege that fraud took place in 100 polling units, you must call witnesses from that 100 units, unit by unit. That has been the law and it won’t change because a man named Oti wants to be Governor from the window. Mbanu!
The few witnesses he called gave hearsay evidence. Most of them were Ward and Local Government Collation Officers of his party who sat at the wards and Local Government Collation Centers to receive copies of election results already declared at the units, and which most of them duly signed. They were not at the respective polling units and as such couldn’t have witnessed what transpired there. Most of them were moving from unit to unit monitoring the elections. Their evidence was I WAS TOLD…I WAS INFORMED…MY AGENT SAID THIS…MY OFFICER SAID THAT…BLA BLA BLA…
The Tribunal stated that “the evidence of a roving party agent cannot be relied upon by this Tribunal as the correct account of what took place in a particular unit. The best person to testify to what happened in a particular unit is the Agent for that unit in question who was permanently stationed there throughout the duration of the election on that day”.
Oti also stated in his press release that the Tribunal ruled that he was unable to prove his allegations of non compliance with INEC GUIDELINES.
The man is confused and simply doesn’t understand simple logic. By building his case on the INEC GUIDELINES, Oti committed what I call “judicial suicide”. He was a victim of what I call again”JUDICIAL EUTHANASIA” by his own lawyers.
It is shocking that Oti and his lawyers could go to a Tribunal of competent jurisdiction to canvass such embarrassingly lame and utterly pedestrian argument which seeks to elevate ELECTORAL GUIDELINES issued by INEC well and above the provisions of the ELECTORAL ACT, which is the Principal Legislation guiding the conduct of elections in Nigeria. Indeed, the powers of INEC to issue those guidelines flow from the Electoral Act. How then can a lawyer stand before a court and argue that the guidelines supersede the Act?
I was in Court on the day of the final adoption of written addresses by Counsel and I was shocked to hear Oti’s lawyer argue that electoral guidelines have changed the state of the law. A law cannot only be changed by way of an Amendment and signed into law. No other way!
For the avoidance of doubt, the innovation of the Card Reader is contained in the INEC GUIDELINES and is not in any part of the Electoral Act. The amendment to the Act which sought to make the card reader compulsory in elections was not signed into law by the President and the National Assembly, in its wisdom, did not think it wise to override the President, something they are empowered by law to do.
Therefore, it is preposterous for anyone to believe that the state of the law has changed making it mandatory for card readers in elections in Nigeria.
I don’t know about tomorrow but as at today, once a voter who has his PVC comes to vote in an election, he is entitled to vote whether or not the card reading machines authenticate his PVC or not, provided his name can be found in the Voters Register. That is what the Law says and any other thing contained in any other guidelines is of no moment.
I feel sorry for Alex Oti. It is either he is not getting proper legal advise or he simply refuses to listen to his lawyers. I don’t know how else to describe this kind of situation.
You said your lawyers presented OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, yet out of 798 Units where you alleged that fraud took place, you did not call witnesses in 723 Units.
Even in a village arbitration panel, such case will be thrown out.
Oti should proceed to the Court of Appeal, like he has said. We will met him there.
About The Author
