Edo guber poll: PDP, APC head to Appeal Court

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Edo State and its governorship candidate in the September 28, 2016 governorship election in the state, Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu, have filed a notice of appeal against the judgement delivered on April 14, 2017, by the State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal headed by Justice Ahmed Badamasi.

Respondents in the appeal are the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mr Godwin Noghehgase Obaseki and the All Progressives Congress (APC), who are listed as first, second and third respectively.

The appellants set out a 41 grounds of appeal upon and averred that the judgement was against the weight of evidence presented to the tribunal.

Other reliefs sought by the appellants are an order setting aside the decision of the tribunal, an order nullifying the return of the 2nd respondent, while declaring the 1st appellant validly elected having scored the highest number of lawful votes cast during the governorship election held on September 29, 2016.

The appellants in some of its 41 grounds of appeal held that the learned judges of the trial tribunal misdirected themselves and truncated their right to fair-hearing by the unequal treatment given to the cases of the parties by first finding fault, discrediting, disbelieving and dismissing the petition of the appellants before considering at all and reviewing the testimonies of the witnesses of the respondents, insisting that this occasioned a miscarriage of justice against them.

The appellants stated that the trial tribunal erred in law and truncated their right to fair-hearing where in consideration of their case, it failed totally to look at, consider, countenance and make any pronouncement on issue concerning, “whether the 2nd respondent was duly elected by the majority of lawful votes cast at the Edo State Governorship Election held on 28, September 2016 and if not, whether the 1st Petitioner is not entitled to be returned as the Governor of Edo State.”

They also averred that the trial tribunal erred in law when it held that the testimonies of their witnesses from Akoko- Edo, Egor, Etsako Central, Etsako East, Orhionmwon, Ikpoba- Okha, Oredo, Igueben, Uhunmwode, Ovia South – West, Ovia North – East, Owan East, Owan West, Esan West and Etsako West local government areas who were called to support the allegations were unreliable on the ground that their testimonies were hearsay and that they were discredited under cross examination, when this was not true legally and factually.

Meanwhile, the APC and Mr Godwin Obaseki have filed a cross appeal against parts of the decision of the tribunal.

They are challenging the part of the decision wherein the trial tribunal refused to grant the 3rd respondent/cross appellant’s applications dated 30th, November, 2016, and 1st December, 2016 respectively.

In its four grounds of cross appeal, they contended that the trial tribunal erred in law by not dismissing the appellants’ petition through technical process in relation to alleged differences between the name used by the PDP’s candidate in the petition and that submitted to the INEC in contesting the election.

They also averred that the trial tribunal erred in law and breached the cross appellants’  constitutional right to fair-hearing  when it failed to adequately consider all the issues raised and submitted before it in cross appellants’ application dated and filed on 30th November, 2016, and thereby came to a wrong decision which has occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice.

The cross appellants also said that the trial tribunal erred in law when it held at page 35 of the judgement as follows: “A careful perusal of paragraph 4-501 of the 3rd Respondent’s reply to the petition, one will see new issues raised by the 3rd respondent which are not contained in the petition.

They also submitted that the trial tribunal erred in law and breached the cross appellants’ right to fair hearing  when it held on page, 36 of the judgement as follows “There is no law prohibiting the petitioners from filing additional statement on oath of the Petitioners in response to the 3rd respondent’s reply to the petition.”

No date has been fixed for the hearing of the appeal.