THE governorship candidate of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Nasarawa State, Mr David Ombugadu, on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to declare him the winner of the March 18, governorship election in the state because of over-voting.
He said the decision of the Court of Appeal, which validated the re-election of Governor Abdullahi Sule of the All Progressives Congress (APC), was wrong.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had returned Sule as the winner of the March 2023 poll. But the governorship election petition tribunal on October 2, 2023 nullified the election.
The governor also headed to the Court of Appeal which restored his mandate on November 23, 2023. The two parties renewed the battle for the governorship seat at the Supreme Court in Abuja, on Tuesday.
Ombugadu insisted that there was over-voting during the governorship poll.
He said the Court of Appeal was not right to have recomputed the results of the election in favour of Sule.
In his brief, he said: “We contend that the court below was wrong when it held that the appellants did not give legal evidence and that the trial tribunal was wrong to have recomputed the votes in the way it did.
“To address this issue, It is apt to briefly reiterate that the Appellants’ case premised on the lone ground that the first respondent (Sule) was not elected by a majority of lawful votes cast which was principally anchored on the improper entries of results duly declared at the polling units from FORM EC8As to EC8Bs and in some cases outright cancellation by the collation officer when he clearly lacked the vires to so do.
“We commend your Lordships to the case of Agagu vs Mimiko (2009) 7NWLR PT 1140) 342 at 432 CA where the Court held that “It is settled that the polling booth results as set down in form EC8A is the primary evidence of votes cast in an election.”
“Furthermore, in successfully proving this allegation, the Appellants tendered the certified true copies of both the form EC8As and FORM EC8Bs in proving the said allegation.”
He said since Sule did not dispute all the documents he presented at the tribunal and the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court should uphold his election.
He faulted the Court of Appeal for relying on the call of eyewitnesses to arrive at its conclusion.
He said oral testimony of witnesses is incapable of varying and/or altering the contents of the unchallenged documents
He said the enactment of Section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2022, the necessity of calling polling units agents have been obviated
He added: “At the risk of emphasis, the evidence before the trial tribunal and indeed now before this Honourable court is largely documentary as they are result sheets emanating from the election.
‘All the witnesses did was to identify the documents and same was tendered through them. These documents were not disputed by the Respondents as there was no contrary document placed before the court to impeach their admissibility or weight as the case may be. And the documents were duly certified and tendered per the express provision of Section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2022
“By the enactment of Section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2022, the necessity of calling polling units agents have been obviated. The documents tendered by the Appellants to establish lone ground are Certified True Copies which were manifest ex facie on the allegation made. There was no contrary evidence to debunk the validity of those documents
“The objective of Section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2022 is to relieve a petitioner from calling eyewitness evidence in proof of allegations other than corrupt practice, when the complaints are manifest on the face of the document.”
Ombugadu urged the apex court to pay attention to the discrepancies in Ward and Polling units to give him victory.
He said: “It is glaring that what the court needed to arrive at the fact that there were discrepancies in the ward results and the polling unit results is ex facie on the documentary evidence presented to it. The oral testimony of witnesses were incapable of varying and/or altering the contents of the unchallenged documents that were before the trial tribunal thus, it needs not rely on the testimony of the witnesses to arrive at the conclusion it reached.
“In that pursuit, we submit that the Appellants did not give hearsay or inadmissible evidence as erroneously held by the court below. The Appellants accordingly gave legal evidence and the Court below was right to have recomputed the scores in that regard, and we urge Your Lordships to so hold.
“In arriving at the actual computation, the Trial Tribunal took cognizance of the exhibits tendered by the Petitioners cum Appellants herein.
“In that pursuit, we urge Your Lordships to resolve this issue in favor of the Appellants and against the Respondents accordingly.”
and then