It’s my right -Akpabio cries out ...Tribunal to rule June 18
The move by former Akwa Ibom State Governor, Chief Godswill Akpabio to impede the smooth dispensation of justice at the National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal sitting at the Customary Court Dutsen Alhaji Abuja and buy more time based on his frivolous application challenging the relocation of the tribunal from Uyo to Abuja on Tuesday suffered a major setback.
The tribunal lacks the power to grant Akpabio leave to move the motion and the former governor is not allowed by law to bring the motion before the tribunal as a means to slow down justice delivery, Chief Assam Assam, lead counsel to the petitioner, Chief Inibehe Okori declared.
It could be recalled that Akpabio had on June 11th, 2015 filed a motion challenging the relocation of the tribunal from Uyo to Abuja. He had based his argument on Section 285 of the constitution.
In his response, Assam prayed the tribunal to dismiss the application and direct that the proceedings in the Petition proceed to pre- hearing and ultimately the hearing and determination of same within the time allowed by law.
Drawing his power from Paragraph 12(5) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 as amended, Assam said the objection of Akpabio challenging the relocation cannot be an impediment for the petition not to proceed.
Paragraph 12(5) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 provides as follows:
“5 A respondent who has an objection to the hearing of the Petition shall file his reply and state the objection therein and the objection shall be heard along with the substantive petition”.
Continuing, Assam also drew the attention of the tribunal to Paragraph 53(5) of the same schedule to the Electoral Act which states that:
“(5) An objection challenging the irregularity or competence of an election petition shall be heard and determined after the close of pleadings”.
Chief Assam urged the tribunal to rely on the case of OGBENI RAUF ADESOJI AREGBESOLA V. SENATOR IYIOLA OMISORE & ORS (2014) LPELR- CA/AK/EPT/GOV/05/237/2014 to the effect that paragraph 53(5) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act having been amended by paragraph 12(5) of the same schedule, all objections to the hearing of a petition shall be raised as a defence to be heard and determined with the petition.
He told the tribunal that the Court of Appeal in considering these two provisions were of the view that election petitions being sui generis are governed by different rules. An election petition is by nature a very peculiar proceeding which distinguishes it from an ordinary civil proceeding.
Assam went further to explain that the Appeal Court had relied on the case of Abubakar V. Yar’adua (2008) 19 NWLR (Pt 1120)1. In Nwole V. Iwaagwu (2004)15 NWLR (Pt 895)61and held that
“The courts have often harped on the need to do substantial justice in most cases without dwelling much on technicalities... in all election matters, the use of technicalities should be avoided, as technicalities merely help to shut the opponent out. It never resolves basic issues in controversy. Once it is agreed that election petitions are in a class of their own, the handling of the matter too must take a form devoid of legal technicalities that tend to leave the litigants more confused. Boldness of a high degree is required of the electoral tribunal, which must never be seem to shy away from obious grave allegations”.
Continuing, Chief Assam noted that the Court went further to hold that
“ Paragraph 12(5) came in on the 29th October, 2010 like a Trojan Horse. Paragraph 53(5) itself came into effect on 20th August,2010. Paragraph 12(5) was undoubtedly enacted for a purpose. That purpose was to enable Election Petition tribunals to handle election petitions without undue reliance on technicalities. Although paragraph 53(5) was not repealed, the law is that the provisions of the later enactment amend the earlier so far as necessary to remove the inconsistency between them.
Paragraph 53(5) is now impliedly repealed by paragraph 12(5). By Paragraph 12(5) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act an objection to the hearing of a petition is authorized to be raised in the Respondents reply to the petition.
Chief Assam who prayer the tribunal to consider the said judgement of the Appeal Court observed that Akpabio’s application is therefore a storm in a teacup designed to run the hearing clock as regards the 180 days statutorily allowed for the hearing and determination of the petition.
“In the circumstances we urge your Lordships, most humbly , to dismiss the application and refuse the prayers sought by the applicant and direct that the proceedings in this petition proceed to pre- hearing and ultimately the hearing and determination of same within the time allowed by law”, he submitted.
Assam’s submission rattled Akpabio’s legal team who looked depressed and downcast. A pin drop silence enveloped the courtroom.
Akpabio’s legal team who pleaded for more time were asked if they were not the one who brought the motion before the tribunal and why they will now be the ones delaying the proceedings in a matter they brought. The tribunal therefore fixed Thursday, June 18th to rule on the application.
No comments:
Post a Comment