The Kogi State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, which is meeting in Abuja, did not make a decision on Monday on the complaint filed by the Social Democratic Party and its governorship candidate, Murtala Ajaka, against the election victory of Usman Ododo.
During today’s session, Ajaka’s lawyer, Pius Akubo, asked the tribunal to reject the respondents’ arguments and support their own.
In the meantime, the Independent National Electoral Commission, represented by lawyer Kanu Agabi, told the court that their final written statement was dated and submitted on May 2 as he requested the tribunal to reject Ajaka’s complaint.
Similarly, the All Progressives Congress and Ododo asked the tribunal to dismiss Ajaka’s complaint completely because they believe it is not valid and does not have any merit.
Lawyers for the respondents, Agabi, Joseph Daudu, and Emmanuel Ukala, presented their arguments against the petition and asked the three-member panel of judges, led by Justice Ado Birnin-Kudu, to reject the petition.
Agabi argued that the Appeal Court had ruled that if the grounds of a petition are inconsistent and do not match the reliefs sought, it should be rejected.
He also stated that the evidence provided by the petitioners was very lacking, citing a Supreme Court decision in a case involving Tonye Cole against INEC.
“It is our view that your task in deciding this petition is made easier by recent judgments from the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
“It states that if the evidence presented is grossly insufficient, then there is no evidence. In that case, the petitioner submitted 305 witness depositions but only used 40 of them.
“The petitioner, as per the decision, only used about 13.1% of the witness depositions. In this case, the depositions used represent only about 3.6% of their witness depositions,” he said.
He mentioned that the petitioners only brought 25 witnesses out of the many listed.
Agabi explained that 3.6% of Ajaka’s witness deposition adopted in the petition reflected a failure and thus, should be rejected based on a mathematical assessment of evidence.
He also said the petitioners did not submit the witness deposition in advance, which goes against the Supreme Court ruling in Obungado’s case.
He argued that the petitioners’ witness who spoke about the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System machines, clearly said that he could not confirm if those were the BVAS used.
Agabi also argued that the BVAS machine was submitted against Section 84 of the Evidence Act, as it did not have a certificate of trustworthiness attached to it as required by law.
“Also, the evidence from the BVAS machines did not meet the requirements of the law,” he added.
He described the case as baseless and mentioned that out of 25, not a single election observer was called.
“Furthermore, the main witness could not differentiate between what he heard and what he saw when questioned”.
Ododo’s lawyer, Daudu, argued in his final written statement dated and submitted on May 1, that the complaint was filed too late and so should not be considered.
He said the petitioners' action went against a specific section of the Evidence Act, allowing the tribunal to consider the time of filing, service, and response.
He clarified that the petitioners did respond to their service, but Akubo objected to Daudu's mention of the section, calling it a new argument.
Daudu disagreed with Akubo's claim that he was bringing up new issues after the final written address had been filed.
He stated that if the court agreed with his argument, Akubo had the right to respond because it concerned remittal procedure.
He also asked the tribunal to dismiss the forgery allegations against his client, stating that it was related to a pre-election matter previously decided by the apex court in Gbagi’s case against INEC.
Daudu argued that the Electoral Act section mentioned by the petitioners regarding over-voting did not apply in the current petition.
Similarly, Ukala, representing APC, urged the court to dismiss SDP and Ajaka’s petition for lacking merit while he adopted all the processes.
He informed the court that their final written address, dated April 30, was filed on the same date.
The petitioners' lawyer, Akubo, told the tribunal that their final written address was dated and filed on May 6, and their petition was not filed late.
He argued that the respondents themselves confirmed that the petition was filed on December 2, 2023, even by their own witness.
He requested the court to acknowledge that they filed the petition within the specified time under the law.
After hearing from all parties, Justice Birnin-Kudu postponed delivering judgment on the petition.
He announced that he would communicate the judgment date to the parties.
It's worth noting that the tribunal had set the date for the adoption of final written addresses after the parties closed their case on April 25.
SDP and Ajaka had taken the case to the tribunal to contest Ododo’s victory in the November 11, 2023, Kogi governorship elections.
The petition lists INEC, Ododo, and APC as the first to third respondents respectively.
