Plateau North Re-rerun: Parties await Tribunal Judgement

By: John Ephraim

The National and State Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal holding at Bauchi in the matter of rerun election into the office of senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for Plateau North Senatorial District held on 3rd February, 2024 on Friday, reserved judgement in the petition filed by Yakub Muhammad Shafiu and his NNPP against INEC, Dachungyang Pam Mwadtkom, ADP.

Yakubu H. Ruba SAN Lead Counsel for the Petitioners

The Petitioners approached the tribunal challenging the declaration of Dachungyang Pam Mwadtkom or 2nd Respondent by INEC (1st Respondent) as the winner of the rerun election.

The main ground upon which the petition is predicated is that the 2nd Respondent as of the time of the election, was not qualified to contest the election having allegedly presented a forged certificate to 1st Respondent (INEC).

The Petitioners are alleging that the 2nd Respondent in Form EC9 deposed that he obtained FSLC in 1975 and SSCE in 1982. 

From right: Chief SG Odey Esq, lead Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, FO Shaibu Esq, S. Oyewale Esq, Counsel for the 1st Respondent

However, the Petitioners are saying that the two certificates did not reflect the name of the 2nd Respondent as the bearer of the certificates.

Petitioners further state that Dachungyang Pam Mwadkon and Pam Sunday Davou are not one and the same person as the 2nd Respondent in Form EC9 deposed that his former name was Pam Sunday Davou without any proof of change of name.

Petitioners also state that change of name has its peculiar procedure provided by the law and must be mandatorily adhered to by anyone desirous of changing his/her name.

The second ground upon which the petition is predicated is that the rerun election was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the Electoral Act.

When the case with file No: EPT/PL/SEN/2/2024 was called, Yakubu H Ruba SAN on behalf of the Petitioners adopted their Final Written Addresses dated and filed on 29th May, 2024 which the Learned Silk said clearly identified the issues raised based on evidence before the tribunal in urging it to grant all the reliefs sought by the Petitioners.

The Petitioners’ Counsel also adopted their replies on point of law in response to the 1st Respondent’s final written address as well as that of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents filed on 11th June, 2024.

Counsel further adopted the Petitioners written address filed on 11th June, 2024 in opposition to the 1st Respondent’s as well as 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ objection to the admissibility of documents tendered by the Petitioners as well as evidence of PW1 as their submission in that regard.

“My Lords, as further support to the Petitioners’ position, we refer your Lords to the case of Ali & another vs Osakwe & others, 2010 LPLER 3743 which is Court of Appeal decision on the issue of qualification. 

“In that regard, we urge your Lordships to grant all the Petitioners’ reliefs and discontenance the submissions of the Respondents”, Yakubu H Ruba SAN said.

From Right: JM Okafor Esq, KM Mallam Esq, both Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.

S. Oyewale Esq, on behalf of the 1st Respondent (INEC), adopted their Final Written Address filed on 6th June, 2024 in urging the Tribunal to dismiss the petition for lacking in merit.

Counsel also adopted the written address of the 1st Respondent in objecting to the admissibility of documents tendered by the Petitioners and evidence of PW1 in urging the Tribunal to sustain the objection of the documents objected to, and expunge the evidence of PW1 from the record of the tribunal.

1st Respondent’s counsel further adopted reply on point of law to the Petitioners’ address in response to the 1st Respondent’s objection and urged the court to sustain the objection of the 1st Respondent.

By way of adumbration, Counsel for the 1st Respondent said, “the Petitioners by themselves have narrowed down the issues in this petition when in paragraph 1.1 of their Written Address in opposition to the admissibility of documents filed on 6th June, 2024, submitted that exhibit P3 is the only document they are relying on.

“My submission is that, exhibit P3, having been tendered through PW1, will go with PW1 once your Lordships find that PW1 is not a competent witness.

“In paragraph 2.1 to 2.2 of 1st Respondent’s reply on point of law to admissibility of documents, my Lords, the Petitioners reply on point of law to the 1st Respondent’s final written address should be discontenance because, it came in to repeat and expand the scope of their first address.

“They did not come in to answer any new issue. On the whole, I urge the tribunal to dismiss the petition for lack of proof”, S. Oyewale Esq said.

On behalf of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, Chief SG Odey Esq adopted their Final Written Address as well as 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ written address on objection to admissibility of Petitioners’ documents in addition to the objection to the competence and evidence of the Petitioners’ witness dated and filed on 6th June, 2024.

“Upon being served with the Petitioners’ objection to the admissibility of exhibit 2R1 tendered by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, we filed a reply dated 3rd but filed on 6th June, 2024 to show that the said document is admissible and was properly tendered.

“We adopt all these and urge the tribunal to dismiss the petition for lacking in merit”.

Counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents further told the tribunal that they have shown in paragraph 4.3, page 3 of their final written address that every document relating to INEC form EC9 were pre-election matter adding that the tribunal was therefore, bereft of jurisdiction to entertained same.

Counsel further drew the attention of the tribunal to paragraphs 6.20 to 6.31 at pages 15 to 18 of their final written address showing that the Petitioners did not prove the allegation of forgery.

“The Petitioners in their pleading at paragraph 3.8 of the Petitioners reply to the reply of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to the petition, conceded that the 2nd Respondent is educated up to school certificate level.

“So, by their own showing, the 2nd Respondent is constitutionally qualified to contest the election.

“At paragraph 1.4 and 1.5 of our objection to the evidence of PW1, particularly the witness statement on oath, we have shown that the same was filed out of time. We therefore, urge the tribunal to dismiss the petition for lacking in merit”, Chief SG Odey Esq said.

Consequently, judgement in the petition was reserved, a date to be communicated to parties.

In their separate remarks to our correspondent Usman Ali  after the adoption, all Counsel representing parties in the petition appreciated and commended the panel for being fair to all parties.