Ize-Iyamu petition: Tribunal lists issues for determination, fixes Jan. 11 hearing

Five issues were yesterday distilled for determination by the Edo State Election Petition Tribunal in the petition filed by the governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Pastor Osagie Ize- Iyamu and his party, challenging the election of Mr Godwin Obaseki of the APC as governor of the state.

The tribunal also adjourned commencement of the hearing of the petitioners’ petition to Wednesday, January 11, 2017. read more after the cut

 

These were fallouts of the tribunal’s ruling on the pre-hearing report/scheduling order after it reviewed the submission of issues for determination by the petitioners and respondents yesterday.

Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Ahmed Badamasi, who gave the ruling, listed the five issues for determination as follows:

“Whether having regard to Section 31(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended and paragraph 4 (1) of the First Schedule thereto, the person who purports to be the 1st petitioner along with the 2nd petitioner in the instant petition is different in law from the person sponsored as candidate of the 2nd petitioner at the Edo state governorship election held on 28, September 2016, thereby rendering the petition incompetent and liable to be dismissed/struck out as prayed in the 2nd respondent/applicant’s motion dated 29, November 2016.

“Whether paragraph 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29 and 30 of the petitioners’ reply to the 3rd respondent’s reply as well as the witness statements on oath attached thereto are not incompetent and liable to be struck out?

“Whether not having claimed any relief based on corrupt practices, the petitioners had not abandoned all allegations of corrupt practices made in the petition.

“Whether the election of the 2nd respondent was invalid by reason of currupt practices in some units and wards being challenged in the petition where the issue (s)  of corrupt practices made in the petition was/were specifically pleaded in the petition and if so, whether the votes credited to the 2nd respondent in such units and wards are not liable to be invalidated and discounted?

“Whether on the state of the pleadings and evidence led, the petitioners have established  that there was substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act which has substantially affected the Edo State Governorship Election held on 28, September 2016 to warrant an order  nullifying the election. and for a fresh election to be considered?”

Ruling on preliminary objections/motions, the tribunal held that all preliminary objections/motions touching on the competence of the petition or some paragraphs thereof shall be taken alongside the main petition.

It also held that uncontested documents (CTC) are to be taken from the bar by each party at the commencement of its case and that such documents shall be accompanied by a schedule showing the marking which should be done in the office of the Secretary to the Tribunal in the presence of  representative of each party.

The tribunal further held that contested documents are to be admitted tentatively after taking objections, and that ruling over them will be contained in the final judgment, just as it added that an interpreter would be provided by it.

It also ruled that there would be no limit on the number of witnesses to be presented by each party, but that the time frame allotted to each party must be respected.

Hearings of motions and counter motions against the petitioners’ motion on the varying of its order on the scanning of ballot papers were adjourned till after the Christmas holidays to enable the parties have enough time to file their applications.