…Tribunal declares evidence is based on hearsay
…says addendum request is unknown to law
…you can’t bring it through the backdoor
The Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Asaba has declared Rt Hon Sheriff Oborevwori the authentic winner of March 18 guber polls in Delta state.
TheNewsGuru.com, (TNG) reports all the kernels of the verdict pointed to the fact that evidence provided by the major opposition party, APC were mere hearsay without concrete foundation.
READ DETAILS BELOW:
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES:
Issues for determination adopted from arguments. The petitioners arguments dealt with overvoting as a sub specie of corrupt practices and not corrupt practices.
Do not agree that the petition is incompetent on ground 1. It is premature to object when case has not been argued. In sum, no merit is found in the 2nd respondents objections and so dismissed.
Another application by 3rd respondents to strike out some grounds of the petition. Standard of proof for criminal allegations must be beyond reasonable doubt. It is contradiction to ask for election to be voided and at the same time asked to be declared winner. Recount of votes request struck out.
On the 3rd respondents objection.
Grounds of objection dismissed.
Disharmony of scores and ballot papers form the kernel of the averments of the petitioner. Application dismissed.
The petition:
Witnesses’ presentations reviewed
Written addresses brought up. Inundated with fresh applications after written addresses.
The petitioner’s application sought to bring in fresh evidence through the back door. After considerations, addendum request is unknown to law. It cannot be granted and the request is denied, having been brought so very late and could prejudice the respondents. Application dismissed.
2nd respondents challenge to the final written address of the applicant for non compliance with guidelines and practice directions. The structure of the petitioner’s address violates the practice direction argues the 2nd respondents.
“Tribunal has no tools to measure compliance. In the absence of clear evidence, the application is dismissed.
Merits of the case:
On DOP’s evidence as an appointee of the respondent, the petitioner’s failure to apply for the removal of witness from the court denies the petitioner the right to call him a dented witness. The witness never admitted presence in the courtroom when PW1 gave evidence. He is not a personal staff of the governor. He is not disqualified and his evidence is not impeached.
On over voting, petitioner tendered many documents. To prove over voting, BVAS report must be produced. Leave was granted petitioner to inspect BVAS but no BVAS report is provided. Also no direct evidence was called. Scrutiny of evidence was done. BVAS was the prescribed mode for accreditation of voters. The petitioner pleaded BVAS but failed to even provide an extract from it. The petitioner even pleaded that BVAS was the mandatory tool for accreditation. They agreed to this and alluded to the supremacy and Majesty of technology for accreditation. Tribunal wonders why they have failed to produce BVAS.
Tribunal agrees with respondents argument. By supreme Court judgement, BVAS is mandatory to prove over voting.
BVAS not produced but they tried to use other documents. Petitioner cannot circumvent the BVAS.
Report of examination of back end server cannot replace the BVAS. This report is held to be irrelevant.
Flowing from above, the report is inadmissible to prove over voting.
Voters registered was not pleaded for a specific reason.
No credible primea facie case has been made to warrant a call on the respondents to defend.
Alleged non compliance because of recordings in all polling units. All exhibits in this direction make no sense. Scrutiny of documents by PW1 again amount to hearsay. No comments on accuracy of document was made by applicant. Evidence of PW1 worthless. He couldn’t even mention the name of one presiding officer in any.
Case of petitioner based essentially on hearsay evidence that is legally inadmissible.
They have led no credible and indubitable evidence.
Accordingly, there was even no need for the respondents to lead any evidence to disprove a collapsed case.
The case is devoid of merit and affirm the declaration of INEC and return the respondents as duly elected.