TheNewsGuru

Tag: Tribunal

  • Kaduna guber : PDP heads to Appeal Court, as Tribunal rejects forensic expert testimony

    The Kaduna State Governorship Petitions Tribunal on Thursday stopped a forensic expert summoned by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from testifying before it due to the expiration of the 14-day timeline given to it, to present witnesses.

    The Chairman of the Tribunal, Justice Ibrahim Bako, ruled that the witness had lost the right to testify since the 14 days given to the petitioners had lapsed.

    The witness was called by the petitioners to give expert evidence against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on the documents used during the March 9 Governorship poll in the state.

    The expert brought by the PDP and its governorship candidate, Alhaji Isah Ashiru had faced objections by counsel to INEC, Gov. Nasir el-Rufai and the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    The counsel in their separate arguments told the tribunal that they were only served with the witness’ statement shortly before the session began.

    They said they needed time to read the statement to prepare for cross examination and applied that the witness be halted from testifying.

    Their objection was, however, rejected by counsel to PDP, Dr Paul Ananaba, who said that the had informed the court of plans to subpoena forensic experts.

    Justice Bako, however, held that the witness lost the right to give his testimony because the petitioners failed to present the statement within the stipulated time frame.

    Abdulhakeem Mustapha (SAN) Counsel to Gov. El-Rufai told newsmen that the tribunal gave 14 days to the petitioners to present their witnesses.

    “They told the court that they were going to subpoena a lot of witnesses; they didn’t do that until this morning when the court was sitting when they served us with a witness statement.

    “We objected to it and told the court that in the spirit of fair hearing, that was overreaching, because we were supposed to have two days to study the witness’ statement and prepare for cross examination.

    “And the court agree with us that they were not diligent in prosecuting their case and the court overruled the witness from testifying, “Mustapha said.

    He added:”We are ready to open our defense.

    “The starting point is that the petitioners told the court that it had 655 witnesses to present within the 14 days given to them by the court, but they were only able to call 135 witnesses and they have closed their case to call witnesses.

    “And as respondents we have subjected their witnesses to serious cross examination to test the veracity of their testimonies.

    “What I can tell you is that respondents would present evidence both oral and documentary to show that the election was won by Malam Nasir El-Rufai,“he said.

    The counsel to the petitioners, Elisha Kurah, (SAN) told journalists that the decision of the tribunal to stop their witness from testifying would be challenged at the Court of Appeal.

    “So far we called 135 witnesses and the witnesses covered most of the areas where malpractices took place.

    “The forensic expert came and the court said they would not take him.

    “We still believe that it was not a decision that was rightly taken. We are going to appeal the decision of the tribunal,“ Kurah said.

    The Justice Bako-led Tribunal had adjourned sitting to July 15 to take witnesses from El-Rufai, APC and INEC who are 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents in the petition respectively.(NAN)

  • Presidential poll: Tribunal dismisses Atiku, PDP’s motion to quash proceedings

    …Concludes pre-hearing session
    The Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal has dismissed the application by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, to quash the proceedings of June 11 before the tribunal.
    In a unanimous decision, the five-member panel of justices held that the application lacks merit and is “bound to fail.”
    Atiku and PDP, through their lawyers led by Levy Uzoukwu (SAN), had asked the court to strike out the entire proceedings as it was not given fair hearing in a motion filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC).
    The APC had in the motion dated May 14, 2019 sought to strike out the list of 10 states listed by the PDP to have witnessed large-scale irregularities and non-compliance with the Electoral Act, which the PDP challenged with a counter-affidavit.
    The APC had also asked the tribunal to remove the names of Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, Chief of Army Staff, Tukur Butatai and other security officers as being involved in electoral malpractices, and dismiss the petition. But the APC, through its counsel, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), withdrew the motion on May 15 and it was struck out, and it filed a fresh motion which the PDP however failed to file a counter-affidavit until June 11 when it was moved, which is out of time for a counter-affidavit.
    Atiku and PDP appealed the decision to allow the new motion at the Supreme Court contending that the tribunal ought to have dismissed and not struck out the motion being withdrawn without prior notice. In a lead ruling by the chairman of the panel, Justice Mohammed Garba held that the action does not amount to denial of fair hearing to the PDP.
    He said Atiku and PDP’s alternative relief for the extension of time to file a counter-affidavit to pending motion before the tribunal cannot be granted as the matter is no longer a live issue, having been appealed against at the Supreme Court.
    The tribunal ended pre-hearing session and approved the modalities and structures agreed by parties for the conduct of the main hearing of the petition.
    The main hearing is fixed for Thursday July 4.

  • Presidential poll: Tribunal gives Atiku, PDP 10 days ultimatum to call 400 witness

    Presidential poll: Tribunal gives Atiku, PDP 10 days ultimatum to call 400 witness

    THE Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) has allocated 10 days to the petitioners – Atiku Abubakar and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) – to call the 400 witnesses they plan to call to prove their case.
    The PDP and its candidate in the last presidential election are, by their petition, challenging the victory of President Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Party (APC).
    Respondents to the petition – the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Buhari and the APC – have equally been allocated six days each to call their witnesses.
    The allocation of days to parties in the case was agreed yesterday at the tribunal’s pre-hearing session where the scheduling of the hearing process was equally agreed.
    At the beginning of yesterday’s proceedings, the petitioner’s lead lawyer Livy Uzoukwu said Atiku and the PDP planned to call 400 witnesses to prove their case.
    Uzoukwu said although the petitioners proposed 400 witnesses, they would make do with the number they could call within the period prescribed by law.
    At that point, the tribunal’s chairman Justice Mohammed Garba said the law, Paragraph 16(3) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010, provides 14 days for the petitioners to conduct its case.
    Following the information from the tribunal’s chairman, lawyers representing all the parties, sought a break of about 30 minutes to work out how to proceed during the hearing of the petition.
    When proceedings resumed later, Uzoukwu said: “We have agreed that instead of the 14 days that we have to call our witnesses, we will take 10.
    “The respondents have agreed to cut their 10 days to six days for each of them. Evidence-in-chief for what we call ‘ordinary witnesses’ will take five minutes.
    “Cross-examination of such ordinary witnesses will take 10 minutes; evidence-in-chief of expert/subpoenaed witnesses, 10 minutes; cross-examination of same category of witnesses, 20 minutes and re-examination of all witnesses, three minutes each.
    “Objection to documents will be indicated at the point of tendering and the address on it will be reserved till final address but will be isolated from the main address.

    “Parties are to prepare the schedule of documents to be tendered, file them and exchange them among themselves.”

    Uzoukwu also told the tribunal that it was agreed that the respondents should file their final address within seven days of close of evidence, while the petitioners should file their final reply addresses within five days after they have been served with the respondents’ final addresses.
    The petitioners’ lawyer added that it was also agreed that the respondents should, within three days of being served with petitioners’ final address, file their replies on point of law, where necessary.
    INEC’s lawyer Yunus Ustaz (SAN) noted that “proper foundation” must be laid for documents for which parties have not agreed on their admission.
    Lawyers to President Buhari and the APC, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) and Charles Edosomwan (SAN) confirmed that what Uzoukwu said was an actual reflection of what all the parties agreed to.
    Olanipekun said it was suggested that during the hearing session, proceedings should start at 9.30 a.m and end at 4 p.m, with an hour break between 1 p.m and 2 p.m.
    He said parties equally agreed that trial/hearing session should begin on Thursday.
    Justice Garba averred that the beginning of the hearing session would be dependent on outcome of the proceedings scheduled for Wednesday.
    The tribunal scheduled ruling for Wednesday in an application by the petitioners, requesting that a motion filed by the APC to strike out of their petition, be heard afresh.
    Atiku and the PDP claimed that they were not heard by the tribunal and had no opportunity to file a counter-affidavit and written address in opposition to the motion, when it was heard by the tribunal on June 11.
    They added: “The petitioners/applicants desire to be heard in response to the third respondent’s motion filed on May 15, 2019, seeking to strike out the petition.”
    Lawyers to the respondents, who opposed the application, argued that the petitioners, having failed to file any response to APC’s application within the time allowed by law, could no longer complain.
    INEC, President Buhari and the APC argued that the fresh application by the petitioners was an abuse of court process, on the grounds that the petitioners had appealed, at the Supreme Court, the June 11 ruling of the tribunal, which they sought to be set aside by the tribunal.
    They further argued that the motion by the APC, having been heard and reserved for ruling, the petitioners had lost the right to be heard on the issue again.
    In the motion, which the petitioners are seeking to be heard afresh, the APC wants the tribunal to dismiss the petition or, alternatively, strike out several paragraphs that were not supported by facts and laws.
    APC also wants the tribunal to remove 10 states from the list of states where Atiku alleged that electoral malpractices took place in the February 23 presidential election on the grounds that the petitioners failed to disclose the specific polling units where the alleged infractions, which they claimed, took place.
    The party said the PDP and its candidate were thereby “making their claims imprecise, nebulous and vague”.
    It also asked the tribunal to strike out paragraphs in the petition, where allegations of act of thuggery, arrest, intimidation and conversion were made against Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo, the Army, the police and several other individuals who were not joined as defendants in their petition.
    The APC equally applied that the claim by Atiku and the PDP that President Buhari was not educationally qualified to stand for the presidential election be expunged from their petition because it is a pre-election matter which the tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon.
    Also, the ruling party urged the tribunal to strike out the petition on the grounds that it failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of paragraphs 4 and 7 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 and Section 134 of the 1999 Constitution.
    The APC similarly faulted the petition “for being incompetent and in gross violation of sections 2 and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act”.
    It urged the tribunal to strike out the petition together with the list of documents and list of witnesses to be relied upon by the petitioners.

  • PDP closes case at Niger election tribunal

    The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) on Thursday closed its case at the governorship election petition tribunal sitting in Minna, Niger State.

    At the resumed hearing on Thursday, counsel to PDP Mohammed Ndayako, presented Tanko Beji as his only witness.

    Ndayako adopted his four witness statements on oath and asked the tribunal to use them as evidence in the petition.

    He also tendered some documents which the witness mentioned in his statement on oath, after which he notified the court that his client was closing its case.

    Counsel to the 1st respondent Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) said he would bring his client, Gov. Abubakar Bello, on Friday, to open their defence.

    The chairman of the tribunal, Justice John Igboji, adjourned the matter until June 28, for the respondents to open their defence.

    NAN reports that Umar Nasko, the PDP candidate in the March governorship election in the state, had dragged the APC candidate, Bello and his deputy Ahmed Ketso, before the tribunal.

    Nasko alleged that the duo presented forged academic and birth certificates to INEC.

  • Petition against Buhari: Tribunal says HDP remains consenting plaintiff

    Petition against Buhari: Tribunal says HDP remains consenting plaintiff

    The Presidential Election Tribunal has dismissed the application seeking the withdrawal of Hope Democratic Party from the petition challenging president Muhammadu Buhari’s re-election.

    Justice Mohammed Garba, while giving the ruling, held that HDP and Chief Ambrose Owuru, it’s presidential candidate in the Feb. 23 general election remained consenting plaintiffs in the eyes of the law.

    Owuru and the HDP had jointly filed a petition before the tribunal to challenge the victory of President Buhari and the All Progressives Congress at the poll.

    But a faction of the party led by Poland Tapre subsequently filed an application before the tribunal praying for the withdrawal of the party as a co-petitioner in the case on the grounds that the petition was filed in the name of the party without its consent.

    The faction claimed that Owuru had since been suspended from the party in August 2018, and Tapre had been the National Chairman of the party.

    The application was opposed by Owuru’s legal team.

    More details later….

  • Presidential poll: Tribunal to hear Atiku, PDP’s fresh motion July 1

    Presidential poll: Tribunal to hear Atiku, PDP’s fresh motion July 1

    Proceedings ended unexpectedly on Wednesday at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) due to the request by a lawyer to Atiku Abubakar and his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Chris Uche (SAN) for an adjournment to enable his clients react to the responses filed against a fresh motion by Atiku and the PDP.

    Atiku and his party are challenging the outcome of the last presidential election at the tribunal. Although they came second behind President Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress (APC), they claimed to have won based on some results they gleaned from a central server purportedly utilised by the electoral body, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), to transmit the result of the election.

    The PEPT, in a ruling on June 24, declined the petitioners’ request to be allowed access to the supposed server, which existence INEC has denied. The tribunal adjourned till June 26 for further pre-hearing session.

    At the resumption of proceedings yesterday, the petitioners were expected to pursue their petition, but their lawyer took all by surprise when he prayed the tribunal for an adjournment to enable them file replies-on-point-of-law to the respondents’ replies to the petitioners’fresh motion seeking to quash the proceedings conducted on June 11 by the tribunal.

    Lawyers to the the respondents – INEC, Buhari and APC – Yunus Usman (SAN), Yusuf Ali (SAN) and Lateef Fagbemi did not object to Uche’s request.

    But Uche urged the tribunal to conduct other pre-hearings related to the petition rather than wasting the day, a request respondents’ lawyers objected to.

    Usman, Ali and Fagbemi said they could only concede should the petitioners withdraw their fresh motion or reply orally, a suggestion Uche rejected and insisted on filing replies to the respondents’ responses.

    Ruling, PEPT’s Chairman, Justice Mohammed Garba said the tribunal would prefer to conclude the hearing of all pending applications/motions before delving into other issues related to the petition.

    Justice Garba adjourned till July 1 for the hearing of the fresh motion by the petitioners and the consideration of any other pre-hearing issues.

    In the fresh motion filed on June 18, Atku and the PDP prayed the tribunal to set aside its proceedings of June 11 during which it accepted as undefended, an application filed by the APC, in which the party sought to strike out the petition because it was defective.

    In a ruling on June 11, the tribunal held that the petitioners failed to file the required counter-affidavit against the application by the APC and recorded the application as unchallenged.

    It is that ruling that Atiku and the PDP, by their fresh motion, want the tribunal to set aside, a request the respondents have also opposed with their various counter applications, some of which Uche said, were served on him late, and in respect of which he sought an adjournment to enable his team reply.

    In the application accepted by the tribunal as undefended, the APC wants the tribunal to dismiss the petition by Atiku and the PDP, or alternatively, strike out several paragraphs that were not supported by facts and laws.

    APC also wants the tribunal to remove 10 states from the list of states Atiku alleged electoral malpractices took place in the February 23 Presidential Election because the petitioners failed to disclose the specific polling units where the alleged infraction, which they claimed, took place, thereby “making their claims imprecise, nebulous and vague”.

    The APC also asked the tribunal to strike out paragraphs in the petition, where allegations of thuggery, arrest, intimidation and conversion were made against Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, the Nigerian Army, the Nigerian Police and individuals who were not joined as defendants in their petition.

    The APC also applied that the claim by Atiku and the PDP that President Buhari was not educationally qualified to stand for the presidential election be expunged from their petition because it is a pre-election matter, which the tribunal has no jurisdiction for.

    Also, the APC urged the tribunal to strike out the petition because it failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of paragraphs 4 and 7 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 and Section 134 of the 1999 Constitution.

    The APC similarly faulted the petition “for being incompetent and in gross violation of sections 2 and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act” and, therefore, urged that the petition be struck out with the lists of documents and witnesses to be relied upon by the petitioners.

    Urging the tribunal to reject the fresh motion, INEC, Buhari and the APC argued that it was an abuse of court process, because the petitioners had appealed, at the Supreme Court, the tribunal’s June 11 ruling, which they sought the tribunal to set aside.

  • Presidency reacts to tribunal ruling dismissing Atiku, PDP’s request to inspect INEC server

    Presidency reacts to tribunal ruling dismissing Atiku, PDP’s request to inspect INEC server

    The Nigerian presidency has praised what it called the ‘landmark ruling’, by the Presidential Election Tribunal, which rejected unanimously a request by Atiku Abubakar and the PDP to inspect the INEC server.

    Presidential aide Garba Shehu described the PDP bid “a desperate attempt by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to overreach judicial process”.

    “An attempt to cause the determination of an issue that constitutes the fulcrum of contention between the parties, at an interlocutory stage, has again been rejected by the tribunal”, he noted.

    “What this means is that Justice and fair hearing through due contest by the parties of a major issue for determination remains sacrosanct and remains considerable by the tribunal upon according parties just and fair hearing and not the other way round.

    “The election petitions tribunal unanimously rejected the PDP’s request to inspect a server which existence is being disputed.

    “The existence of a purported server is being contested and if a purported inspection had been allowed at this stage, it would have amounted to the determination that it indeed existed even when its existence is being contested.

    “The electoral law prescribes manual transmission of results only and this was what the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) did, in obedience to the law as witnessed by real electoral observers.

    “YIAGA Africa deployed 3906 real individuals to run a parallel tabulation which returned the same results the INEC announced.

    “Last week, the final reports of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute (IRI/NDI) electoral observer mission made clear that the results of the election reflected the votes cast.

    “President Muhammadu Buhari won with a majority of four million votes and because only real votes matter, INEC announced him as the winner of the 2019 presidential election”.

  • Tribunal reverses N29.2m VAT imposed by FIRS on bank

    The Tax Appeal Tribunal, sitting in Abuja on Wednesday, reversed N29.2 million Federal Inland Revenue Service’s (FIRS) imposed as value added tax on Infinity Trust Mortgage Bank.

    The bank had challenged FIRS’s imposition of the amount.

    The tribunal chairman, Mrs Alice Iriogbe, delivering judgment, held that FIRS failed to prove that those services carried out by the bank were VATable.

    He held further that the bank were not liable to be taxed on those services according to the VAT Act and Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Act, 2011 as amended.

    Iriogbe further held that the FIRS Service Information Status number 9 also supports the fact that such services by Mortgage Institutions were not VATable.

    ” In this circumstance, the tribunal holds that the VAT assessment dated May 17, 2018, in the sum of N29.2 million and the Respondent’s Demand Notice dated July 5, 2018 are hereby discharged, ” The tribunal held.

    The appellant (the bank) had sought the order of the tribunal for the annulment of the FIRS’s assessment or demand notice dated May 17 and July 6, served on it with penalty at 10 per cent and interest at 15 per cent.

    In its defence, FIRS argued that the letter of review and audited accounts were valid and issued in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law.

    It, therefore, asked the tribunal to declare that the VAT demand served on the Bank was valid and made in accordance with the law.

    The respondent further sought for a declaration that the VAT transaction by the appellant outside the main objectives of its business was liable to VAT.

    FIRS further sought for an order compelling the appellant to pay to the respondent the sum of N29. 2 million, being its VAT liability for the period of 2015 to 2016 as contained in the demand letter.

  • Lagos guber: Tribunal dismisses AD, LP petitions challenging Sanwo-Olu’s victory

    Lagos guber: Tribunal dismisses AD, LP petitions challenging Sanwo-Olu’s victory

    The Lagos State Gubernatorial Election Petitions Tribunal sitting at Ikeja, Lagos on Monday dismissed petitions filed by the Alliance for Democracy (AD) and the Labour Party (LP) challenging the victory of Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu at the March 9 polls.

    The tribunal’s chairman, Justice T.T. Asua, in a ruling, dismissed the petitions due to the failure of the petitioners to file applications for pre-hearing conference after the close of pleadings within seven days as prescribed by the law.

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Sanwo-Olu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the INEC Residential Electoral Commissioner were listed as respondents in the petitions.

    Other respondents were the Returning Officer for The Lagos State Governorship Election, the Commissioner of Police and the Army.

    The three-man panel noted that timely application for a pre-hearing conference was a condition to the hearing of the petitions.

    It held that without the application for pre-hearing conferences, the petition cannot begin or get to the stage of judgment.

    The panel also held that Section 285(4) of the Fourth Alteration to the 1999 Constitution was inapplicable because of the timely application for a pre-hearing conference was a precondition in election petition matters.

    According to Justice Asua, the inability of the petitioners to serve any of the respondents was not an excuse and the consequence of failure to apply timely for pre-hearing conference amounted to a dismissal of such a petition.

    Responding to the decision of the tribunal, counsel to the petitioners, Mr. Bola Aidi, thanked the tribunal for a well-considered ruling.

    Sanwo-Olu’s counsel, Mr. Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN), had in a motion filed on May 22, raised an objection based on Paragraph 18(1)(4) of the Electoral Act.

    Owonikoko argued out that the AD and LP had not filed applications hearings for a pre-trial conference within seven-days after the close of pleadings.

    In his response dated May 26, Aidi had said Section 285(8) of the Fourth Alteration of the 1999 Constitution does not permit any electoral petition to be terminated at the interlocutory stages.

    AD and LP gubernatorial candidates, Chief Owolabi Salis and Prof. Ifagbemi Awamaridi, had in their petitions challenged Sanwo-Olu’s victory on the grounds that he is not competent to run as a gubernatorial candidate in the election.

    They had also alleged that the March 9 polls were characterised by violence, voting irregularities and that Sanwo-Olu had no voters card and as such cannot vote or be voted for.

  • [Tribunal]: We don’t have server – INEC replies Atiku, PDP

    *Tribunal reserves ruling in PDP’s application seeking to inspect INEC’s server

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has denied being in possession of the server where results of the February 23 presidential election were uploaded.

    INEC’s position was made known at the ongoing Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal in Abuja challenging the outcome of the election.

    Meanwhile, the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal has reserved its ruling in the application filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its presidential candidate in the February 23 presidential election, Atiku Abubakar, till June 24.

    PDP and its candidate Atiku has earlier moved a motion seeking for access to inspect the server and data of smart card reader used by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in the conduct of the presidential election.

    The chairman of the panel, Justice Mohammed Garba, reserved ruling in the application shortly after counsels in the case argued their briefs in the suit.

    The PDP earlier asked the court to grant the order in the interest of justice; fair hearing and neutrality to enable the petitioners to maintain their petition.

    Responding to the application, counsel to INEC, Yunus Usman asked the tribunal to refuse the request of the petitioners.

    The PDP said we should bring something we don’t have,” Usman told the court.

    In opposing the application, counsel to President Muhammadu Buhari, Wole Olanipekun filed a motion with two exhibits which include an exparte motion filed by the PDP seeking to inspect election materials.

    While exhibit two is the ruling of the appeal court of March 6, 2019, for the application filed by the PDP and asked the tribunal not to grant the application nor overrule itself.

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) through its counsel, Lateef Fagbemi aligned himself in asking the tribunal to dismiss the application of the PDP.

    In urging the tribunal to dismiss the application the court should be wary of making an order which is incapable of being enforced as INEC has said they do not have what the PDP is asking for.

    He adds that there is no concrete material before the tribunal to prove otherwise.

    Tribunal, therefore, adjourned to June 24, for the continuation of the pre-trial hearing.