There was an exchange of hot words at the Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Oshogbo, Osun State yesterday as Chief Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN), The leading counsel to Mr. Folorunso Oladoyin Bamisayemi, the Action Congress (AC) House of Assembly candidate in the last April 14,2007 Election told the panelists that they were biased And operating with bizarre procedures.
Apparently unsatisfied with the proceedings, the senior Advocate of Nigeria declared in this tribunal, you are adopting a bizarre procedure. I say it once again that you are adopting a bizarre procedure. If the tribunal says the eye witness should not be sworn in, you are perverting the course of justice. If such has been done, the panel that did something of such should be conscious.
It all began with the objection raised by Otunba Kunle Kalejaye (SAN) counsel to Hon Diran Ayanbeku of the Osun State House of Assembly whose election is being challenged at the tribunal.
Kalejaye had objected to the move by Akeredolu have the tribunal swear the Electoral Officer for Ife South Local Government, Mr. Funso Fabunmi on oath to testify.
Kalejaye’s objection was based on the fact that the witness had no written statement before the tribunal and cited paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 1, b of the Practice Direction which he claimed made it mandatory for all petitions to be accompanied by the witness statement.
The PDP counsel further objected paragraph 4; sub-paragraph 3 of the Practice Direction which also provides that there shall be no oral examination of witness during examination-in-chief rather than the witness to adopt his written deposition.
Interestingly, Messrs F.E Abbey and Idris Shauib, counsels to the Independent National Electoral Commission and the Police aligned themselves with the grounds of Kalejayes’s objection.
In reply, Akeredolu posited that no counsel can object to a witness being sworn on oath but what could be objected is his evidence. He described Kalejayes’s objection and argument as unmeritorious and unfounded in law and told members of the tribunal that “My Lords, I want you to record me very well. I am saying that please record me accurately because we are going beyond this tribunal.
He then explained that fabunmi was a witness of the tribunal because it was the tribunal that issued a subpoena on him. You do not depose to an official witness. He also wondered why the tendering of ballot papers and stumps of used ballot paper as evidence were being objected also. The tribunal however adjourned the petition to December, 2007.
Also last Saturday in Oshogbo the Election Petitions Tribunal refused to admit medical reports tendered by two doctors from Ede in which the Senior Advocate of Nigeria told the tribunal you have ruled in error. He vehemently insisted before the tribunal that its ruling was delivered per incuriea (in error) because the panel did not consider the case of UNIC Insurance versus UCIC Limited reported in volume 3, Nigeria Weekly Law Report, part 193 at page 17 particularly page 25.
In his contention, members of the panel were bounded by the decision of the court of appeal which declared that since the person who brought the document is on subpoena and he is the maker, the document is admissible as an exhibit. According to him, the proper thing about evidence is relevance and reminded the panel that courts generally and the tribunals inclusive have been advised not to sacrifice relevance on the alter of technicalities. The hearing continues this week, so far it has been discovered that massive rigging and irregularities characterize the elections held in Osun state and the results filled with discrepancies.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });