Anambra Poll Tribunal rejects video evidence

The Anambra State Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Awka yesterday rejected the video evidence presented by African Independent Television (AIT) during the hearing of the petition filed by Senator Chris Ngige against INEC, Governor Willie Obiano and the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA).

 The AIT was summoned by the Tribunal via a subpoena dated March 6 to give evidence in the case.

But following the objection by Gboyega Awomolo (SAN) representing INEC, that the document could not be admitted in evidence because it had not satisfied Section 84 of the Evidence Act which deals with tendering of electronic evidence, it was not admitted by the Tribunal.

Mr Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN) for Ngige noted that the letter of authority from AIT together with the witness deposition contained in his evidence in chief had satisfied the provision of Section 84,  of the Evidence Act on materials produced with the aid of computers and yet has not contravened Section 258, Subsection 1A of the 2011 Evidence Act.

The Tribunal ruled to reject the video evidence and the AIT reporter, Mr. Vin Martin Ilo, registered as PW19 was discharged.

Another witness Bona Oraekwe identified 939 ‘Forms EC 17’ obtained from INEC  as having been used in the conduct of the elections. 86 Forms EC25A and 90 Forms EC25B,which were promptly admitted. Form EC 17 is the form documenting the oath taken by all INEC staff and adhoc staff involved in the elections, provided by law to be sworn to before engaging in any role in the elections. Form EC25A is the form documenting the receipt of electoral material in the state and local government areas, while ‘Forms EC 25B’ documents the receipt of materials by INEC staff in by INEC Presiding Officers in the Polling Units.

Ngige and his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) are contending in the petition that most of the forms were either written and sworn to on a date after the elections or back-dated, while others contain irregularities. The sitting continues today.

The Enugu Division of the Court of Appeal will today hear arguments in an interlocutory appeal brought before it by Senator Chris Ngige and the All Progressive Congress (APC), asking the appellate court to hold that the Anambra State Election petitions Tribunal sitting in Awka erred in law by failing to uphold the provision of Paragraph 12 Sub Paragraph 5 of the First Schedule of the Electoral Act in its ruling of February 18, 2014.

This is one of the three appeals to be argued today.

The others are seeking an order of the Appeal Court to restore the paragraphs of the petitioners election petition which were struck out by the Tribunal on February 28 as well as  the striking out, by the Tribunal, of some paragraphs of the petitioners reply to the Respondents answer on 5th March 2014.

The Election Tribunal had on February 19 refused in part, an application filed by Ngige and APC requesting that all preliminary objections in the petition should be documented and reserved till the final address. Rather the Tribunal accepted the application with respect to applications seeking to strike out the entire petition for lack of competence, but refused it for application seeking to strike out some paragraphs.

As at the ruling of February 19, there was no application seeking to strike out the entire petition of Ngige and APC,but there were applications  seeking to strike out some paragraphs.

Ngige is querying what he and APC interpreted as discrimination by the Tribunal between full striking out and partial striking out.

The appellants have requested the court to save and restore the paragraphs and order that hearing should be conducted by an impartial panel.

The paragraphs struck out on February 28 and March 5 border on Chief Wille Obiano’s double registration allegations against a notary public who was appointed by INEC to administer oath of neutrality on ad-hoc staff long after the elections, allegations against INEC which pertain to the voter register given on October 16 2013 and November 13, 2014, which the successful application at the Tribunal claimed were pre-election matters.