Delta guber trial: Objections to documents are issues of law, says Iziyon, Kehinde, Dodo

Although the ruling at the Governorship Elections Petition Tribunal in Asaba was against their submissions and averments, but counsels to the three respondents at the on-going Governorship Elections Tribunal I Asaba Delta state, Dr. Alex Iziyon (SAN) for Governor Ifeanyi Okowa, Akinlolu T. Kehinde (SAN) for Peoples Democratic Party and Damian D. Dodo (SAN) for Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) have stood their grounds, insisting on their submissions that documents filed by the petitioner, Chief O’tega Emerhor, the All Progressive Congress (APC) governorship candidate in the April 11, 2015 governorship election did not substantially comply with the provisions of the law in filing the documents.

Raising the first objections, Dr. Iziyon argued that the documents filed by the petitioner had admissibility problem because the document tendered is different from an earlier document listed in the petition. He pointed out that what was listed in the petition and front-loaded is the first document. He identified that document as the one dated April 29, 2015 and listed in the list of unit results of the governorship. “I submit that where what is specifically listed is different what is tendered the same cannot be listed. I rely on Atanda Lawal and others against Magaji 2009,” Iziyon said.

The second objection was the one bordering on certification of document. He pointed out that the document tendered failed to meet the specification of section 84 of the Evidence Act. “The signature has to be in long hand. What is more worrisome, my lord, is that this document has only engraved stamp of somebody’s signature,” Iziyon argued, and cited some court precedents to prove his averment.

In his submission on the matter, Kehinde aligned himself completely with the submissions of Iziyon, pointing out that the second document sought to be tendered is not one to be tendered at this stage. “This document was not listed by the petitioners. It was not filed along with the petitions. It was not even pleaded and so it is irrelevant,” Kehinde said.

He continued: “Furthermore, the second document did not meet the requirement of certification as listed in the Supreme Court.” The Senior Advocate of Nigeria called the tribunal’s attention to 2011 17 NWLR paragraph 122, 1276 at page 240, especially page 262 paragraphs A-B. He argued that parties are bound by their pleadings, and pleadings are meant to be specific as documents to be relied on must be specifically pleaded. “We ask that it be discountenanced,” he said and referred to Agboola v UBA, reported in 2011 11NWLR part 1258 page 375, especially at page 397 paragraph g and h, a Supreme Court case, which says “Parties are bound by their pleadings.”

Kehinde then urged his lordships to reject the two documents, asserting that the first document has not met all the requirements of the law. “We further submit that the first document is not the file copy. I refer to paragraph 14 of the petitioner’s pleading,” he said.

 Dodo, the INEC counsel said: “I fully adopt the objections as canvassed by the first and second respondents because it is an issue of law, and we are bound by the law as decided by the Supreme Court in the Omisore case.”

Chief Thomson Okpoko, (SAN), counsel to the petitioner in his response referred to paragraph 17, 14 and 15 of the petitioner’s reply to the first respondent, and in paragraph 14 of the petitioner’s reply to the reply of the first respondent.  “So, having pleaded these matters, were they overtaken by surprise? There is no way they could have been surprised. In the list, we listed under item three, the April 11, 2015. I submit that they could not be surprised,” he said.

“On the problem of certification, this is under section 104 (2) which state that “the official must state his official title. On the certified true copy , I submit that the certification is not only on one page, but every page is signed with his name,” Chief Okpoko said.

He continued: “The second one is still the same, certified true copy. The certificate itself is certified in the same manner. Both documents satisfied the criteria of the law. On the point that the documents were not listed, I have shown that they were listed. On the contention to front load, this is strictly not necessary. Yusuf Suleiman Lasun v Leo Edejare reported in 2009, 16 NWLR, part 1168, page 513 at page 548. As long as we have raised the issues germane to the petition, any document we have listed is acceptable because the facts that covered the documents relevant to the case have been pleaded. The witness has produced INEC accreditation report, and it is known throughout the pleadings.”

Tribunal Chairman, Justice Nasiru Gunmi ruled that the documents met the specifications of the law, and “are therefore admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit P1A.  

 Answering questions from journalists after the Tuesday sitting, Dr. Iziyon said he was satisfied with what transpired at the tribunal. “Why would I not be satisfied? That is the law. We have raised objections; we are consistent with it. It will be on record. For record purposes let it be there. But that does not detract from the substance of the evidence. Without prejudice to those objections we took the witnesses up and then you saw what transpired.  We cannot go into the merit of that one. The important thing is that the witnesses are giving evidence. You were there, you saw everything,” Iziyon told journalists.

The petitioner, Olorogun O’tega Emerhor, who was in court also on Tuesday told journalists after the day’s sitting that the matter at the tribunal are very technical matters. “I think both sides are showing the arguments, and I have absolute confidence in the ability of the tribunal to dispense justice. I don’t want to say we did very well, I think that the case is going on very well,” he said.

Answering another question, he said: “As the petitioner, of course, I would like to win. We think we have a good case; that is why we brought it to court. And we are hoping, and my lawyers are doing their work. Their lawyers are doing their work. Ultimately, we will live by the judgment that will come.”