Emerhor V Okowa: Iziyon Saves Agas From Okpoko’s grill

·       Your Objection is without merit, Tribunal tells Emerhor, APC lawyer

The interventions of Dr. Alex Iziyon, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and lead counsel to the first respondent, Dr. Ifeany Okowa, governor of Delta State saved the Secretary to State Government (SSG) Chief Ovie Festus Agas from the grills and combative questions thrown at him by Counsel to Olorogun O’tega Emerhor and the All Progressive Congress (APC), Chief Thomson Okpoko (SAN), on Monday at the resumed hearing of the latter’s petition at the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal in which they are challenging the declaration of Okowa as winner of the April 11, 2015 governorship election in Delta State.

Okpoko had taken on Agas under cross examination, literally firing questions at him which the SSG answered brilliantly and with precision. The cross examination however, came to a head when Okpoko seemingly sought to get Agas to do a comparative analysis of some figures relating to some election report sheets against the number of voters accredited by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the election. In answering one of the questions, Agas stated: “In Exhibit R27, Senator (Dr.) Ifeanyi Okowa scored 724,637 votes and was rightly declared to have won the election.” Again, Chief Okpoko referred Chief Agas to Exhibit P and P1a, and Agas said in response to the question that followed: “In Exhibit P and P1a, the total number of voters which INEC accredited in Delta state that the purported figure in Exhibit P1a reads on the surface 715,392.” Then OKpoko asked that from the two figures whether the number of votes for Okowa is not more than the figures of voters accredited by INEC to vote?

Dr. iziyon rose instantly at this point, objecting to Okpoko’s line of questions, which he said was wrong as the exhibits he tried to make the witness to read were not the witness’ documented evidence deposed to oath.  That the petitioners’ counsel should limit his questions to the evidence deposed to by the witness, and which evidence is before the tribunal. The counsel submitted that if the petitioner’s counsel found usefulness in the INEC documents, he could refer to them in his address to the tribunal. The Tribunal’s Chairman, Justice Nasiru Gunmi sustained the objection and told Agas not to answer the question.

An earlier objection by the petitioners’ Counsel, Chief Okpoko to the use of alphabets and symbols to indicate the names on the deposed statements by Okowa’s witnesses, Mr. Ikechukwu Akozor, from Aboh in Ndokwa East Local Government, and Chief Ovie Festus Agas, both of whom are Okowa’s witnesses was over ruled by the tribunal which held that the use of the symbols were in order as they were in accordance with the Court of Appeal case between Salleh and Abdul against INEC, declaring that the use of the alphabets and symbols is to insulate the witnesses from harm.

Okpoko had argued that what the witnesses said about the use of symbols for security reasons were oral evidence, adding that they should give oral evidence and not be led in evidence-in-chief. “What the statement of evidence has done is alien to the rule of the law of evidence. My learned friend cannot use the alphabet used as witness deposition.

Second, Okpoko submitted that paragraph one that allows letters or initials to be used allows it only at the instance of the petitioner. He then referred the tribunal to section 117 of the Evidence Act. He said: “I submit that this witness is not GE7, and so he cannot adopt an affidavit not deposed to by Mr. Ikechukwu Akazor, the witness now in the witness box.

In his response, Iziyon counsel to Okowa told the tribunal saying: “This objection is a gross misconception in law for the following reasons:

1.       Paragraph one of the of the Election Tribunal and Practice Direction 2010 as amended states clearly that a respondent can use symbols and alphabets. “ It is not only the petitioner that is protected. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

2.       What the petitioners’ lawyers said is very illogical, and it is an affront to logic. The argument is contradictory and bizarre.

On the argument that positions are governed by the Evidence Act, Dr. Iziyon said the Supreme Court resolved this matter in the judgment of Tobi, JSC I 2008, submitting that the intendment of the amendment is to protect the identity of both parties considering that there is real reason to protect all parties including the appellant in that case. “My lords, I ask you to dismiss the objection,” he said.

Mr. Akinlolu Timothy Kehinde (SAN), for the second respondent, PDP, pointed out that the Practice Direction law 2011 was made by the President of the Court of Appeal. “I submit that the practice Direction enjoys constitutional backing”, Kehinde said, and cited the case of Salleh and Abdul V INEC to back up his claim. “It is to insulate the witness from harm, and from being kidnapped,” he argued.

Mr. Damian D. Dodo (SAN) for INEC in his submission said: “If it is not that it is Chief Okpoko for whom we have a great respect, I would have urged the tribunal to dismiss this objection with cost. I urge my lords to overrule this objection.

In its ruling, the tribunal said: “The intendment of the Practice Direction is to hide the identities of the parties. To limit this as canvassed by Chief Okpoko will be unfair and will not be in the interest of justice. The objection of the petitioners is without merit and it is hereby overruled,” the tribunal said.