Tag: Akwa

An  uneasy calm  pervades the atmosphere at Uyo and other parts of Akwa Ibom State  as people are waiting anxiously for the verdict of the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal to be delivered in a few days’ time.

The April 11, election which produced Emmanuel Udoma as the governor from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), is the subject of petition before the Akwa Ibom State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal led by Justice Sadiq Umar sitting in Abuja. Although, the tribunal commenced sitting in Uyo, it had  to be moved to the Federal Capital Territory(FCT)  owing to the unfavourable security atmosphere in the state capital.

Although Nigerian politicians are not known to easily conceeding or accepting defeat even when an election is adjudged transparent, free, fair and credible, the same cannot be said of Akwa Ibom  State, considering what transpired in the state prio to the election and on the election day.

The PDP candidate, Udom, was declared winner in an election alleged to be most controversial in the history of elections in the country. The  election  was allegedly marred with violence,  killings, harassment of voters, hijacking of election materials and unprecedented rigging, making  international and local observers to pass  an unanimous verdict that ‘it was a sham and recommended a complete cancellation of the exercise.

The All Progressives Congress (APC), which is the main opposition, also came out strongly to decry the conduct of the exercise. The party said there was no election in the state as it accused the former governor, Godswill Obot Akpabio, of allegedly deploying state  machineries to rig the election and overturn the popular wish of the people. As a result of this, the APC and its candidate, Umana Okon Umana, challenged the  victory  at the tribunal, seeking a cancellation of the purported election.

The thrust of the petition filed before the tribunal by the petitioners was that elections did not take place in many parts of Akwa Ibom State.  The party alleged in its petition that high level of violence, arson and intimidation were employed by the PDP government  to perfect rigging during the governorship election and stressed that the essence was to prevent voters from exercising their rights. Expectedly, the APC supported its allegations with evidences to prove that the election was not free and fair.

For instance, the petitioners had on April 27, obtained the Certified True Copy of the polling unit by polling unit accreditation data for the whole state from the 3rd respondent Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in Abuja. These were part of the evidences tendered and admitted as Exhibit 317 by the tribunal. The petitioners had contended that whereas Exhibit 317 gave an aggregate figure of 437, 128 of accredited voters, the first respondent announced a phantom figure of 1, 122, 836 votes, which when interpreted amounted  to a differential of 685,708 votes.

During the sitting of the tribunal, the APC called more than  35 witnesses, whose account of alleged election irregularities were  shocking to prove its case. They all recounted before the tribunal how results were announced for many polling units in various local government areas despite the fact that no election took place in such units.

One important submission of the lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), while making his  final submission in support of the petitioners’ final written address, was that, “no election known to law, no election known to mankind, no election known to civilisation was conducted in Akwa Ibom State”.

Many pundits and keen observers of political developments in the state have since described the submission of Olanipekun as a valid summation of the sordid events of April 11, in Akwa Ibom State.

The high points of Umana’s case before the tribunal included  a video evidence, which catalogued a lot of  manipulations, snatching of ballot boxes, thump printing of ballot papers by persons suspected to be PDP members and non-availability of result sheet at many polling units.

For instance, the clips showed in the courtroom revealed some INEC ad hoc staff (Youth Corps members) stamping ballot papers behind INEC office, days after the election while another clip of the video showed a PDP local government chairman presiding over a massive operation of ballot box stuffing using thugs.

Another  clip  showed a police truck and an Akwa Ibom State Transport Corporation bus allegedly used to cart away election materials and intimidate voters, who dispersed in fear for their lives while another clip  showed bandits caught with election materials and interviewed by those, who stopped them.

There were also revelations in the video clips, which allegedly revealed how the spurious figures were tallied and written on forms by purported agents of the PDP.

For instance, a former Deputy Speaker, Hon. Uwem Udoma, told the tribunal that election did not take place in the 125 polling units in Abak Local Government Area.

A  Youth  Corps member, Chidinma Nwogbo, who was posted to the state and served as a presiding officer gave a chilling account of her ordeal in the hands of persons suspected to be thugs working for  the PDP during the election. Chidinma told the tribunal that she was stripped naked by thugs in Uyo while the election materials under her care were carted away by the thugs. She tendered her torn  NYSC crested vest and the jacket given to her by a spirited member of the public.

Obong Victor Attah, a former Governor of the state testified that there was no voting in his unit, ward and local government and went ahead to tender video CD to prove his testimony.

Also testifying before the tribunal, a forensic expert, Abdullahi Dauda disclosed that out of the 140, 832 finger prints on ballot papers matched (scanned and analyzed) by his team, over 100,000 were non- human prints. Abdullahi noted that his team of experts, which carried out the investigation, also discovered about 13, 000 cases of multiple thumb printing.

The non-human prints could possibly have been more as another member of the forensic team, Sanusi, alleged that INEC did not allow them a free access to the election materials. He also alleged that constant incursion by the Attorney-General of the state was another issue his team had to contend with.

Another witness, Chief Peter-King Atarah, testified that there were no election materials in all the polling units in Nsit Atai area of the state contrary to results announced by INEC for the area. The same thing was reported by other witnesses, who testified before the tribunal concerning other areas in the state including  Eastern Obollo, Nsit Ibom, Obot Akana.

In one of the exhibits tendered, it was shown that in Etim Ekpo area of the state, out of the total number of 45922 accredited to vote, 45965 voted, which amounted to manipulation of figures.

Observers expected a sitting governor, such as Udom Emmanuel, to put up a spirited fight to save his “mandate” during the proceedings. But this did not happen. The first respondent and his team of lawyers earlier in the  month only called few witnesses and closed their defense.

For instance, none of the 19 witnesses called by the first respondent, Udom Emmanuel, and the four called by the second respondent, the PDP, was accredited during the election. Although they had claimed in their written statements on oath that they were accredited.

The cross examination by counsels to the petitioners revealed that none of their names was ticked in the voters register. This showed that they were not accredited for the election, which may mean that they were not credible witnesses. In addition the PDP, which is the second respondent,  did not call any of their collation agents to challenge the evidence of the petitioners’ witnesses.

Even the PDP State Collation Agent, Emmanuel Enoidem, who deposed to about 20- paragraph statement on oath and was listed as their prime witness, neglected his statement and was never called as a witness to defend the victory.

The first respondent, Udom Emmanuel, had attempted to deny the existence of the figures of accredited voters  contained in the table in paragraph 29 of the petition in paragraph 13 (a) of his reply to the petition, he, however, led no evidence on it during trial. None of the respondents also made any  effort to contradict the figure in Exhibit 317 nor discharge the evidential burden of proof on them to explain the differential of 685,708. All they did was to argue that Section 49 of the Electoral Act allows for manual accreditation and that the recent Court of Appeal decision in APC v. Agbaje & Ors (unreported) cross-appeal no. CA/L/EP/GOV/751A/2015 negated the petitioners reliance on card reader as a basis for seeking the nullification of the ‘election’.

Other  effort made to protect the  victory of the governor was when the second respondent , the PDP subpoenaed INEC to bring seven big bags allegedly containing Incident Forms, which they said were used for accreditation to the Tribunal. This was never completed as the content of the bags were never tendered throughout the sitting of the tribunal and as at the time the members adjourned to give verdict.  Even when the tribunal  reminded the second respondent that it had not tendered the Incident Forms, it still never did.

For an election to be adjudged free and fair and acceptable in any democracy, certain ingredients  are important and pertinent: mode of accreditation, the pattern of voting, collation, recording on all relevant INEC Forms duly signed by party agents and security officials, sorting and preservation of ballot papers and report of law enforcement agencies among others and where the matter is before a tribunal, the arguments and facts placed before the panel. There must be full adherence to each of these ingredients for there to be an election.

The people of Akwa Ibom deserves change. They deserve truth and justice and with high hope on the members of the tribunal for the preservation of their will as expressed on April 11,  2015. So as the tribunal gradually wind down to judgement day, all eyes are on the panel to do justice when they make their final pronouncement base on the strength of the case presented before them by the parties bearing in mind  that their verdict may  become a reference point in the history of election petitions in the country. Can Umana get justice from the tribunal, only time will tell.