The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Tribunal

  • Tribunal upholds Bello’s election

    Tribunal upholds Bello’s election

    •Bello hails judgment

    •Faleke heads for Court of Appeal

    The Kogi State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja yesterday dismissed James Faleke’s petition against the victory of Governor Yahaya Bello.

    Faleke challenged Bello’s victory and sought to be declared winner of the election on the ground that his joint ticket with the late Audu Abubakar won the election.

    Delivering judgment, Justice Halima Mohammed held that Faleke’s petition lacked merit, the petitioner having failed to participate in the election to the end.

    The tribunal opined that the initial part of the election, in which Faleke participated as  running mate to the late Abubakar, was inconclusive and did not produce a winner.

    It also held that the All Progressives Congress (APC) was legally empowered to nominate and sponsor a candidate for an election because the Constitution did not recognise an independent candidate.

    It further held that Faleke was without the requisite locus standi (the right to institute a suit in court) to challenge Bello’s victory because “he was never a governorship candidate in the election.”

    Before determining the main petition, the tribunal ruled on the preliminary objection by Bello. It upheld the objection and held that Faleke lacked the legal capacity to file the petition, holding that the November 21 election, which he claimed to have won, was inconclusive as declared by INEC.

    The tribunal held that contrary to Faleke’s contention, the November 21 election was not conclusive and therefore, the right had not accrued to the petitioner to step into the late Audu’s shoes, going by the provision of Section 181(1) and (2) of the Constitution.

    It noted that INEC is the only body charged with the responsibility of declaring an election conclusive or inconclusive.

    The tribunal faulted Faleke’s argument that Bello’s election was invalid as he contested the December 6 poll without a running mate.

    It held that contrary to Faleke’s argument, he remained the deputy governorship candidate in the December 6 supplementary poll, having failed to withdraw his candidacy as the running mate in the manner stipulated by law.

    It noted that rather than send his withdrawal letter to his party, Faleke erroneously sent the letter to INEC.

    The tribunal will today, deliver judgment in the petition by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Idris Wada, who is also seeking to unseat Bello.

    Governor Yahaya Bello has hailed the judgment, describing his victory as divine.

    He noted that the decision has further justified his election, saying the victory belongs to the people, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and all lovers of democracy.

    Addressing reporters in Lokoja, the governor said: “Today, being the first day of the holy month of Ramadan was a confirmation that this divine mandate is from Almighty Allah.

    “Anything from God is good and since this mandate is from Almighty Allah, I have no doubt in my mind that it is a victory for the party and for us.”

    He described Faleke as his brother, saying it was not possible to have an opponent within the party.

    “This judgment is between me and my brother, James Faleke; Faleke is not my opponent, we belong to the same party. It is just an explanation that he sought from the court and the court has explained to him so.

    “He is my brother and so he should join me to make Kogi better.”

    Bello said he held no grudge against any party who had approached the court to seek redress, saying that as a democrat, he will always respect the rights of the citizens.

    Faleke: verdict not in tune with Constitution

    Faleke has disowned the judgment. He said he would proceed to the Appeal Court for further actions.“I watched the verdict of the tribunal and one thing I can say is that, the judges have delivered their own judgment, I will consult my lawyers, upon which I am very certain that we will appeal the judgment.
    “I am not a lawyer, but I can say that the judgment is not in tune with our Constitution.
    “We will consult our lawyers and I can conveniently tell you that we will appeal. We are still on course, victory will be ours at the end,” he said.

  • Tribunal strikes out suit against Dickson

    Tribunal strikes out suit against Dickson

    THE Election Petitions Tribunal in Nyanya, Abuja, has struck out a suit by the Action Alliance (AA), challenging the election of Governor Seriake Dickson in the Bayelsa State governorship polls.

    This is yet another setback for the opposition parties challenging Dickson’s election.

    The case, which was dismissed because it was  wrongly filed, suffered the same fate at the Federal High Court in Abuja, with Justice Ademola presiding.

    The tribunal held that the petitioners, whom Mr A. O. Madabuchi stood for, were not authentic members of the Action Alliance, who were seeking the nullification of the election, which produced Dickson.

    Besides the no-right-to-file argument, which worked against the interest of the first petitioner, reports said the decision to dismiss the suit was further strengthened when a counter-petition was filed by the real leaders of the party, led by their counsel, Malachy Nwenkpe.

    Also, the legal team of Governor Dickson, led by Mr Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), inspected the ballot materials supposedly used for the election in Brass Local Government.

    This development followed the granting of Dickson’s prayers to inspect materials used in Brass.

    The poll was said to have been characterised by violence, intimidation and snatching of ballot boxes in the council.

     

     

  • Kogi poll: Tribunal defers verdict in Faleke’s suit

    Kogi poll: Tribunal defers verdict in Faleke’s suit

    The Kogi State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal has reserved judgment in a suit by James Faleke, the petitioner in the disputed Kogi State governorship election, against the declaration of Yahaya Bello as governor.

    The tribunal Chairman, Justice Halima Muhammad, at a sitting in Abuja, over the weekend, said the date would be communicated to parties.

    Bello was declared winner by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), following last December 5 supplementary election.

    Counsel to Faleke at the sitting Wole Olanipekun (SAN) asserted that INEC plotted a coup against the constitution by declaring Bello governor.

    He told the tribunal that his client was the rightful person for the governorship seat.

    “What INEC did in Kogi State on November 22, 2015, by substituting a stranger (Bello) for a substantive candidate (Faleke) in an election already concluded is a coup against the Constitution.”

    The senior lawyer cited sections 179(2) and 181(1) of the constitution to buttress his submission that for INEC to declare the election inconclusive was a coup against the constitution.

    Olanipekun said: “Section179 ( 2a & b ) states that ‘a candidate for an election to the Office of Governor of a state shall be deemed to have been duly elected, where there being two or more candidates(a) he has the highest number of votes cast at the election; and ( b ) he has not less than one quarter of all the votes cast in each of at least two thirds of all the local government  areas of the states, while section 181(1) states that ‘if a person duly elected as governor dies before taking and subscribing to the oath of allegiance and oath of office, or is unable for any reason whatsoever to be sworn in, the person elected with him as deputy governor shall be sworn in as governor and he shall nominate a new deputy governor, who shall be appointed by the governor with the approval of a simple majority of the House of Assembly of the state”.

    Olanipekun emphasised the supremacy of the constitution, saying: “My Lord, the spirit and letters of the constitution is self executory and like the rock of Gibraltar that cannot be moved. Indeed no single word in the constitution is a waste. So, INEC has no discretion with regards to sections 179 and 181 at all”.

    On whether the petitioner, Faleke has a locus standi to approach the tribunal, he submitted that the petitioner indeed was a candidate who has the locus in view of Section 187 of the constitution.

    He referred to the case of CPC vs INEC where the then President Umaru Yar’Adua and his deputy, Goodluck Jonathan, were sued, adding that if Jonathan as vice president was not a candidate, he would not have been joined in the suit.

    He urged the tribunal to discountenance the argument of the respondents that votes in an election belonged to political parties and not candidates.

    Citing a Supreme Court ruling, the senior lawyer said: “Parties only sponsor candidates but candidates stand for elections.  The law has moved from the era of Amaechi (former Rivers State governor). We are now in a new testament”, he stated.

    He said: “I urged this tribunal to forget about the grammar being spoken by these respondents and face the fact that this petition has not been resisted by the 1st and 2nd respondents, INEC and Bello.

    “The petitioner has a locus standi.

    “I agree that this kind of issue has never happened before, but this is a coup set up by the 1st respondent.

    “This is also the first time in the history of democracy where someone will contest without a running mate.”

    The petitioner’s counsel also told the tribunal that the 2nd respondent, Bello, was not a registered voter in the state, which he said was against the  constitution.

    Alex Izinyon (SAN), counsel to INEC, urged the tribunal to dismiss Faleke’s petition for lacking in merit.

    According to Izinyon, the case of INEC was straightforward and that Section 33 of the Electoral Act brought in the 2nd respondent as governor by circumstances.

    He said one of the substances of the petitioner, which bothers on qualification, “does not even have any meaning when you look at the merit of the matter.

    “The petitioner doesn’t have the right to hinge on qualification being a member of the same party with the 2nd respondent; if an outsider is not saying this, why should he who happened to be in the same party with the respondent say it?

    “The other side where the petitioner said the 2nd respondent does not have deputy does not also make meaning.”

    Joseph Daudu (SAN), Bello’s counsel, told the tribunal that he was surprised that the party was not joined as co-respondent in the suit by the petitioner.

    Daudu told the tribunal that the votes cast during the November 21 election did not belong to the candidate, but to the party.

    He added: “This case is not in any jurisprudence of the Electoral Act because it is happening for the first time where the first runner died before the conclusion of the election.

    “This tribunal will be making history in given direction to the lacuna that has never happened before.

    “Section 188 cited by the petitioner would have come in place if the election has been declared in the first instance. Therefore, we urged the lordship to dismiss this petition for lacking in merit.”

     

  • APC slams Fayose’s opposition to electoral crimes tribunal

    APC slams Fayose’s opposition to electoral crimes tribunal

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) in Ekiti State has slammed Governor Ayo Fayose for his opposition to the establishment of Electoral Crimes Tribunal to punish individuals, who participate in violence and electoral malpractices.

    Last week,  the governor criticised the proposal by the Independent National Election Commission (INEC) to establish election crimes tribunal to try individuals involved in fraudulent practices and violence during elections.

    INEC’s call followed cases of violence resulting in killings during elections, saying that the establishment of election crimes court would curb the trend.

    Fayose objected to the proposal, saying that it was a ploy by the Federal Government to appoint cronies into such courts to manipulate the judges to give favourable judgment to the ruling party.

    The governor also alleged that the Federal Government would manipulate the federal institutions, such as the police, army, DSS and INEC officials to implicate members of the opposition in such election crimes courts.

    Reacting to his reported outburst, the APC said the governor was afraid of his own shadow by the way the federal institutions he listed were manipulated to help him win the June 21, 2014 governorship election.

    Olatunbosun said: “We are not surprised that Fayose is afraid of election crimes court because he knows how he emerged as the governor. He is afraid to face the court because he can never win any election without committing fraud and attacking the opposition.”

     

  • What I seek from tribunal, by Faleke

    What I seek from tribunal, by Faleke

    A former deputy governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in last November 21 election in Kogi State, James Faleke, has sent a list of basic issues for the state Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, sitting in Abuja, to determine.

    The politician filed his petition on the controversy surrounding the election and APC’s governorship candidates.

    Faleke was the running mate to Prince Abubakar Audu, who died shortly after casting his ballot.

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared the poll inconclusive and Alhaji Yahaya Bello was elected governor, following his nomination by APC’s leadership to replace the late Audu.

    Faleke faulted the move, refusing to become Bello’s deputy governorship candidate.

    The politician is among the petitioners urging the tribunal, which is rounding off its pre-hearing session, to determine the circumstances surrounding the election and the major candidates.

    In a petition he copied to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the first respondent and Bello (second respondent), Faleke urged the tribunal to “determine whether, upon a careful reading and application of the clear provisions of sections 1(2), 179(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria” among others, the INEC should have declared the election inconclusive instead of announcing Audu and Faleke the winners.

    Section 179 (2a and b) of the Constitution states as follows: “A candidate for an election to the office of governor of a state shall be deemed to have been elected where, there being two or more candidates -(a) he has the highest number of votes cast at the election; and (b) he has not less than one quarter of all the votes cast in each of at least two-thirds of all the local government areas of the state.”

    But Section 187 (1) of the Constitution says: “In any election to which the foregoing provisions of this part of the chapter relate, a candidate for the office of the governor of a state shall not be deemed to have been validly nominated for such office unless he nominates another candidate as his associate for his running for the office of governor, who is to occupy the office of the deputy governor, and that candidate shall be deemed to have been duly elected to the office of the deputy governor, if the candidate who nominated him is duly elected as governor in accordance with the said provisions.”

    Faleke urged the tribunal to also determine whether or not Section 181 (1) of the Constitution was not relevant to the Kogi scenario, where the candidate died after the election.

    The Section reads: “If a person duly elected as governor dies before taking and subscribing to Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office or is unable for any reason whatsoever to be sworn in, the person elected with him as deputy governor shall be sworn in as governor and he shall nominate a new deputy governor who shall be appointed by the governor with the approval of a simple majority of the House of Assembly of the state.”

    Faleke urged the tribunal to also determine whether or not by virtues of sections 1 (2), 179 (2) of the Constitution and sections 27, 69, and 75 of the Electoral Act 2011(as Amended), the results declared by INEC on November 22, last year, had not already produced a winner and that refusing to announce the winner by “declaring the said election inconclusive is not altogether unconstitutional and illegal”.

    He urged the tribunal to rely on Section 187 (1) of the Constitution to determine whether or not Bello was qualified to contest an election to the office of the governor of Kogi State on December 5, last year. The petition added: “Can the votes legitimately cast for the joint ticket of the late Prince Audu and the petitioner (Faleke) in the governorship election of November 21, 2015, be transferred to the second respondent (Bello)?”

    He also urged the tribunal to determine whether or not Bello “can constitutionally and statutorily assume office as governor of Kogi State pursuant to a supplementary election conducted in 91 polling units …on December 5, 2015”.

    Faleke urged the tribunal to determine whether or not INEC’s return of Bello as governor of Kogi State on or about December 5, last year, was not “altogether unconstitutional, illegal, null and void”.

    He said it was necessary for the tribunal to determine whether or not Bello, being an unregistered voter in Kogi State, was qualified to vote and be voted for and that notwithstanding the provisions of Section 187 (1) of the Constitution, he (Bello) was qualified to be declared winner of the December 5, last year’s election, even when he ran without a deputy.

    INEC announced that Prince Audu and Faleke got 241,000 votes in the November 21, 2015 governorship election in Kogi State, beating their closest rivals, Captain Idris Wada and Yomi Awoniyi of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), who polled 199,000 votes.

  • How Saraki looted Kwara – EFCC, CCB

    How Saraki looted Kwara – EFCC, CCB

    The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) yesterday gave a low-down  on how Senate President Bukola Saraki allegedly looted Kwara State during his tenure  as governor between 2003 and 2011.

    The CCB and EFCC in a joint response to the claim by Saraki that his ongoing trial by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) was a witch-hunt, told  of how Saraki allegedly amassed  properties in Lagos, Abuja and London, using Kwara State funds.

    The agencies also detailed how Saraki allegedly siphoned public  funds through  Guaranty Trust Bank (GTB) Plc  into his personal foreign account, and with which he procured a property in London.

    The joint response by the CCT and EFCC is contained in the counter-affidavit filed by the prosecution in the trial of Saraki on charges of false assets declaration.

    Saraki had, in a fresh motion filed by his new lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN), queried the competence of the charge against him and  the jurisdiction of the CCT on the case claiming that  he was not accorded fair hearing by the CCB before he was charged with alleged  discrepancies in his asset declaration forms.

    He queried the timing, arguing that most of the offences were allegedly committed about 15 years ago, while he was governor and that he was not confronted with the discrepancies as required under the Constitution, to enable him either agree or deny the discrepancies.

    However, prosecution lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), armed with the EFCC/CCB counter-affidavit, urged the court to dismiss Saraki’s fresh motion on the ground that it constituted an abuse of court process.

    An official of the CCB, Peter Danladi, stated in the counter-affidavit that the investigation of the various petitions of corruption, theft, money laundering, among others, against Saraki in 2010, was conducted jointly by the officials of the EFCC, CCB and the DSS.

    “The EFCC conducted its investigation on the various petitions and made findings which showed that the defendant/applicant abused his office, while he was the governor of Kwara State and was involved in various acts of corruption as the governor of the state.

    “The defendant/applicant borrowed huge sums of money running into billions from commercial banks, particularly Guaranty Trust Bank, and used the proceeds of the loan to acquire several landed properties in Lagos, Abuja and London, while he was the governor of Kwara State.

    “As against the defendant using his own legitimate income to defray the loan, he took public funds, running into billions from Kwara State Governemnt and lodged same in several tranches and in cash into his GTB account in GRA (Government Reservation Area), Ilorin, Kwara State.

    “The defendant/applicant’s account officer in GTB confirmed that the defendant/applicant gave him several cash in the Government House to lodge into the account and on some occasions, the defendant sent his aides from the Government House to give him the cash for lodgement into his account.

    “When the EFCC submitted its report to its legal department and the Federal Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Justice formed the opinion that the offences revealed from the investigation, particularly as they relate to  the properties acquired by the defendant/applicant, while he was governor of Kwara State and various monies sent into  his various accounts outside Nigeria can be better handled through the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).

    “The office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) then sent the findings and the evidence gathered during investigation by the EFCC as a complaint to the Code of Conduct Bureau for investigation and that the operatives of the EFCC would collaborate with the officers of the CCB for effective investigation.

    “Our investigation on the CCB Assets Declaration Forms for public officers filed by the defendant/respondent revealed the following:

    “The landed property listed as No.42 Gerald Road, Ikoyi was visited by Mr. Ikechi Iwuagwu (Deputy Director, CCB), Miss. Geraldine Longsten (DSS) and Adamu Garba (EFCC) sometime in 2006 and discovered that the property was under construction.

    “Contrary to the declaration by the defendant that he was earning an annual income of N110,000,000 from No.42 Gerald Road, Ikoyi, Lagos, there were no tenants in the property as same was an empty land as at the time of the declaration.

    “Contrary to the declaration by the defendant that he owned 15A and 15B McDonald, Ikoyi, Lagos as at the time of the declaration in 2003, our investigation revealed that the said properties were acquired in 2006 from the Implementation Committee on Federal Government Landed properties through his companies called Tiny Tee Limited and Vitti Oil Limited wherein he paid the sum of N396,150,000 to the Federal Government of Nigeria.

    “The defendant made an anticipatory declaration for the said 15A and 15B, Ikoyi, Lagos. The defendant acquired the properties in the name of two companies because he could not buy two Federal Government properties in his personal name.

    “The defendant bidded for and acquired 17, 17A and 17B McDonald, Ikoyi, Lagos from the Implementation Committee on Federal Government Landed Property and paid an aggregate sum of N497,200,000 to the Federal Government between October 2006 and 2007.

    “A scrutiny of the defendant’s  salary account with the Intercontinental Bank (now Access Bank)  account No: 0100857813 reveals that his monthly take home salary as at the time he acquired the property was not  more than N500,000 and the defendant acquired properties far in excess of his income.

    “While the Federal Government was selling its properties, the Central Bank of Nigeria, being an agency of the Federal Government sold plot 2A, Glover Road, Ikoyi, Lagos for N325,000,000 between 2007 and 2008 to the defendant, which the defendant purchased through his company called Carlisle Properties when he was the governor of Kwara State,” Danladi said.

    He added that further investigation by the CCB  revealed that Saraki also acquired a property at Plot 2A  Glover Road, Ikoyi, Lagos through Carlisle Properties Limited, while he was governor of Kwara state and that he has been receiving rent from the property.

    Danladi said investigation on the asset declaration forms submitted by Saraki between 2003 and 2011 revealed that he failed to declare his interest in Plot 2A Glover Road, Ikoyi, Lagos ( in his 2011 asset declaration form); No: 1 Targus Street, Maitama, Abuja otherwise known as 2482 Cadastral Zone A06, which he claimed he acquired in November 1996 from one David Baba Akawu (in his assets declaration form of 2003).

    Saraki was also said to have failed to declare his ownership of No: 3 Targus Street, Maitama, Abuja, otherwise known as 2481 Cadastral Zone A06, Abuja which he acquired from one Alhaji Attahiru Adamu in his asset declaration form (of June 3, 2011) and No: 42, Remi Fani-Kayode Street, Ikeja,  Lagos, which he acquired through his company, Skyview Properties Limited, from First Finance Trust Limited on December 12, 1996.

    “The defendant has a domiciliary account with GTB Plc in Nigeria with account No: 441441953210 from where he made various cash transfers totalling 3.4million US dollar between 2009 and 2012 to American Express Service Europe Limited with account No: 730580 maintained with the American Express Bank, New York and the various sums were transferred into the defendant’s card account No: 374588216836009 maintained by the defendant outside Nigeria.

    “Sometime in February 2010, the defendant obtained a loan of N375,000,000 from GTB Plc in Nigeria, which he converted into 1,516,194.53 Pounds Sterling and gave instructions to the bank to transfer the entire sum to the United Kingdom in favour of Forts Bank SA/NV the purpose of which the defendant stated to be the full and final payment of mortgage redemption for the property he purchased in London,” Danladi said.

    Arguing Saraki’s motion earlier, Agabi said  that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the charges on, among other grounds, that the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice lacked the power to file charges before the tribunal.

    He also argued that the failure of the Code of Conduct Bureau to invite Saraki to confront him with the breaches in his assets declaration form was fatal to the validity of the charges.

    On the contention that his client was not accorded fair hearing by the CCB, Agabi argued that compliance with Paragraph 3(d) to the 5th Schedule to the Constitution must be complied with where issues of breach is raised.

    He said that by failing to first invite his client and confront him with the alleged discrepancies in his asset declaration, as required under Paragraph 3(d), before charging Saraki before the CCT, the condition precedent was not complied with, thereby denying the tribunal the requisite jurisdiction.

    Agabi argued that the tribunal had struck out a case against former Lagos State governor, Bola Tinubu, on the same ground of non-compliance with the provision of Paragraph 3(d). He urged the court to be guided by its decision in the Tinubu case and strike out the charge against his client.

    Responding, Jacobs argued that that submission by Agabi was based on an old provision of the Constitution. He said the Paragraph 3(d) provision referred to by Agabi existed in the 1979 Constitution, which no longer exists in the 1999 Constitution.

    His words: “In 1999 Constitution, the Paragraph 3(d) was removed so that the CCB and CCT can function maximally.

    “They cannot use old law to defeat new provisions. In the Tinubu case, the tribunal found that it was  misled into giving the decision it gave. The tribunal cannot commit the same error again.

    “Assets Declaration is an oath. You go before a High Court to endorse the asset declaration form. It’s like an oath. The consequence of lying is criminal. It is like the law of perjury.”

    Jacobs described  Agabi’s argument as embarrassing and self-serving.

    Jacobs, who once served as an aide to Agabi while he was the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), wondered why his former principal would  now argue against the power to initiate proceedings before the CCT.

    “On their argument that the AGF cannot initiate proceedings before this tribunal, we are saying that issue, which is their No. 2 is embarrassing. They had earlier argued, up to the Supreme Court, that it is only the AGF that can initiate cases here. They dragged that case before the Supreme Court and lost. Then they have come back here to now argue the opposite, that the AGF cannot initiate a case before the CCT.

    “Fortunately for me, I served with the lead defence lawyer (Agabi) as Special Assistant (SA) when he was the AGF. He signed several charges, which I prosecuted before this tribunal on his behalf. Some of these cases included those involving former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Jeremiah Useni,  former Plateau State governor, Joshua Dariye, among others.

    “He did not only sign those charges, I represented him. Having benefited and utilised those law, can he now come back to condemn the law? That is embarrassing. And it should not be accepted. The same AGF, who worked with that provision of the Constitution, cannot now argue that the EFCC cannot liaise with the CCB in investigating cases,” Jacobs insisted.

    Jacobs argued that the fresh motion by Saraki was an abuse of court process because he had raised similar issues and sought the same reliefs in about four other motions he filed before different courts in the country.

    He cited the cases marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/775/15, FHC/ABJ/CS/905/15 and FHC/ABJ/CS/1507/15 already filed by Saraki in attempt to frustrate his trial before the CCT.

    CCT Chairman, Danladi Umar, adjourned to March 24 for ruling and possible commencement of trial.

  • Faleke urges tribunal to declare him governor

    Faleke urges tribunal to declare him governor

    The running mate to the late Prince Abubakar Audu in last year’s governorship election in Kogi State, Mr. James Abiodun Falake, has urged the Election Petition Tribunal to declare him governor.

    He spoke yesterday in Abuja while being led in evidence by his counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN).

    Faleke said: “I confirm to all the documents tendered this morning to be the ones I refer to in my petition.

    “I will like to adopt the documents in my witness statement on oath and as my evidence in the petition.

    “I want the tribunal to accept my petition and grant my reliefs as stated in Paragraph 27 of my witness statement on oath and declare me winner.”

    When asked during cross-examination by the counsel to the first respondent, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), if he was still a member of the All Progressives Congress (APC), he said ‘yes.’

    Faleke said: “I am not aware that the second respondent, Governor Yahaya Bello, is a member of the APC. All I know is that the second respondent campaigned and worked for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    “I was also not an aspirant at the primary election, but one of the conditions Audu picked me as his running mate was because I am a member of the APC.”

    He told the tribunal that he did not know any of the candidates who contested with the late Audu.

    Faleke said: “I did not see the result of the primary election because I left the venue, but the next information I heard is that the late Audu won the primary and I was chosen as the running mate.”

    He told the tribunal that the result of the election, which he said he co-won with Audu, was declared in each polling unit and each of the ward’s collation centre.

    Faleke said the death of Audu had nothing to do with the inconclusiveness of the election and that they had won.

    He said he knew they had won the November 21, 2015, governorship election and that was why he did not participate in the December 5 poll.

     

  • Onjeh takes Mark to tribunal

    Onjeh takes Mark to tribunal

    The senatorial candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the February 20 rerun in Benue South, Daniel Onjeh, has filed a petition at the Election Petitions Tribunal in Makurdi.

    He is praying to be declared the winner of the poll.

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Senator David Mark of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) winner of the election with a margin of more than 12,000 votes.

    Onjeh, who addressed reporters after filing the petition, said the Certified True Copy of the result declaration sheets obtained from INEC showed irregularities and non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).

    He said: “We have filed a petition with the hope that justice will be done and we will be declared winner.”

    Onjeh said the results in his strongholds were either cancelled or rejected without any reason.

  • Tribunal fixes dates for pre-hearing in Kogi petitions

    Tribunal fixes dates for pre-hearing in Kogi petitions

    The Kogi State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal has fixed dates for pre-hearing sessions in the six petitions by parties challenging the governorship election.

    The Justice Halima Mohammed three-man panel adopted dates for the petitions, following agreement by lawyers representing the parties.

    The tribunal, at the last date, adjourned till yesterday for pre-hearing sessions, but rescheduled the sessions for later dates because of the late filing of processes by parties.

    As of yesterday, some parties were yet to put in their processes.

    Upon agreements by lawyers in the petitions, including Wole Olanipekun (representing James Faleke), Alex Iziyon (for Independent National Electoral Commission), Mahmud Magaji (for Yahaya Bello), Chris Uche (Idris Wada and Peoples Democratic Party-PDP), among others, agreed to ensure that the processes were filed before the next dates.

    The first petition mentioned yesterday was the one by Faleke against INEC and Bello. Faleke, who ran as running mate to the late governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Abubakar Audu, is seeking to be declared winner of the election.

    The second petition was filed by Idris Wada (ex-governor), his deputy, Yomi Awoniyi and their party, the PDP against Bello, APC and INEC. It is fixed for March 4.

    The third and fourth petitions by the Progressives Peoples Alliance (PPA) and Labour Party (LP) were fixed for March 9, while those by Usman Zainab and her party, the African Development Party (ADP), and Akwu Umar Goodman of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) were fixed for March 11.

     

  • Judicial competence of Code of Conduct Tribunal

    The judicial competence of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal) is the dignity, which a tribunal has by a power created by a statute to do justice in causes of complaints made before him. The tribunal has the power to hear and determine cases before it as well as make necessary orders and judgment against the parties before it. The earliest case on the jurisdiction of the code of conduct tribunal was in Nwankwo v Nwankwo  (1995) 30 LRCN  where it was reiterated that the jurisdiction in respect of the assets declaration or matters affecting public officers in their official conduct is on the tribunal.

    A non-public officer is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. What determines whether the code of conduct tribunal has jurisdiction is the fact that the accused is a public officer and that the mental element of commission or omission has to do with the code of conduct of public officers and not narrowly assets declaration. In the case of Ahmed v Ahmed (2013) 15 NWLR (pt. 1377) 274 the Supreme Court held that it is the tribunal that has the power over a breach of the code of conduct for public officers. The Tribunal has a narrow jurisdiction over corruption and wide powers over misconduct of a public officer. Justice Karibe-Whyte A.G (rtd) in his recent publication in a national daily, asserted that the jurisdiction of the tribunal is confined and limited to the conduct clearly outlined in paragraphs 1-13 of the 5th Schedule of the 1999 Constitution. This covers breach of the code, misconduct, failure to declare assets or false declaration or allied matters involving public officers’ immorality.

    The tribunal is a court vested with specific duties by the Constitution and has powers of superior courts of records, but its specific and statutory jurisdiction is to matters which the National Assembly has legislated upon. The judge of the tribunal has an effective jurisdiction in exercising limited judicial powers in areas stated in the enabling legislation establishing the tribunal. Where there are serious questions regarding the interpretation and application of the Constitution as against identified provisions of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, the applicant can approach the Federal High Court.  The unlimited jurisdiction of the Federal High Court envelopes the interpretation of the constitutionality or otherwise of the codes stated in the 5th Schedule of the Constitution.

    The Bureau to the exclusion of other government agencies has the power to refer an allegation that a public officer has contravened the code of conduct for public officers to the tribunal. Where a tribunal finds a public officer guilty of contravention of any of the provisions of the code, the tribunal shall impose upon that officer any of the punishment specified in par 18(2) of the 5th Schedule 1999 Constitution and such other punishment as may be prescribed by the National Assembly. The powers given to the tribunal to order public officers to vacate office, disqualification from office cum forfeiture of ill -gotten property is intended not to really punish, but to discipline and to keep public life clear for public good. In Ogbuagu v Ogbuagu (1981) 2 NCLR 680 the court stated that by paragraph 18 of the fifth schedule of the 19f99 constitution the code of conduct tribunal or a regular court has the power to sanction a public officer by disqualifying him from holding public office for a period not exceeding 10 years.  On the conjunctive construction of s. 36 (1) (5) and 66(1) of the 1999 constitution is ban anyone convicted and sentenced for an offence involving dishonesty, fraud, contravention of the code, embezzlement, by a tribunal of inquiry, or a court of law from public office for ten years. For a public officer to be disqualified on the aforementioned ground, he must have been found guilty either by a regular court of law or a tribunal and not an administrative body. See Omoware v Omisore (2010)3 NWLR (Pt.1180).

    Abuse of power has assumed both national and international priorities. This is accounted for by the profligates that we have at the wheel of governance in the name of public officers today. The code of conduct for public officers annexed to the Constitution generally spells out how a country intends to conveniently reduce graft and enhance integrity in its public service. This is a broader effort to fighting graft and raising service commitment in its network of public service than merely focusing on inculcating good values.  It is no news that the pulling force of citizens to appointive or elective offices is spurred by an endless and mindless cash kitting. Hardly a day passes without some new and shocking evidence emerging that corruption is alive and well in public service. In Nigeria, some public officers are proud to hear of their complicity in graft and the resulting hatred of the people, which they wear like a badge and some lie low afterwards to rise later as soon as memory is presumed faded. So the Act in his magnanimity presumes all public officers to be the looters of the national treasury unless the contrary is proved. See sec.15 (3) of the Act and Section 167 (A) of the Evidence Act 2011.

    The constitutionality of burden of proof on the accused is a mixed canvass of virtue and villain. There is a school of thought that believes that the onus of proof placed on the accused by the Act is unconstitutional and so the section should be struck down. A leading jurist of that school of thought is Adolpus Godwin Karibe-Whyte. He argues that the proof of guilt on the accused is unconstitutional being odd with the requirement of section 36 (5) of the constitution. Though the presumption of innocence of an accused is sacrosanct in any offence under Nigeria laws, yet those who disregard the oath of office have the onus to prove to be fit to continue to discharge the trust reposed on them,  the accused persons as long as they remain guilty need equal protection as other victims of crime or other accuser of its status. Under the Act, civil proof of probability to rebut allegation of abuse of office or failure to declare assets is allowed to prove that the property or assets acquired was not in contravention of the code. See sec.15 (3) of the Act. Where a public officer asserts that he complied substantially with the code of conduct, he has the evidential burden of proving same. The tribunal takes judicial notice (Section 122 (2) of the Evidence Act.) of the effortless confetti of guilt worn around by public officers.

    There are two distinct and frequently confused meaning of burden of proof. As regards the burden of proof in this Act, for the accused to discharge the onus recourse will be made to the substance of the offence. A public officer charged with offences relating to failure to declare his assets cannot be prevented from disputing the incorrectness by offering evidence like assets declaration form. Arguably, where failure to declare assets is used in the charges, the mens rea of the offences charged is embedded and disclosed therein. This burden of proof enunciated by the Act should be discharged as soon as the accused introduces acceptable evidence showing a balance of assets and income and reasonable compliance with the code of the conduct for public officers.  Where the accused is charged with illegal accumulation, the items’ constituting the offence is peculiarly within the knowledge of the prosecution and the burden of proving same lies on him. In considering the amount of knowledge necessary to shift the burden of proof, regards shall be made to the opportunity of knowledge with respect to the facts to be proved. See section 136 (2) of the Evidence Act (as amended) 2011).

    •To be continued next week