The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Tribunal

  • Alleged N15m bribe: Tribunal ends trial without Gaidam’s ADC’s testimony

    •Fixes Sept 22 for adoption of final written addresses

    The Yobe State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal has concluded its trial in the petition challenging the declaration of Ibrahim Gaidam as winner in the April 11 election.

    The tribunal ended the trial on Friday without the testimony of the governor’s Aide-de-Camp Zakari Deba, an Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP), accused of paying N15 million into the bank accounts of the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC), Abu Zarma.

    As was the case with Zarma on Thursday, Deba, whose lawyer, Titus Ashaolu (SAN), told the tribunal that his client was ready to present his case and testify, failed to attend the proceedings.

    Deba and Zarma are named as the fourth and fifth respondents in the petition filed by the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the last governorship election, Adamu Waziri and his party. Other respondents are: Gaidam, his party – the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    Waziri and the PDP alleged, among others, that Gaidam, in a bid to compromise the REC, made Deba to pay N15 milling into Zarma’s two accounts with two prominent banks.

    Ashaolu, on Thursday, told the tribunal that his client was on his way to Abuja, praying that proceedings be shifted till Friday.

    But, on Friday, many of those hoping to hear details of how and why the alleged payment was made, were disappointed when Ashaolu announced that his client was no longer willing to testify.

    He said: “We met with our client yesterday (Thursday) and, having perused the evidence on record, led by the petitioners and the 1st and 2nd respondents (Governor Gaidam and PDP), we discovered that there is no cause of action against the fifth respondent (Deba) to warrant him being put in the witness box.

    “Earlier, we had raised a preliminary objection, which we will further amplify in our written address, to the extent that this tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the fifth respondent and that all actions alleged against the fifth respondent do not affect the conduct of the election. We are closing our case.”

    Zarma’s lawyer, Abeny Mohammed (SAN), on Thursay, gave a similar excuse for his client’s absence.

    Mohammed said: “The short adjournment afforded me the opportunity to review and evaluate evidence adduced to by the petitioners. Our conclusion is that we are not calling any witness but to rest our case on the case of the petitioner. I, therefore, close the case of the third and fourth respondents (Zarma and INEC) in this petition.”

    In the course of the trial, the petitioners called officials of the banks and an investigator with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), who testified on the transaction and confirmed the payment.

    “We recommended that Deba and Kukawa be prosecuted for attempting to bribe Zarma,” Odofin said.

    On Friday, after Asaholu closed his client’s case, the tribunal Chairman, Justice Mojisola Dada announced the end of trial in the petition. She gave the respondents seven days, within which to file and serve their final written addresses; the petitioners, seven days to file their reply addresses, and extra three days for the respondents to reply on point of law.

    She adjourned till September 22 for the parties to adopt their final written addresses, following which a date will be chosen for the judgment.

  • Adeyemi vs Dino : Tribunal fixes Sept. 8 for hearing

    Adeyemi vs Dino : Tribunal fixes Sept. 8 for hearing

    The election petition tribunal sitting in Lokoja on Saturday fixed Sept. 8, for the hearing of a petition filed by Sen. Smart Adeyemi against the election of Sen. Dino Melaye.

    The Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Akon Ikpeme fixed the date while closing pre-hearing in the petition challenging the election of Melaye as the senator representing Kogi West senatorial district.

    Before closing the pre-hearing session, the tribunal also granted Adeyemi’ s prayers to call additional witnesses and admitted the report of the recounted ballot papers in 21 polling units.

    The petitioner’s prayer for determination of the primary election of the 1st and 2nd respondents was also granted by the tribunal.

    In addition, the tribunal also granted the request of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to withdraw its amended motion of reply to the petition filed by Adeyemi on April 3.

    The INEC ‘s oral application to strike out some paragraphs in its motion was similarly granted by the tribunal.

    However, in fixing the date for the hearing of petition proper, Ikpem ruled that Adeyemi , INEC and Melaye would only be allowed two days to open and close their cases.

    She also ruled that 30 minutes would be given for cross-examination of witnesses; 10 minutes for cross-examination of other counsel’s witnesses while all documents must be filled before Sept. 7 and shown to other counsels involved.

    However, the 2nd respondent (APC), was granted 20 minutes for cross-examination, 30 minutes for examination of expert witnesses and 10 minutes for cross-examination of other counsel’s witnesses.

    Adeyemi is challenging the election of March 28, which brought Melaye as the senator representing the Kogi West senatorial district on grounds of irregularities in the results of the election.

    He is also asking the tribunal to disqualify Melaye for being improperly nominated as a candidate for the election by the APC.

    In addition, Adeyemi wants the tribunal to declare him the winner or order fresh elections in the disputed polling.

  • Ogun East: Anxiety as tribunal decides Kashamu’s fate

    There is anxiety in Ogun State as the people  await the verdict of the Ogun State Election Petitions  Tribunal in the petition filed by Prince Oladapo Abiodun of the All Progressives Congress (APC) challenging the election of business tycoon, Prince Buruji Kashamu of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as Senator representing the Ogun East Senatorial District.

    The three-man tribunal headed by Justice Ebiowei Tobi also has Justices Adekunle Lawal and Justice Quadi Adamu Usman as members. The tribunal had on August 3, after taking arguments from parties, reserved the matter for judgment.

    The petitioners, Abiodun and his party (APC), filed an 81-page petition, challenging the PDP candidate’s victory in the March 28 senatorial election, praying the tribunal to nullify the election of Kashamu as Senator representing Ogun East.

    Other respondents with Kashamu are PDP, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the state Resident Electoral Commissioner.

    The petitioners’ team of 18 lawyers headed by Yusuf Ali (SAN)  includes Ricky Tarfa (SAN) and Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN).

    But, Kashamu through his lawyers, Alex Izinyon (SAN) and Ajibola Oluyede, in a 29-page document, prayed the court to dismiss the petition for lacking in merit.

    The petitioners are challenging the election of Kashamu on the grounds that there were alleged wide-spread irregularities and malpractices that characterised the election in various parts of Ogun East Senatorial District and the alleged non-qualification of Kashamu over his purported indictment by a United States’court.

    They prayed the tribunal to declare that Kashamu was not qualified to contest the election as at when he did and that he did not win the majority of the lawful votes cast in the  election to warrant his being declared winner.

    Consequently, Abiodun prayed the tribunal to declare him as winner and duly elected senator for Ogun East Senatorial District of Ogun, having scored the highest number of lawful votes cast at the March 28 election.

    In the alternative, the petitioners prayed the tribunal to cancel the election on the grounds of substantial non-compliance with the electoral laws guiding the conduct of the election and direct INEC to conduct a fresh election.

    It is the contention of the petitioner that Kashamu, having been allegedly indicted for criminal offences by a Ground Jury in the United States, had a burden to clear his name of the indictment before he could be eligible to contest any election.

    The petitioners drew the attention of the tribunal to the provisions of Sections 65 and 66 of the Constitution and submitted that Kashamu ought not to have stood as candidate of PDP in the disputed election.

    Besides, the petitioners claimed that all efforts made by Kashamu to have his indictment quashed failed submitting that on September 25, 2009 the judge of the United States District Court, Illinois, Eastern Division, Charles Norgle, in case 94 refused Kashamu’s application to quash the charge.

    “The first respondent appealed the above mentioned decision of the US District court, but the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of Charles R. Norgle affirmed by the United States Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit in case No 10-2782 on September 1, 2011,” the petitioners averred.

    They added that on January 1, last year, Kashamu filed another application to quash his indictment and to void the warrant of arrest issued against him, but the application was refused by the court in its ruling on April 23, in suit No: 94CR172-15.

    On the widespread irregularities and malpractices, the petitioners argued that the result of the election as declared by INEC was invalid by virtue of the fact that the total 209,722 votes cast were higher than the number of accredited voters (201,327).

    The petitioners stated: “The elections in the wards and polling units being challenged and listed above were vitiated by substantial non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Electoral Act which substantially affected the validity of the aforesaid election such that the votes credited to the first respondent ought to be nullified as unlawful in the determination of the election results.”

    The petitioners had alleged that the election was affected ballot stuffing, multiple voting, voting by under-aged persons and persons without valid voter cards, ballot box snatching, intimidation, inflation of results, bribery, under supply of voting materials, threats, falsification, impersonation, buying of votes, among others.

    The petitioners, among others, listed included Ijebu North Local Government Area, Sagamu Local Government Area, Ijebu East Local Government Area, Ikenne Local Government Are and Ogun Waterside Local Government Area as areas where the alleged malpractices were prevalent.

    However, Kashamu contended that the petitioners were not entitled to any of the reliefs sought and urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition with substantial and punitive costs.

    Specifically, Kashamu argued that the claims of the petitioners that the first petitioner  scored the majority of lawful votes during the disputed election lacked basis insisting that the exercise was peaceful as there was no case of harassment or intimidation, contrary to the claim of the petitioners.

    Kashamu contended that he won the disputed election in all the local governments where the petitioners alleged wide-spread malpractices based on his popularity and philanthropic gesture to the masses in the area.

     

    The first respondent (Kashamu) stated that as a businessman he was involved in philanthropic activities in Ogun State using the ‘Omoilu foundation’, which he founded in 2009 for the purpose of assisting the indigent citizens of the state through a series of empowerment programmes.

    According to Kashamu, the Omoilu Foundation had coordinators in each of the 20 Local Governments in the state and membership strength of over 200,000 which confirmed his popularity and acceptance by the people of Ogun East Senatorial District, whom he claimed voted overwhelmingly for him.

    On the alleged non-qualification, Kashamu, through his counsel, argued that indictment was not a conviction and as such could not be a ground for his disqualification to stand as candidate of PDP and contest the election into the Ogun East Senatorial District seat.

    He placed reliance on the ruling of the High Court of Justice, Kings Bench Division and the Bow Street Magistrates’ Court, London in suit Nos. CD2344/1999 and CO/214/2000.

     

  • Benue tribunal resumes Sept. 7

    Benue tribunal resumes Sept. 7

    The Benue State Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Makurdi, the state capital, will resume sitting on September 7 to determine whether Governor Samuel Ortom was legally nominated by the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    The Petitioner, Mr. Terhemen Tarzor is asking the Tribunal to nullify Dr. Ortom’s election and declare him (Tarzoor) as governor.

    Certain legal and factual issues have, however, developed and may work  against Tarzoor.  First, in Suit No. FHC/MKD/CS/09/2015, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP),  had filed a pre-election action at the Federal High Court, Makurdi raising the same issues and claiming similar reliefs as the petition of Tarzoor was to later claim  relief in his petition.

    On  May 21, this year, while Tarzoor’s matter  was still pending, the Federal High Court,  Makurdi dismissed the suit filed by the PDP. To date, the PDP has not appealed the final judgment.

    This development prompted Senior Counsel to the APC, Sebastine Hon (SAN), to amend the APC’s reply to the petition and   raised the defence of res judicata, since the PDP and Tarzoor are co-joined in the disputed governorship election. Res Judicata means a matter that has been decided by  a  court of competent jurisdiction,  which the Tribunal needs not waste its time on.

    In the motion on notice, Hon raised the issues of res judicata, abuse of court process, and lack of locus standi, saying Tarzoor,  pried into the internal affairs of the APC and other issues going to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal have been slated for hearing on  September 7, when parties are expected to adopt their final addresses before the Tribunal gives its final judgment.

    Apart from res judicata, Chief Adeniyi Akintola (SAN) and Prof. Anthony Ijohor (SAN), counsel to Ortom and the Independent National Election Petition  (INEC), have raised similar points going to jurisdiction and their motions on notice and these  will  be entertained by the Tribunal on September 7.

    Besides, Tarzoor called only one eyewitness to the rescheduled APC State Congress of December 10-11. He is Mr. Terkaa Andyar, a staff member of INEC,  the body charged with monitoring party primaries.

    As the only eyewitness to the rescheduled APC primary election, who was said to have co-signed a report that no such Congress had taken place, the Tarzoor camp was very upbeat about the potency or decisiveness of the evidence of this witness. Thus, when Andyar stepped into the witness box on August 3, to testify, there was tension in the courtroom.

    This witness identified and tendered Exhibit P7, the INEC report and also adopted his statement on oath.

    Under cross-examination however, this witness made startling admissions that sent shock waves to the audience.  Responding to a question from Hon, he admitted that said report, Exhibit P7, had nothing to indicate that it emanated from INEC. He further admitted that it was not written on INEC letterhead and that the word ‘INEC’ either in full or in abbreviation could

    All Progressives Congress (APC),be found on the report. The worst case scenario arose when he agreed with Hon that the signature on the report was not his own!

    All other witnesses called by Tarzoor adduced hearsay, since none of them was an eyewitness to the APC Congress that produced Ortom as the APC flagbearer.

    On the part of the defence, the APC called  Baba Dala,  a lawyer, who was the Chairman of the state Congress of the APC,  who gave graphic evidence of how Ortom emerged as the APC flagbearer as a consensus candidate and how this was ratified by over 3,000 of the 4,013 delegates who attended the Congress.

    All eyes are, therefore, on the Justice Elizabeth Karatu-led Tribunal as it reconvenes on  September 7,  for the parties to adopt their final written addresses. Thereafter, the Benue people who are very much expectant will know who their real Governor is, when the Tribunal will delivers its judgment.

     

  • Election tribunal upholds Ugwuanyi’s election

    The Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Enugu, yesterday upheld the election of Governor Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi of Enugu State in the April 11, 2015 governorship election.

    It struck out the petition filed by the governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the state, Okey Ezea, on the grounds that it was frivolous, lacked merit and against court processes.

    This was followed by a cost of N150,000 to each of the 6 respondents in the petition.

    Delivering the judgment, which lasted for over three hours, the Chairman of the three-man tribunal, Justice Kwajafa Hildad, among other findings, held that the tribunal had earlier in the course of the hearing struck out several paragraphs of Ezea’s petition for being imprecise, vague, related to party nomination, which is a pre-election matter and contained criminal allegation against people who were not made parties to the petition.

    He added that the petitioners’ allegation on over-voting and non-accreditation through the manipulation of the Card Readers Machine by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and other respondents were not sufficiently proved, as it is only the voters’ register that could determine the number of voters that participated in an election, stating that the petitioner failed to provide the voters’ registers to prove his case.

    The tribunal also noted that the petitioners’ witnesses, six 6 persons drawn from 6 polling units out of the 2,958 polling units in the state, was not sufficient to provide enough evidence to support his case, rendering it incompetent.

    It further held that even at that, the six witnesses admitted that the governorship election was free, fair and peaceful, with minor irregularities which were not sufficient enough to cancel the election.

    It deposed that the petitioners also failed to prove their allegation of falsification result figures, maintaining that mere assertion that the figures were falsified was not enough evidence to allow them their prayers.

    The tribunal went on to dismiss the petition and upheld the election of Governor Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi as valid.

    Reacting on the judgment, the Vice Chairman of Association of Local Government Chairmen of Nigeria (ALGON) Enugu State chapter , Nnanna Nze,  described it as a reflection of the wishes of the majority of the people of Enugu State.

    Nze said that the judgment has proved that Enugu is a PDP State and the governor was freely elected by the people.

    The news was greeted with loud cheers by supporters of Governor Ugwuanyi, who went into wild jubilation, singing victory songs in praise of the governor, who drove round major streets of Enugu, accompanied by local government chairmen.

    Meanwhile, the Deputy President of the Senate, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, has congratulated Governor Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi on the victory, describing it as victory for the people of the state.

    Reacting to the verdict, he said it was  a reaffirmation of the overwhelming popularity of the governor and the strength of the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) in Enugu State in particular and the South East in general.

    Ekweremadu further observed that the decision of the tribunal did not come as a surprise to the people of Enugu State and realistic political pundits around the country because Enugu State remained an indisputable stronghold of the PDP.

    He added: “Some petitions are sheer fulfilment of all political righteousness. The volume of Ugwanyi’s goodwill and popularity among the political class and the masses as a governorship aspirant, candidate, and now an incumbent governor is unprecedented.

    So, we made the right choice and what the tribunal has just done is to confirm that our choice was fairly, freely, and credibly made in compliance with the electoral laws.”

  • Tribunal dismisses Okowa, PDP’s applications to stop INEC subpoena

    Tribunal dismisses Okowa, PDP’s applications to stop INEC subpoena

    The Delta State Governorship Elections Petitions Tribunal, sitting in Asaba, Thursday dismissed motions filed by the three respondents in the petition, challenging a subpoena order granted by the tribunal, which was served on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    The governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC in the April 11 election, Olorogun O’tega Emerhor, is challenging the declaration of Governor Ifeanyi Okowa of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as the winner of the poll.

    Emerhor was billed to call in witnesss by Tuesday, but it was stalled following three fresh motions filed by counsels to Governor Ifeanyi Okowa, the PDP and INEC shortly before the trial was to begin.

    The tribunal then adjourned till Thursday, August 20, to hear the fresh motion filed by the counsels to Okowa, the PDP and INEC, challenging the subpoena served on INEC by the petitioner.

    At the resumed hearing of the fresh motion on Thursday, counsel to the petitioner and the APC, Chief Thompson Okpoko (SAN), branded counsels to the three respondents as “meddlesome interlopers and rabble rousers”, whose applications were meant to cause confusion and stall the hearing of the petition.

    Okpoko, citing many judicial authorities, averred that both Okowa and PDP have no locus standi to file the fresh applications, as the subpoena was served on INEC who conducted the election, and should be able to show evidence that the election was conducted in line with laid down laws.

    He added that it was only INEC that could apply to set aside the subpoena, and averred that in this petition, the provision of law was not applicable.

    Okpoko, in his final submission, noted that; “these applications have one purpose: It is to stall the hearing of the petition and an attempt to defeat it by delaying the hearing of the petition. The application is borne out of rabble rousing. It is to cause confusion. They are meddlesome interlopers and trying to cry louder than the bereaved.

  • Oyo Tribunal: Ladoja calls 26 witnesses

    Oyo Tribunal: Ladoja calls 26 witnesses

    Oyo State Accord candidate in the April 11 governorship election Senator Rashidi Ladoja has called 26 witnesses at the hearing of his petition filed before the state governorship election petition tribunal.

    Ladoja is challenging the declaration of Governor Abiola Ajimobi of All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the election in the suit filed before a three-man panel.

    The witnesses were drawn from some of the state’s local governments, which results were being challenged by the petitioner.

    They were later cross-examined by the counsel to Ajimobi,  Olumuyiwa Aduroja; APC lawyer Babatunde Aiku; and Yusuf Ali, representing the Resident Electoral Commission (REC), Ambassador Rufus Akeju, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    Results of 21 local government areas are being disputed and electoral materials used in the councils have been admitted and marked as exhibits before the tribunal.

    The petitioner’s counsel, Richard Ogunwole, has spent eight of the 10 days allotted to him to call his witnesses and present his evidence.

    He will close the appearances of his witnesses today.

    The respondents’ lawyers are expected to open theirs on Monday.

  • Tribunal fixes Sept 18 for verdict in Lagos West suit

    The Lagos State Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Ikeja, Lagos has fixed September 18 for judgment in the case brought before it by the Lagos West Senatorial candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Segun Adewale.

    He is challenging the election of the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Solomon Olamilekan Adeola (aka Yayi).

    The three-man tribunal headed by Justice Sylvanus Oriji fixed the judgment date after listening to the submissions of both parties in their final written address.

    Adewale, known as Aeroland, is challenging the declaration of Adeola by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), as the winner of the April 28 election.

    He had in his petition prayed the tribunal to nullify the declaration of Adeola as winner of the election.

    Adewale insisted that he won.

    Counsel to Adewale, Dr. Yemi Oke, said his client is challenging Adeola’s victory on three grounds.

    He argued that the nomination of Adeola is invalid, that election did not hold in some wards, and that there were irregularities, which include falsification of results in some wards.

    But counsel to Adeola, APC and INEC, Mr. A. Adegoke and Dr. Muiz Banire, urged the court to dismiss Adewale’s petition on the ground that he failed to prove the allegations against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt.

    They submitted that most of the allegations by the petitioner were criminal in nature and they would need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  • Oyo APC confident of victory at tribunal

    •Party: Ladoja’s forensic expert is laughable

    Oyo State All Progressives Congress (APC) is confident of winning in Senator Rashidi Ladoja’s suit brought before the governorship election petitions tribunal.

    The party said already, its members and well-wishers were assured that the outcome of the April 11 governorship election was the “actual reflection of the majority votes cast by the people”.

    Its spokesman Olawale Sadare, in an interview with The Nation, said there was no cause for alarm because the party actually won the majority votes at the election.

    Sadare hailed the tribunal for dismissing Ladoja’s application seeking to invite a forensic expert – to stand as witness.

    Ladoja, who was the candidate of Accord in the election, is challenging the declaration of Governor Abiola Ajimobi of the APC as the winner.

    Sadare noted that the listing of a cashew farmer by Ladoja as forensic expert in the tribunal was laughable.

    Sadare said: “Before now, they had listed one Mr. Bimbo Adepoju as their forensic analyst and the court had admitted that. Now, they want to bring in another set of individuals, whose names were not included in the list of witnesses after the pre-hearing had been concluded. This, according to law experts, is fundamentally wrong. On that premise, the tribunal declined to accommodate their request.

    “Now, they are left with a man who our lawyers cross-examined and found to be a cashew farmer to function as a forensic expert.

    “I don’t know how a farmer can qualify to be a forensic expert. Even, if they were allowed to bring in any forensic expert – whether he is an expatriate or a local – we have a rock-solid case, which they can never win.”

  • Tribunal dismisses Ladoja’s application to invite forensic expert

    Tribunal dismisses Ladoja’s application to invite forensic expert

    THE Oyo State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal yesterday dismissed an application brought by Senator Rashidi Ladoja seeking a leave to call a forensic analyst, Dr. Babatunde Adebola, to testify before the tribunal.

    Chairman of the tribunal sitting at the Oyo State High Court, Iyaganku, Ibadan, Justice Muhammed Mayaki, dismissed the application in a one-hour ruling.

    He held that the application was rejected because it was not presented during the pre-hearing session, adding that no ex parte order was sought by the petitioner to bring same after the expiration of the session.

    Justice Mayaki said the application contradicted the provision of paragraph 47 (1) of the First Schedule of the Electoral Act 2010.

    The judge described the application as an abuse of court process, adding that the report of the forensic analyst should have been tendered with that of the first witness, Mr. Bimbo Adepoju, instead of bringing them piecemeal.

    The forensic analyst was the leader of the team that inspected and counted ballot papers and boxes used for the April 11 governorship election petition.

    The application also sought invitation of one Mr. Bola Akinyemi to testify along with the forensic analyst.

    Ladoja, who was the candidate of Accord Party in the April 11 governorship election, is challenging the declaration of Governor Abiola Ajimobi of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the governorship election. Accord is the second petitioner.

    The petitioners also joined APC, the INEC Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) in the state, Dr. Rufus Akeju, and the commission as co-respondents.

    Other members of the three-man tribunal are Justices Mohammadu Karaye and J. E. Ikede.

    Chief Richard Ogunwole (SAN) represents the first and second petitioners. Mr. Olumuyiwa Aduroja (SAN) represents Ajimobi and Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (SAN) is counsel to APC.

    Yusuf Ali (SAN) is leading a team of lawyers for the INEC and Akeju.

    Ogunwole had on August 6 made an oral application, praying the court to grant him the opportunity to request the presence of a forensic expert to testify before the tribunal.

    He buttressed his application with paragraph 47 (1) of the Electoral Act. The senior advocate cited the case of Aregbesola in which the court submitted that the oral evidence is superior to documentary evidences.

    Counsel to the first respondent, Aduroja, noted that all applications must be heard during pre-hearing session, stressing that any other application can only be heard in an extreme circumstance during proper hearing of the tribunal.

    He said: “This application is not under an extreme circumstances, but just a special circumstance. Leave must have been sought to argue the application during pre-hearing under an extreme circumstance, which must be itemised.

    “All these applications have failed woefully. It is an abuse of law and should be dismissed. Therefore, it should be dismissed.”

    Akeredolu (SAN) said: “The petitioner’s counsel ought to have sought for a leave justifying why the court should grant his application. This was the case between Nwaka and Yar’Adua. I pray that the court dismiss the case in our favour.”

    With the dismissal of the application, cross-examination of petitioner’s’ witnesses is expected to continue without hindrance.