As the Akwa Ibom State governorship election petition tribunal adjourned till August 18 to allow the petitioner, Mr Umana Okon Umana, governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), along with the other parties in the case the time to tender a mountain of INEC documents they all pleaded in their filings, it is an appropriate juncture to look at the milestones at the hearing of the petition so far.
But before going further, let us put the adjournment into context in order to squelch the unfounded rumour that the break was asked for because the petitioner had run out of witnesses. That is far from the truth. The break was discussed and agreed on by all parties who need to sit together and sort the INEC documents, which they had all pleaded, into schedules for presentation to the tribunal at the resumed hearing. The documents are of such volume that all parties, including the secretariat of the tribunal, have to work together to meet the deadline. Reacting to the motion for adjournment, which was made by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), counsel to the petitioner, counsel to all the other parties agreed that it should be allowed because the break was needed for a “joint venture.”
For the milestones, rating easily as one of the critical junctures in the hearing of the governorship election petition were the decisions to relocate all the tribunals to Abuja, following security threats to members of the tribunal and witnesses to petitioners in matters before the tribunals. It is important to mention here that a witness from Onna, home local council to Udom Emmanuel, who was declared winner of the election, Hon. Etebom Christopher Itiat, a governorship candidate of the Democratic People Party in the election, was attacked and his house vandalised after going to Abuja to testify for Umana and the APC.
Equally momentous also was the decision to move the electoral materials in INEC custody in Uyo to Abuja. In light of the discovery by the team of forensic experts working for the petitioners that INEC in Akwa Ibom was destroying electoral materials intended to be used as evidence in attempt to frustrate the petition, the movement was both significant and right in the interest of justice.
Another milestone was the day hearing began into the substantive matter before the tribunal. What invested that day with so much significance was not just its rank as the first day in the epic legal battle whose outcome will serve as the reference point for dating history in Akwa Ibom State, but more so for the legal fireworks that fore grounded the lone testimony of the day. The lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), for the petitioner had opened the case by calling the first witness, Bishop Samuel Akpan, who was the governorship candidate for Accord Party in the would-be governorship election. Bishop Akpan in the witness box for Umana was an intrusive shock to the respondents, comprising Udom Emmanuel, the Peoples Democratic Party and INEC. They quickly showed it.
Once they recovered from the shock, they went for the foundation of the case of the petitioner. Their game plan was to truncate the petition at that point with the argument—which could have easily fooled the unwary and the inexperienced—that Bishop Akpan and all the other witnesses that were to come could not testify before the tribunal because they were listed in their initials only by the petitioner in his filings before the tribunal. The trio of Paul Usoro (SAN) for Udom Emmanuel, first respondent; Tayo Oyetibo (SAN) for PDP, second respondent and Dr Onyiechi Ikpeazu (SAN) for INEC, third respondent, contended volubly and for about five hours that it was not allowed in law for witnesses to be identified by initials only, concluding therefore that all the witnesses listed by the petitioner stood disqualified. The petitioner, through his lead counsel, countered with the winning argument that such was allowed for security reasons, namely, possible attacks on witnesses—especially given the manifest truth that Akwa Ibom had been turned into a burning cauldron of violence in the last eight years, the calamity which climaxed in the build-up to and during the elections with some of the most gruesome murders and arsons imaginable. Thirty of the murders occurred on election day. Chief Olanipekun cited authority after authority on the use of initials by witnesses in court until he achieved enthymeme.
The tribunal, headed by Justice Sadiq Umar, agreed with the petitioner and overruled the opposition. What would have been a fatal blow to the petitioner’s case was thus deftly defused.
Of all the critical milestones in the hearing so far, Tuesday July 28 stands out as the most significant watershed yet at the tribunal sitting at the FCT High Court in Abuja. It was a day of great moment that lived up to its promise for the petitioner in the election dispute. The day also delivered on its full threat potential to the first, second and third respondents to the petition, namely, Udom Gabriel Emmanuel of the PDP, who was declared winner of the disputed election; the PDP and INEC. The promise and threat, depending on where you stand on the scale of justice, derived from the type of witnesses and kind of evidence that were to be led before the tribunal at the day’s session. They were easily the most ranking witnesses for the petitioner.
The day’s session began with a back-breaking testimony by one of the high value witnesses, Atuekong Don Etiebet—former minister of petroleum resources, former presidential candidate and former life BOT member of the PDP—against Udom Emmanuel of the PDP, INEC and the PDP.
Etiebet authoritatively told the tribunal that elections did not hold according to law on 11 April 2015 in Oruk Anam local council area where he comes from and where he was at home to vote on that Election Day. He testified to massive irregularities, including but not limited to ballot snatching, absence of ballot materials at polling units, and bloody violence instituted and directed by thugs and members of the PDP.
He tendered four materials in evidence, namely, his voter’s card, his press statement condemning the sham elections, newspaper publication of the press statement and a video recording of his visit along with other leaders of the state and members of the APC to INEC head office in Uyo on the night of the election to see whether there was state collation of the ballot as should be the case at the INEC office which was the state collation centre. Etiebet said this was after they could not find INEC collating any results of the “elections” at any local government collation centre in most parts of the state. He said during the visit, they found the INEC head office in total darkness, with no work going on and the INEC REC Austin Okojie nowhere to be found on election night when the INEC head office ought to be a beehive of activities and Mr Okojie was duty bound to be at his post coordinating work. He also told the tribunal that the elders and others in the delegation to the INEC office delivered a written protest letter to the state REC, advising him not to dare call the elections which were irredeemably marred by wanton irregularities and violence. Yet the following Sunday morning, Etiebet told the tribunal, INEC announced the result of the “election” and declared Udom Emmanuel winner.
Etiebet’s voter’s card, video recording of the visit to INEC head office on the night of the election, and press statement were accepted in evidence by the tribunal and marked as exhibits, but the newspaper reports of his press statement were rejected on the ground that the newspapers were not certified as true copies by the National Library of Nigeria as required by law. The legal team of Umana/APC at the tribunal said the rejection of the newspaper accounts of Etiebet’s press statement was of no legal significance since they were derivatives of the original press statement that had itself been accepted by the tribunal.
The next witness for the day was HE Obong Victor Attah, former governor of Akwa Ibom State and leader of the Ibibio. Attah, who was magisterial in his deposition and statesman-like in deportment, tendered his PVC to prove that he was a registered voter but could not vote because elections did not hold in his town; he also tendered video recordings and testified orally to the effect that elections did not hold according to law in Ibesikpo Asutan local council area where he comes from. Both materials were accepted in evidence and marked as exhibits. Under cross examination intended to tar the former governor with the brush of partisanship, Attah left the following words on marble for the tribunal and those in and outside its precincts to ponder: “Excuse me my friend,” said Obong Attah to the opposition counsel cross examining him, with a hint of edge to his regal self disclosure, “I was a member of the National Conference and I personally coined the phrase ‘sanctity of the ballot.’ My concern does not lie with a party but with Nigeria. I want everything to be done right in my country. I am an elder statesman.” No one could fail to be struck by the poignancy of an eternal personal hurt in his voice.
The super star witness for Umana/APC on the day in question was an NYSC INEC ad hoc staff member, an Ibo lady, who told the tribunal how PDP thugs invaded the unit where she served in Mbiabong, Uyo and carted away election materials allocated to the polling unit. She said the hoodlums arrived in vehicles with arms, shouting and hailing the PDP and grabbed the ballot materials under her watch. When she resisted them, she said, they beat her up, tore up her clothing and “threatened to send me to the wheel chair for life.” She said it was one of the good Nigerians who witnessed the attack that brought his jacket to cover her near nakedness. She added that she and her colleagues at the unit had to run for dear lives. She tendered the clothing as evidence, which was accepted and marked as exhibit.
It was a bad day for the PDP and Udom Emmanuel at the tribunal. The INEC lady’s eye witness account of election violence and the violation of the sanctity of the ballot was so vivid and poignant that those who watched her could see the entire horror movie unfolding before their eyes. But it was also paradoxically so, so surreal.
Before the adjournment to 18 August, the petitioner had presented his case before the tribunal for eight days out of the 14 days allotted to him to do so, and called 46 witnesses. He has six days left to complete the allotted time.
- Otongaran is the director of media and publicity for the APC governorship campaign in Akwa Ibom State
