Tribunal: School Principal Testifies against Kebbi Dep Gov, Tenders 15 Documents

Onuminya Innocent

There was a mild drama yesterday at the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Birnin Kebbi, the Kebbi State capital, as the principal of Sultan Abubakar College, Sokoto, said the Kebbi State deputy governor was never their student.

The Deputy Governor, Senator Umar Abubakar,, claimed that he graduated from the Sultan Abubakar College, Sokoto, in 1979, but the principal of the school disowned the deputy governor by tendering 15 documents before the tribunal.

The principal, Muhammed Zayyanu Umar, while being cross-examined by counsel to the governor and deputy governor, insisted that there was no record in the school to support the testimonial allegedly given to him from the college “because his name was not in the list of the 1979 graduands of Sultan Abubakar College, Sokoto.”

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate, Maj-General Aminu Bande (rtd), is challenging the victory of the candidates of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Governor Nasiru Idris, and his Deputy, Umar Abubakar, in the last general election in Kebbi State.

The principal is the first subpoenaed witness to be cross-examined by the respondent counsel after the tribunal admitted the 15 documents he presented to it.

While giving his testimonies and answering questions from the respondent counsel, Wale Agunbiade (SAN), Yakubu Maikyau (SAN), and others, the principal insisted that based on the documents he submitted to the tribunal, the results of 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982 did not carry the name of Umar Abubakar, who alleged to be a graduand of the college within the period, particularly in 1979.

He insisted that based on the available records in his office as the principal of Sultan Abubakar College, Sokoto, the deputy governor did not graduate from the school in 1979.

A director in Sokoto State Ministry of Education, Abdulsamad Hamzat Yisa, who was also subpoenaed to testify at the tribunal, said the ministry had set up a committee to investigate the principal but they found that the principal was right.

Earlier, the counsel to the respondent had objected to the continuation of the hearing on the ground that the list of witnesses was served on them around 8p.m. They argued that the report of the pretrial indicated that parties should be served list of witnesses within 24 hours.

But the petitioners’ counsel told the tribunal that apart from the list of 15 witnesses scheduled to testify, there are other subpoenaed witnesses which are court witnesses not petitioners’ witnesses.

On that ground, the tribunal Chairman, Justice Ofem I. Ofem, ruled that on one party agreed with the respondent counsel that since the notice served to them was not within 24 hours and that the  tribunal will not proceed to take the witnesses but on the other hand subpoenaed witnesses which notice was served to the respondent since July 12 to be heard.

The petitioners had called 21 witnesses, 15 of them are normal witnesses while six are subpoenaed witnesses from government agencies and departments.