Labour Party Faults Enugu Guber Tribunal Judgement

Chuks Okocha in Abuja

The Labour party yesterday said that after comparing the governorship election tribunal results of Nasarawa state and Enugu state, it came to the conclusion that it was robbed of the governorship victory in Enugu state.

It described it as a travesty of justice.

The party also disowned Mr. Basil Maduka, who claimed to be the party’s candidate, stating that he is a co- conspirator with the factional chairman, Lamidi Apapa.

The party said the Supreme Court had decided who is the genuine candidate of the party.

Addressing a press conference at the party secretariat in Abuja, the National Publicity Secretary, Obiora Ifoh, said LP’s claim the party was robbed by the tribunal in Enugu was after comparing the facts before the outcome of the governorship tribunals in Enugu state and Nasarawa state.

According to the spokesman of Labour party,  “This claim is justified by the outcome of all the other elections held in the State between February and March this year. The Labour Party won 2 out of the 3 senatorial seats in the State; 7 out of the 8 Rep seats in the State and 14 out of the 24 seats in the State House of Assembly. 

“Notwithstanding the above true position, the Enugu State Governorship Election Tribunal on Saturday, 21st September, 2023 shockingly delivered a judgment on the disputed election that appeared to have ignored the facts in issue. 

“The judgment fell short of the expectations of both the majority of Nigerians and legal pundits who have continued to criticize the fundamental logic and the premise upon which the decision was reached.

“With the recent judgment of the Governorship Election Tribunal in Nasarawa State and the Nkanu East State Constituency Tribunal judgment, the Labour Party is forced to revisit the travesty of justice that took place in the Enugu governorship tribunal judgment, especially given that the three situations presented similar facts, yet different pronouncements were made by the judiciary.”, Obiora Ifoh stressed.

He said that the Enugu Governorship Election Tribunal discountenanced the testimonies of labour party witnesses who testified that there were manifest over-voting in Owo and Ugbawka for the erroneous reason that they were not accredited witnesses of the Party. 

According to him, “One, the tribunal erred in that regard because the law has always been that every voter in Nigeria is an eligible witness before a tribunal, more so when the said witnesses were members of the Labour Party. 

“Two, as already established in Torti Vs Ukpabi, it has long been a settled issue that what determines the admissibility of an evidence is its relevance.”, he explained.

Accordingly, he said, “In juxtaposing the above decision with the judgment delivered in the case of Nasarawa, the    Governorship Tribunal in Nasarawa rightly admitted the testimonies of the material witnesses who came to testify that the votes of the PDP in Ashigie Ward, Chiroma Ward, etc were wrongly suppressed and thereafter ordered the restoration of the said votes to the PDP, even when the witnesses therein were not accredited witnesses of the PDP.

“Second, the Tribunal in Enugu jettisoned the provisions of Section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2022 which provides that where there is original or certified true copy of a document before the court or tribunal that can establish non-compliance and it is shown that the said non-compliance is manifest on the face of that document, parties are not required to adduce oral evidence. 

“The Enugu Tribunal strangely feigned ignorance of the above provisions of Section 137 of the Electoral Act and the mischief it seeks to cure by insisting on the needless and additional requirement of calling of oral witnesses to prove over-voting in Uwo and Ugbawka, even when the Labour Party already filed copious INEC certified true copies of the BVAS Accreditation Reports that evidentially proved the case of the Petitioner.”, he explained.

Again,  Ifoh said, “in juxtaposition with the judgment delivered in the case of Nasarawa, the Tribunal in Nasarawa, in line with the provisions of Section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2022, rightly relied on the documentary evidence contained in the certified true copies of the print out of the BVAS Accreditation Reports to cancel the votes in Gadagwa Ward, Nasarawa Eggon Ward, Shege Ward, Sabon Gari and in other wards where over voting took place without necessarily insisting that oral witnesses be adduced in support of the tendered documentary evidences.

“Again, in the House of Assembly election tribunal judgment in Nkanu East State Constituency involving Labour Party’s Okwudili Michael Nnaji, the panel (a different panel from that of the governorship) was right to rely on only the documentary evidence contained in the certified true copies of the print out of the BVAS Accreditation Reports, without insistence on oral evidence, to order the cancellation of the over-voting in Owo and Ugbawka”, he stated .

“Interestingly, in the above Nkanu East State Constituency petition, the materials tendered in evidence by the LP House of Assembly candidate whose submissions on over voting were upheld by the tribunal were the same materials that the LP guber candidate tendered before the Akano-led tribunal in a bid to prove over voting in the same polling units in Nkanu East, yet a different panel correctly accepted the evidence of the Labour Party House of Assembly candidate while the Akano-led tribunal jettisoned that of the governorship.”, the Labour party spokesman said.

The Labour party further said,  ” Our argument herein is that Enugu governorship election, Nasarawa governorship election and Nkanu East State Constituency election presented similar facts, yet the Enugu governorship tribunal gave a different judgment from what was correctly held by the Nasarawa governorship tribunal and the tribunal in Nkanu East State Constituency election petition.  

“Like we said earlier, the Tribunal in Enugu jettisoned the provisions of Section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2022 which provides that where there is original or certified true copy of a document before the court or tribunal that can establish non-compliance and it is shown that the said non-compliance is manifest on the face of that document, parties are not required further to adduce oral evidence in proof of their cases. 

“The tribunal in Enugu insisted on calling of oral witness in support of the tendered documentary evidence in spite of the clear provisions of Section 137 of the Electoral Act”, he explained.

Meanwhile, the party  has disowned one  Basil Maduka, who it said is a co-conspirator with Lamidi Apapa.

 Ifoh, in a statement on Wednesday, said: “Late on Tuesday, an invitation was circulated to some media personnel inviting them for a Press Briefing today.

“‘But curiously, the invitation has it that Chief Basil Maduka is a candidate from “Abure Faction.”

He said that the supreme court has decided who is the rightful governorship candidate of the party in the November 11 governorship candidate in Imo state.