The State and National Assembly Appeal Court sitting in Lagos has reserved judgement, in three separate appeals filed by the governorship candidates of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Senator Ovie Omo-Agege; of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), Chief Kenneth Gbagi and the Labour Party (LP), Deacon Kennedy Pela, challenging the election of Sheriff Oborevwori as governor of Delta State.
The 3-member panel presided over by Justice Hamma Akawu Barka reserved the three appeals after taking arguments from counsel to all the parties.
Other members of the panel are Joseph Olubunmi Oyewole and Justice Hadiza Shagari.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had declared the governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Rt Hon Sheriff Oborevwori, as the winner of Saturday’s gubernatorial election in Delta State.
Oborevwori polled 360,234 votes to defeat the APC candidate Senator Ovie Omo-Agege who scored 240,229.
Dissatisfied, the appellants challenged Oborevwori’s election victory as Delta State Governor.
However, the Delta State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Asaba, upheld the election of Sheriff Oborevwori as the governor of the state.
In its judgment, the three-member tribunal, led by Justice C.H. Ahuchaogu, dismissed the petition filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Senator Ovie Omo-Agege, for lack of merit.
The tribunal also dismissed the petitions by Labour Party’s Ken Pela and Chief Kenneth Gbagi of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) for their inability to prove their allegations of over voting, amongst others.
It held that the petitioners failed to prove allegations of non-compliance with the Electoral Act and over voting beyond reasonable doubt.
On the issue of over voting, as alleged by Omo-Agege, the tribunal held that to prove the allegation, BVAS report must be produced.
“Leave was granted to the petitioner to inspect BVAS but no BVAS report was provided. Tribunal wonders why the petitioners failed to produce the BVAS report. Tribunal agrees with the respondent’s argument. By Supreme Court judgment, BVAS is mandatory to prove over-voting.
“BVAS was not produced but they tried to use other documents. Petitioner cannot circumvent the BVAS, as the report of examination of the back end server cannot replace the BVAS. This report is held to be irrelevant. Flowing from above, the report is inadmissible to prove over-voting,” the tribunal ruled.
The tribunal held that the fulcrum of proof of over-voting is the BVAS, stating that the petitioner did not plead extract from BVAS and so could not tender the same.
“Any evidence given by anyone that was not at the polling units is mere hearsay. Tribunal wonders why their agents at the polling units were not called.
On the issue of non-compliance, the tribunal said the petitioner jettisoned the provisions of the law to prove non-compliance in every unit.
On corrupt practices, the tribunal said no evidence was led as to who committed the crime and no evidence led as to how the allegations affected the outcome of the election.
The tribunal held that petitioners gave particulars of inflated figures but failed to show how it affected the result.
“The tribunal finds that the inflation is of no consequence and will not affect the result if removed. Issue resolved in favour of respondents.
“The petitioner led no evidence as to the votes that are unlawful and should be reduced. They complained of an unascertained number of votes.
“Pleadings where no evidence is led amounts to no issue. They abandoned the case and sought to rely on the tribunal. This approach lacks credibility. Issue resolved in favour of respondents.
“The case of petitioner based essentially on hearsay evidence that is legally inadmissible. They have led no credible and indubitable evidence. Accordingly, there was even no need for the respondents to lead any evidence to disprove a collapsed case. The case is devoid of merit and I affirm the declaration of INEC and return the respondents as duly elected,” the tribunal held.
