News Rendezvous

“We contend that the court below(Appeal Court) was wrong when it held that the appellants did not give legal evidence and that the trial tribunal was wrong to have recomputed the votes in the way it did.

“To address this issue, It is apt to briefly reiterate that the Appellants’ case premised on the lone ground that the first respondent (Sule) was not elected by a majority of lawful votes cast which was principally anchored on the improper entries of results duly declared at the polling units from FORM EC8As to EC8Bs and in some cases outright cancellation by the collation officer when he clearly lackd the vires to so do.

“We commend your Lordships to the case of Agagu vs Mimiko (2009) 7NWLR PT 1140) 342 at 432 CA where the Court held that “It is settled that the polling booth results as set down in form EC8A is the primary evidence of votes cast in an election.

“Furthermore, in successfully proving this allegation, the Appellants tendered the certified true copies of both the form EC8As and FORM EC8Bs in proving the said allegation.”

“At the risk of emphasis, the evidence before the trial tribunal and indeed now before this Honourable court is largely documentary as they are result sheets emanating from the election.

“All the witnesses did was to identify the documents and same was tendered through them. These documents were not disputed by the Respondents as there was no contrary document placed before the court to impeach their admissibility or weight as the case may be. And the documents were duly certified and tendered per the express provision of Section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2022

“By the enactment of Section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2022, the necessity of calling polling units agents have been obviated. The documents tendered by the Appellants to establish lone ground are Certified True Copies which were manifest ex facie on the allegation made. There was no contrary evidence to debunk the validity of those documents

“The objective of Section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2022 is to relieve a petitioner from calling eyewitness evidence in proof of allegations other than corrupt practice, when the complaints are manifest on the face of the document.

“It is glaring that what the court needed to arrive at the fact that there were discrepancies in the ward results and the polling unit results is ex facie on the documentary evidence presented to it. The oral testimony of witnesses were incapable of varying and/or altering the contents of the unchallenged documents that were before the trial tribunal thus, it needs not rely on the testimony of the witnesses to arrive at the conclusion it reached.

“In that pursuit, we submit that the Appellants did not give hearsay or inadmissible evidence as erroneously held by the court below. The Appellants accordingly gave legal evidence and the Court below was right to have recomputed the scores in that regard, and we urge Your Lordships to so hold.

“In arriving at the actual computation, the Trial Tribunal took cognizance of the exhibits tendered by the Petitioners cum Appellants herein.

“In that pursuit, we urge Your Lordships to resolve this issue in favor of the Appellants and against the Respondents accordingly.” -PDP’s David Ombugadu | Brief At Supreme Court Through His Lead Counsel, Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN