The National and states Houses of Assembly Election Tribunal, Has reserved Judgement to a later date to be communicated to all parties, in a petition of Barrister Munir Barau against Ibrahim Baba Hassan member representing Jos North North constituency in the state house of Assembly. Parties in the case, adopted all the written addresses and replies on point of law.
While adopting their final written address in respect of the petition, Kanu Imo Esq. Informed the Tribunal that, the filed their final written address on 12th of August 2019 and adopt same as their final submissions in respect of the petition.E.B Ede,,Counsel to the second Respondents adopted their address on behalf of 2nd respondents which was filled on the 27th of August 2019.
In his adoption,the counsel to the third respondents on the matter, A.A Sange,we filed on August 12th,2019 while we filled our reply on point of law.23th of August 2019.we humbly adopt the two addresses as our submission in this case.Adumbration on the matter,the petitioners relied on the case of Saleh vs Abah,the decision of the supreme court, was decided on March 2017.While we relies on the case of Mahijo and Gaidam also supreme court decided on June,2017. Sange argued further,the petitioners did not call the person that his signature is on the certificate. I urge my lordships to dismiss the petition.
The petitioners, through their counsel,I.G Shangi,we filled our reply on point of law to the first respondents final written address and filled on 20th August,2019.
We also filled petitioners final written address to the 2nd respondents on the 20th of August, 2019. Also filled reply on point of law to the 2nd respondents final written address dated and filled on 30th of August,2019.
Lastly, my lords,we filled the petitioners final written address and reply to the 3rd respondents preliminary objection and reply on point of law. We most humbly adopt these as our final written in this matter.
Adumbrating on the matter, Barrister Sangi submitted that,the petitioners case is that,the 2nd respondents submitted form cf001 with a forged certificate. The totality of evidence before your lordships is the certificate is dated 1996 but the senate of the university’s approval was 1997.During cross examination, he admitted that,you can’t get a certificate before graduation. My lords, the case before the federal high court is still pending. The certificate is not a genuine one, because it was certified before it was made.The university of Jos,through her Deputy Registrar testified that,the certificate did not emanate from them. The 2nd respondents lied on oath . I want my lordships to order to order a rerun in this constituency and exclude the 2nd respondent. Having listing to all the parties,the Tribunal reserved judgement on the matter
count | 27