The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Plateau has raised alarm that the ruling All Progressive Congress (APC) is using the Court of Appeal to intimidate the governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Jos, by dictating to it what evidence it should reject or accept in determining the ruling before it, urging the tribunal to remain steadfast and focused.

This allegation is coming on the heels of the Appeal Court’s ruling on the application filed before it by the APC to prevail over the tribunal not to rely on the forensic evidence and other documents presented to it by the PDP in determining the case before it.

Reacting to the ruling, State Organising Secretary of the PDP, Mr Michael Dachom said it is unacceptable by the party, saying the party will go to the Supreme Court.

Dachom said, the APC is afraid that, with the forensic evidence before the tribunal, it would lose the case, so it quickly ran to the Appeal Court to urge it to stop the tribunal from using the forensic report.

He however said there are other tangible and sufficient evidence that will nail the APC at the tribunal.

The PDP had presented forensic evidence to the tribunal to back up its claim that APC massively rigged the April governorship election that brought in Barrister Simon Lalong as the governor of the State.

But the APC, at the tribunal, contested the acceptance of the report of the forensic expert by the tribunal, arguing that it was not part of the material that was filed at the beginning of the case. But the tribunal went ahead and accepted it.

The APC became dissatisfied and therefore approached the Appeal Court to stop the tribunal from relying on the forensic report, which many believe will strengthen the PDP’s case before the tribunal.

Discussing with newsmen on the ruling of the Appeal Court, a counsel to PDP and its gubernatorial candidate, Sen.Gyang Pwajok, Barrister Niri Darong said, “The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal read the decision in summary and said they were going to avail us of copies of the ruling after the Sallah break (ie) on Monday, 28 of September, 2015. So I have not yet seen the copy of the judgement as at now. But from the summary read by the Justice that delivered the lead judgement, we the respondents at the Court of Appeal believe that the Justices should not have relied on the statements of counsels but on the decisions of the court.”

Darong explained that, “At the tribunal, we had during the pre-hearing section informed the Justices of the tribunal that we were going to rely on forensic report, and had listed A O, which stands for Adeola Olayewola. The tribunal then said that since we had not got our materials ready during the pre-hearing of the motion, we were entitled to bring the report and the expert during the motion. The APC and Simon Lalong also indicated interest to rely on forensic report. So the tribunal then said both of us should go and inspect INEC documents and make copies.

“Under section 151 of the Electoral Act, the tribunal has the powers to order that any party should get the evidence for the purpose of filing and maintaining the petition. In our case, we brought the forensic report to maintain our petition. If we had not brought the report after telling the tribunal that we have it, it would have amounted to withholding of evidence under section 159 of the Electoral Act.

“But on the day we were supposed to tender the exhibits, INEC stamped the exhibits with engraved signature on the stamp. And in the Supreme Court case of Belgore against Ahmed; it says any certified copy of document with engraved signature is not a satisfied true copy. INEC had actually set a trap for us.

“But Robert Clark (SAN) saw it and said that INEC had given us wrong document that has not been certified according to law. He now asked the tribunal for an order that INEC should properly certify the document. In the case of Tabit Investment against GTBank it said any document that is not properly certified can be re-certified.”

According to the Counsel, the tribunal agreed and gave the order but said re-certifying the document was administrative to INEC. And that it can proceed with hearing while INEC gets the document properly certified by physically signing it.

“So we proceeded. And when we were ready with our expert and the document according to the order by the tribunal, the tribunal accepted it, but the APC and Simon Lalong said the tribunal was wrong to have accepted it and therefore went to the Appeal Court.

“But I know that the Appeal Court does not interpret statements of counsels because they are not decisions of the court. That is the crux of the matter. We are waiting to get the details of the judgement before we comment any further. But we would definitely go to the Supreme Court after studying the judgement.”

He cited the ruling delivered in respect of the application filed by John Shagaya against Jeremiah Useni, which was delivered the same day with the one in question. He said the Court of Appeal said “even if you have an interlocutory ruling that you want to file interlocutory appeal against, you can file it and await the final decision of the lower court, then you can now consolidate all.

“Paragraph 18 of the first schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) says “An interlocutory appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings, nor form a ground for a stay of action before the tribunal.

“I am not in the minds of APC and Lalong, and cannot say whether or not they are pre-emptying the ruling of the tribunal. But I thought they should have waited for the in ruling of the tribunal and then incorporate all the appeals they have before going to the Court of Appeal.”

Meanwhile Darong said, “my Lords at the Court of Appeal talked about the exhibits, but funny enough the exhibits are not before them; they are before the tribunal.

He further explained that, the APC and Simon Lalong also said they were going to present forensic report, but did not. “Now, if you said you want to present evidence before the court and eventually did not, the law presumes that the reason you did not present it is because you know that if you had presented it, it would have been unfavourable to you.”

count | 1258

Plateau PDP Accuses APC of Intimidating Governorship Election Tribunal