---ANIEKAN UMANAH
Udeme Utip, Uyo
Akwa Ibom state commissioner for information, Mr. Aniekan Umanah has
expressed the hope that the governorship election petition tribunal
sitting in Abuja the federal capital territory will uphold the victory
of Mr. Udom Emmanuel as he was elected as the Governor of the state at
the April 11 election.
Umanah who stated this in an interaction with selected members of the
press in his office yesterday stated that it was a clear case of
victory as the Governor won the election and was declared winner by
INEC in the presence of many witnesses.
“By popularity, by whatever measurable standard, he won the election
because he had the support of the people no matter what the opposition
will think. Even those who wrote the petition were masquerading;
everybody knows that they did not have the support of the people so
they couldn’t have won the elections.
“There is no way you will sit down and not build your support base
then you expect to win election. Besides, tribunal is a matter of
facts and everybody knows that knows that Akwa Ibom state voted PDP
and voted for Udom Emmanuel as their Governor.
“Again, what is the prayer of the opposition? They say there was no
governorship election in Akwa Ibom; you all are witnesses that there
were elections; I saw most of you monitoring the elections even in my
polling unit and you saw people voting. With this; can any write
thinking person say there was no governorship election in Akwa Ibom?”
the commissioner asked.
Umanah expressed optimism that as the tribunal commences sitting,
justice will be done and the victory that the people of the state won
by electing Udom Emmanuel will be upheld as there are clear
indications that there was election in Akwa Ibom on April, 16.
Meanwhile, as the Akwa Ibom Election Petition Tribunal resumed sitting
Thursday in Abuja before Justices A.S. Umar, K.O. Dawodu and P.T.
Kwahar, counsel for the first respondent, Mr. Udom Emmanuel is said to
have presented a list of multiple errors militating against the
petition of the APC governorship candidate, Mr. Umana Umana.
Sources from the state election petition tribunal sitting in Abuja
says counsel to the first respondent Mr. pointed out fundamental
contradictions and inconsistencies in Mr Umana’s pleadings and
evidences, which pointed to the fact that there was no governorship
election in Akwa Ibom, even as he is asking for the cancellation of
the April 11 elections.
“Mr. Umana’s petition in paragraph 22 had claimed that; Card Readers
were not used at all" and yet they expect the Judges to rely on
Exhibit 317, the Card Reader data which they tendered and which
clearly confirms that there were successful accreditation for the
Election using the Card Reader. “Those two positions are clearly
irreconcilable,” the lawyers have posited.
Mr. Umana in his petition in paragraphs 37 to 47 held that elections
materials were not distributed or supplied to polling units in Abak,
Eastern Obolo, Eket, Esit Eket, Essien Udim, Etim Ekpo, Ika, Ikono,
Ikot Abasi, Ikot Ekpene, Itu, Mbo, Mkpat Enin, Obot AKara, Okobo,
Onna, Oruk Anam, Ukanafun and Uruan Local Government Areas of Akwa
Ibom State. But curiously, Exhibit 317 which Mr Umana tendered
confirms the exact opposite of what he had alleged, to which that
there was Card Reader accreditation in each of the Local Government
and locations afore-listed.
The respondents therefore posit that "there could not have been Card
Reader accreditation, the details of which were captured by Exhibit
317, if ‘election materials’ – which, for the avoidance of doubt,
includes the card reader machines – “were not distributed or supplied
to polling units in” these Local Government Areas as claimed by the
Petitioners!”
Part of Mr Umana’s case in paragraphs 37 to 47 of his petition is that
“elections took place” in the polling units and locations named in the
said paragraphs and that “the results were recorded in the respective
Form EC8As but on the way to the ward Collation Centers, agents and
hired thugs of 1stand 2nd respondents hijacked the electoral materials
and prevented collation and announcement at the Ward Collation
Centers.”
Citing several legal authorities, Mr Udom Emmanuel's lawyers have
pointed out that Mr Umana had not, in his petition, howsoever impugned
the integrity and validity of the Forms EC8A for the various polling
units or any other polling unit for that matter.
They said it mattered little if at all that the wards collations were
disrupted – assuming they were, and they do not admit that fact, - as
long as the Forms EC8As for the respective polling units remained
intact and unchallenged.
“In this instance, the Petitioners have not at all claimed that the
final announced results for the Election do not derive from the Forms
EC8As for the various polling units. It is not their case that the
final announced results are at variance with this Forms EC8A
howsoever.
“Perhaps, we merely need to add the fact that a Petitioner can only
impugn the integrity of Form EC8A by calling evidence ‘polling unit
and ward by ward’ in respect of the disputed polling units and wards;
this is the standard consistently prescribed by Their Lordships of the
Supreme Court in decided authorities such as Buhari v Obasanjo (supra)
and Ucha v Elechi (supra).
“The evidence that is admissible in this regard is of course the
direct evidence of party agents who were present at the disputed
polling units and not the hearsay evidence of persons who were not
present at the polling units and specifically when the alleged hijack
took place,” the lawyers have pointed out.
Mr. Umana in his petition had also alleged in paragraph 60 that:
“Petitioners’ agents who reported, waited and stood by their various
units/centers throughout the state were bewildered that election
materials did not arrive at the various polling units and voters who
registered to be accredited and to vote were not accredited, and
neither were they issued with ballot papers to cast any vote.”
However, picking holes in this, Mr Emmanuel’s legal counsel said even
the card reader data tendered by Mr Umana shows the number of voters
who were accredited to vote, “the blatant and brazen falsehood in this
allegation is best unmasked by reviewing the evidence of the 1st
Petitioner (Umana) who testified as PW 48 in regard to his own voting
experience.
In his petition, Mr Umana had claimed that he was a registered voter
in Comprehensive School, Ndiya in Nsit Ubium Local Government Area and
was issued with a PVC by INEC official, reported for accreditation
with other registered voters at his polling unit as early as 8 am on
April 11, 2015 and they were there till past 12 pm, but no official of
INEC showed up and neither did accreditation nor voting take place at
the polling unit on that day.
This is a contradiction of the of the compact disc video which Mr
Umana tendered and was accepted as exhibit 312A. In the CD, Mr Umana
who is being interviewed contradicted himself by stating that he
arrived at his polling unit by 8 am on the day of the election and
that a quick audit by his polling agent confirmed that ALL the
electoral materials were supplied by INEC save for ballot papers which
he claimed were less than the number of registered voters for the
polling unit- for emphasis, not that there were no ballot papers at
all; the complaint was that it was less than the number of registered
voters for the polling unit. According to Mr Umana, the INEC staff at
the polling unit had no explanation for the shortfall in the supplied
ballot papers in consequence whereof, he and other voters at the
polling unit took laws into their hands and concluded that there was
“sabotage” – his exact word- pursuant to which they disrupted and
prevented the elections from holding in that polling unit.
According to Counsel to Mr Emmanuel, “Now, if the 1stPetitioner
(Umana) could approve of such criminality and lawlessness (and has the
audacity to acknowledge it on tape) and yet could lie so glibly and
brazenly, in his Witness Statement on Oath in regard to what happened
in his polling unit on the election day, how does he expect Your
Lordships to take seriously his allegations in paragraph 60 of his
Petition to the effect that “election materials did not arrive at the
various Polling Units and voters who registered to be accredited and
to vote were not accredited, neither were they issued with ballot
papers to cast any vote”? They queried.
Counsel for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) adduced four grounds
why Umana's Petition should fail:
1.That the petitioners contend there was no election in Akwa Ibom
State but rely on figures of the card readers which proves there was
election
2. That the petitioner says1st respondent did not score the highest
number of valid votes, which contradicts their earlier assertion that
there was no election. PDP counsel cited the case of Chime Vs. Ezea on
what a party must prove where it alleges of no election.
3.Petitioners alleged there was no election in Akwa Ibom state but in
the middle of their case they said elections did not take place in 19
Local Government Areas.
4. That the petitioners alleged that there was no collation of result
in the state. Mr Oyetibo maintains that non collation of result cannot
invalidate an election. He further states that think Petitioners did not
attach any Form EC8A.
Judgment is reserved for a later date which will be communicated to counsel
