Counsel to the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) and her candidate in September 2016 governorship election in Edo State, Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu yesterday failed to produce, when needed, any of the over 1000 witnesses whose written depositions are with the Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Benin City for cross-examination.
They have so far called only 71 witnesses as at press time saying they would prefer to call those who were issued subpoenas.
Furthermore, the application by the petitioners – PDP and Ize-Iyamu – who opted to call a subpoenaed witness from another political party was rebuffed as counsels to the respondents objected to the move because the witness in question had no written statement before their Lordships during pre-hearing.
All three of the respondents’ counsels were unanimous in their objection to evidence being given by persons not party to the suit. They also argued that the witness had no interest in proceedings being a member of another political party that did not file any election petition.
All the counsels to the respondents raised the objection when one Mr Oviosu Enas, subpoenaed by the tribunal to testify in the case, was called to witness accordingly.
Mr Onyeachi Ipeazor, Mr Ken Mozia and Chief Adeniyi Akintola, all senior advocates of Nigeria (SAN) and counsels to INEC, Governor Obaseki and All Progressives Congress (APC) respectively, objected to his being sworn-in as a witness.
They argued that since he was never a witness whose deposition statement on oath was among those the petitioners frontloaded in court, he could not be allowed to testify in the case.
Ipeazor particularly argued that Enas was not also a known member of the PDP, hence, could not be allowed to testify in the case.
However, while the tribunal reserved ruling to Wednesday on whether or not it will allow the witnesses to testify, it however urged the petitioners to proceed and call other witnesses.
Nevertheless, Eleja argued that the petitioners had indicated in their statements of claim that they could call witnesses including subpoenaed witnesses to testify in the case.
Eleja noted, “If we are shut out at this stage by refusing to take the subpoenaed witnesses, the petitioners will suffer monumental injustice at the appeal while the respondents will not suffer any injury either way.”
In his plea, the petitioners’ counsel urged the court to take note that it must do justice in the overall interest of all the parties involved, as the case was time-bound. “The defendants are at liberty to also subpoena witnesses since there was an advanced notice by the petitioners”, he explained.
He said for the interest of justice and for substantive and substantial justice to be done, the court should not object the witness on subpoena.
According to the first respondent, “This is profoundly dangerous, the argument of the petitioners. I want to inform this honourable court on the deluge of witnesses to be called by the petitioners by subpoena. A distinction should be drawn between a document and oral evidence – that where it is oral evidence, the impact is also based on what is observed.
The second respondent said, “This is an ambush by the PDP. As we are talking now, they are filing more subpoenas and what they are seeking to do is not permissible in law. It would be overreaching to the respondents, and justice to both parties must be done.
According to the 3rd respondent, “About 30 other subpoenas have been filed and for another political party that did not file a petition to be subpoenaed is an attempt to bring in another petition through the back door and this is an abuse of court processes.
In a short ruling, the Chairman of the Tribunal, Justice A.T. Badamasi said in view of the arguments by both parties, the petitioners should continue to call those witnesses whose written addresses have been frontloaded while those on subpoena would be determined on February 8, 2017.
Nevertheless, the petitioners’ counsel argued further saying it had no available witness, except those under subpoena and that petitioners would need some time to convey witnesses to the court.
The court, meanwhile, in another short ruling, adjourned hearing until February 7, 2017 since petitioners have no witness whose petition had been frontloaded with the tribunal.
