Ogun Guber: INEC Tenders 70,000 Documents Before Tribunal

Politics
Share this:
Share

image

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) yesterday stormed the Ogun State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Isabo, Abeokuta with over 70,000 materials used during the April 11, 2015 poll.

The used materials were conveyed to the tribunal in four INEC’s Hilux pick-up vans.

The INEC’s action was in deference to a sub-poena earlier issued by the tribunal hearing the petition brought by Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Gboyega Nasir Isiaka, against the re-election of Governor Ibikunle Amosun. The subpoena had ordered INEC to produce, bring and tender the documents.

The other electoral materials produced by INEC before the tribunal include the voters’ register, incident reporting forms and result sheets.

All the ballot papers and other election materials produced before the tribunal were those used in all the polling units of the nine local government areas where the results are being contested by Isiaka.

The LGAs include Abeokuta North, Abeokuta South, Ewekoro, Ifo, Obafemi/Owode, Ado-Odo/Ota, Odeda, Remo North and Sagamu.

The documents were brought in by the INEC Deputy Director/Head of Department Electoral Operations, Mr. Samuel Ogunjemilua, who was invited through a writ of subpoena of August 12, 2015, applied for by Isiaka’s lawyer, Chief Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN) and granted by the tribunal.

Earlier, Amosun’s counsel, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), said the INEC official be sworn on an oath like every other witnesses before he could tender the documents.

“If he is to tender, he is duty bound to comply with what he has been brought to court to do, nobody can take the court for granted,” he stated.

While both lawyers to All Progressives Congress (APC) and INEC, George Oyeniyi and Oluwadare Ogunnaike, respectively aligned with Fagbemi, Oyeyipo disagreed, citing the decision of the Court of Appeal in Olaniyan vs Oyewole, 2008.

But Chairman of the three-man panel, Justice Henry Olusiyi, ruled that the subpoena should be taken for its title and that the witness was not competent to be sworn on oath or affirmed.

Share this:
Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Human Verification: In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.