The newly appointed Senate minority leader and former
governor of Akwa Ibom state , Godswill Akpabio , Tuesday
suffered a setback in his bid to retain his seat after the Akwa
Ibom State National Assembly election tribunal ruled in
favour of the candidate of the All Progressives Congress,
Inibehe Okori, on two preliminary objections brought by Mr.
Akpabio , reports Premium Times.
The three - person panel of judges , led by Goddy Anunihi ,
sitting at the Customary Court of Appeal at Dutsen Alhaji ,
Abuja , ruled against Mr. Akpabio on his submission that
there was no need entertaining the petition from Mr. Okori
because he was not even the candidate of the APC in the
March 28 National Assembly election .
Mr. Anunihi said it was premature to decide at this stage of
the trial the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Akpabio .
“The issue of the petitioner not having the locus standi
would be considered as the trial progresses , ” he said .
The panel also maintained that Mr. Akpabio ’ s claim of
Appeal Court rulings on the issue of Oath of witnesses were
contradictory.
They argued that there was significant and substantial
compliance with Mr. Okori’ s witness statements as deposed
and therefore struck out the preliminary objection .
Mr. Akpabio had claimed that Mr. Okori’ s witness statement
were not deposed before a competent authority, but the
tribunal ruled that the stamp and signature used by the
secretary of the tribunal clearly stated that she was acting
as Commissioner of Oath and stated that Mr. Akpabio
cannot fault Mr. Okori’ s witness statement .
Reacting to the ruling , counsels to Mr. Akpabio , J. Ogunyomi ,
and that of the third respondent, the Independent national
Electoral Commission , INEC , S . Mbazuae, asked the tribunal ,
to fix the testimony of witness for Wednesday .
Counsel to Mr. Okori , Assam Assam , said he was ready for
the commencement of trial.
The tribunal, however , agreed with the counsels to Mr.
Akpabio and INEC and fixed Wednesday , July 29 , for witness
testimony.
The former governor had filed the two preliminary objections
on July 14 and 15 through his counsel , Paul Usoro.
Mr. Usoro had last Thursday told the tribunal that the
essence of the first motion is to seek an order of the tribunal
declining jurisdiction to entertain the petition and striking out
same on the grounds that the petitioners lack the requisite
locus standi to challenge the conduct and result of the
March 28 National Assembly elections .
He told the tribunal that his objections were hinged on
Sections 85( 1) and 137( 1 ) of the Electoral Act , explaining
that only a candidate for an election and a political party in
an election can challenge the outcome of an election .
He also claimed the APC did not give INEC the mandatory 21
days notice for the nomination of Mr. Okori, hence the
purported candidate filed by the APC with respect to the
Akwa Ibom North West Senatorial seat was not a valid
candidate .
Mr. Usoro told the tribunal that based on a notice for
nomination sent to INEC by the APC and dated November
18, 2014 , the party had said their senatorial nomination
would hold on December 8 , 2014 which makes it a 20- day
notice thereby violating the mandatory provision of not less
than 21- day notice .
He argued that the action of the APC violated Section 15( 2 )
( a) of the Interpretation Act .
“Neither Okori nor the APC satisfied this statutory
provisions, ” he said .
He consequently asked the tribunal to uphold his preliminary
objection and dismiss Mr. Okori’ s petition as entirely
incompetent as the petitioners never had the locus standing
to institute the petition .
On the second preliminary objection dated July 14, 2015 , Mr.
Akpabio , in a motion on notice before the tribunal and
supported by a six paragraph affidavit, said his grounds for
bringing his preliminary objection before the tribunal for the
petition to be struck out is premised on the fact that the
petition was incompetent and the tribunal had no jurisdiction
to entertain it.
He said a condition precedent to the presentation of the
petition had not been fulfilled, as the purported witness
statements were not deposed in accordance with the
provisions of the Oath Act .
He also said the purported witness statements were not
sworn to before a competent authority as required by law
and that any valid ground or grounds did not support the
petition.
Mr. Akpabio also argued that the petition did not disclose
any reasonable cause of action to warrant a hearing on
merit.