Ogboru Rejects Olive Branch, Insists on Testing Tribunal’s Judgment at Appellate Courts

Amidst flurry of appeals not to pursue hisgovernorship election petition any further after losing at the tribunal lastFriday, the candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, Great OvedjeOgboru appears not swayed by the pleas from different quarters, including thestate government and the traditional institution. Though the counsel to theaggrieved APC candidate, Nichols Ichekor had dropped the hint of an appealwhile responding to the judgment after it was delivered by the tribunalchairman, Sulaiman Belgore, stating that some aspects they were not satisfiedwith would be tested upstairs, Turner Ogboru, a lawyer and younger brother ofthe APC candidate, unequivocally expressed to the magazine their resolve toappeal the judgment. They seemed buoyed up by the 2007 case in which the appealcourt annulled the victory of the then governor, Emmanuel Eweta Uduaghan andordered a rerun which he (Ogboru) however lost and still challenged up to theSupreme Court. That was the closest Ogboru had come to realizing hisgovernorship ambition since 1999 when he started contesting for the office.

Apparently already determined to pursue the current case up to the apex court, the younger Ogboru told the magazine that “the process stops at the Supreme Court. It is when you finish at the Supreme Court by the Nigerian legal process that is the end of it. Before we canceled Uduaghan’s election, we lost in the tribunal. But we tested it upstairs and a rerun was ordered”. In spite of the appeals, however, for the Ogborus and their co-travelers, it is not over until it is over.

The three-man tribunal had dismissed, for grossincompetence, all the grounds of the petition presented to it by the APC andits candidate against the declared winner and incumbent governor, IfeanyiArthur Okowa, his party, the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and the IndependentNational Electoral Commission, INEC. In its unanimous judgment, the tribunalwas unsparing in tongue-lashing the petitioners and their legal team,describing the petition as “badly drafted, devoid of particulars and detailsand insufficient data” to sustain allegation of multiple voting therebyconcluding that “the case of the petitioner remains unproven”. They alsodescribed the petitioners as gold-diggers and opportunists. Ogboru and the APChad complained of voting without accreditation, illegal allocation of unlawfulvotes, over-voting and multiple voting in 896 polling units in 23 out of 25 localgovernment areas of the state. In dismissing the petition as “gold-digging andopportunistic”, the tribunal lambasted the petitioners for “document dumping”,failure to prove their case polling unit by polling unit, and heavily buildingtheir allegations around smart card readers.

Agreeing with counsel to the respondents on the weight of the documents presented by the petitioners in support of their case, namely voters’ register, Forms EC 8 A and Bs and others, the tribunal held that there was no demonstration as to their relevance in evidence, submitting that it was a “classical case of dumping”. It, therefore, dismissed them as “of no probative value’. Belgore held that “it cannot be over-emphasised by us that it is not the duty of the tribunal to tie documents to the case of the petitioner” as “a judge is not permitted to embark on an inquisitorial examination of documents outside the courtroom”. He said having failed in this regard, “the documents have become worthless, of no probative value, and therefore disregarded”. On the issue of voting without accreditation and multiple voting alleged by the petitioners, the tribunal held that they did not mention a single individual who voted without accreditation, and none was brought forward as a witness, neither did they mention the name of anyone who voted multiple times. It insisted that they ought to have provided both oral and documentary evidence in support of the allegations.

Resolving the issue of non-accreditation withcard reader, the tribunal agreed with the arguments of D. D. Dodo, counsel tothe governor, which they said were “well-marshaled and agreeable to us”. Citinga decided case by Mohammed Uwais, former chief justice of Nigeria, CJN, andretired Justice of the Supreme Court which held that card reader is tocomplement the voters’ register and not to “dethrone, supplant, or depose” it,the tribunal shared this view, stressing that the card reader is an aid oradjutant to the voters’ register which is meant to authenticate the permanentvoter card, PVC, and kick-start the process of accreditation. Holding that thepetitioners failed woefully on the allegation, the tribunal said thepetitioners never considered that their claim of over-voting must be proved onthe basis of registered voters and votes returned based on the voters’register. It also asserted that the petitioners, having made allegations ofover-voting and allocation of votes in 896 polling units, “the law imposes aburden on them to, in addition to tendering the voter register, Form EC8 As,Form EC 8 Bs, EC 8 Cs, EC 8 Ds, from the bar, they must go further to link orrelate their documents to specific areas of their allegations”, especially theparticular polling units they were disputing.

According to the tribunal, out of over 3,000 pollingunits in the state, the petitioners’ complaints were in only 896 polling units,whereas only five polling unit agents were called as witnesses leaving out 891polling units with no eye-witness to attest to, or confirm, or give credence toall the allegations. Dismissing the allegations, the tribunal posited that“even if they are 20, in our view, it is too scanty, grossly few, inadequate tomake any significant impression”, emphasizing that “we say this because thepolling units are the epicenter of activities” on any election day with allcandidates expected to have polling unit agents.  The tribunalconsequently ruled that presenting only five polling unit agents out of 896,was fatal to the case of the petitioners.

Literally tearing the petition into shreds, the tribunalaverred that “there is gross insufficiency of pleadings in this case. Thispetition was badly drafted. The paragraphs are too generic and not specific inmost cases. They are devoid of particulars and details as far as the twoalleged complaints are concerned. One would have seriously considered apleading that gives sufficient data polling unit by polling unit… What thepetitioners did was to lump all the polling units affected by the allegationsin all the local government areas together and then try to prove by smart cardreader returns.  So, all the allegations as claimed to have occurredin the various polling units were diluted and mixed together. This is what wecall dumping; this is wrong and it has suffered the problem of proof because oflack of specificity”.

Deciding the case in favour of Okowa and the PDP, thetribunal held that “the petitioners failed to prove that the first respondentwas not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes at the election and we so rule.Finally, in view of all the foregoing, starting from page one of this judgmentwhich is a narration of the entire circumstances of this case, it is incorrectto contend that the first respondent did not win the election by a majority oflawful votes. In contrary, manifest to us, and it is crystal clear that hescored a total of 925,274 votes as against 215, 938 scored by the firstpetitioner”. The panel said it found the declaration and return as shown in theexhibits tendered by the petitioners, the first and second respondents, “to bein order and duly made, satisfied the provisions of Sections 29 and Section 69of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended). They therefore concluded that “we haveno reason to disturb or upturn that declaration. This petition isunquestionable, gold-digging, opportunistic, lacking in any atom of merit. Itfails, and it is hereby dismissed”.

But as far as the younger Ogboru is concerned, “the courtbelow has just delivered their judgment. We will test their judgment in theupper courts because we are dissatisfied with aspects of the judgment that webelieve that are in error of law”. He believed that the three-man panel got itall mixed up in on the issue of smart card reader, contending that “smart cardreader is now valid in Nigeria”. According to him, “Nigeria is not spendingbillions of naira on smart card readers just for fun. The judiciary must riseup to their challenge to make sure we start conducting good and credibleelections”. Ogboru believed that the judges based their conclusions on a lawthat had been deleted. In his words, “the original gazette of Electoral Act2010 is very clear that electronic voting is what was in sub-section 2 ofSection 52 and it had been deleted. He said by INEC handbook, “electronic accreditationis lawful. We will test it upstairs”.

The decision by Ogboru to seek redress at theAppeal Court has however not gone down well with a broad spectrum of Deltanswho believed that the Abraka-born politician who has become a recurring decimalat every election cycle, should let go and join hands with the government ofthe day to develop the state. First to extend the olive branch to Ogboru wasthe state governor, who at a thanksgiving service at the government housechapel immediately after the verdict affirming his victory said “I appealto my brother, Ogboru that the time has come to stop fighting. It is time topartner together to do the best that we can for our people. I appeal thatenough is enough. It is time to build Delta State together for the good of ourpeople”. Speaking in a similar vein, the state information commissioner,Charles Aniagwu told the magazine that “you also recall that when he(Okowa) was declared the winner in March this year, we called on our brothersand sisters on the other side to come and join hands with him towards buildinga stronger Delta. The tribunal has succinctly put it that opposition went on avoyage of document dumping and that does not in any way help their case and sowe do hope and believe that having listened to the very sound judgmentdelivered by the tribunal, they would come on board and join in the desire ofSenator Dr. Ifeanyi Arthur Okowa to build a stronger Delta”. Describing thejudgment as victory for all Deltans, the commissioner said “it has once againshown that Senator Dr. Ifeanyi Okowa actually secured the mandate of a majorityof Deltans for him to be declared the winner of that election”.

The state chapter of the PDP, in a statement by its publicity secretary, Ifeanyi Osuoza, described the victory as ”a reaffirmation of Okowa’s capacity by Deltans”, and advised Ogboru to channel the resources he spends in pursuing electoral victory through the courts to better the lives of his people. Funkekeme Solomon, senior political adviser to the governor, agreed with Osuoza, advising Ogboru against appealing the judgment. Solomon opined that “if he has a good team, they will advise him against it because there is nowhere to appeal to really. You cannot say you are questioning over 800 polling units and called only 20 witnesses, and out of that, 15 are not relevant witnesses. So, I will advise him to key into the governor’s appeal. In my place, they say it’s only a small thing that makes a king lose title. He would lose title if he continues like this”.

So, while appealing to Ogboru to drop all those distractions and join hands with the governor “because Deltans already know he will not be able to rule this state if this is the way he wants to go about it”, Solomon said “I will urge him to come up with developmental ideas that would help so that he will not just be on the side of always contesting elections perpetually and failing perpetually both at the election and at the tribunal. It is a shame!” While asserting that the governor’s advice does not mean that he is weak, Solomon said “no, the governor is a statesman and he knows the futility of what he (Ogboru) is doing and that is why he is asking him to come on board and let’s work together”. The political adviser said as the director-general who saw the party through the campaigns and elections, he was gratified by the judgment as it showed the party actually won the election.

Great Ovedje Ogboru photo
Great Ovedje Ogboru

Traditional rulers in the state have also lent their royal voices to the call on Ogboru to sheath his sword and jettison the idea of appealing the judgment of the state’s election tribunal which did not favour him. They urged Ogboru to bury the hatchet in the interest of unity, peace, and progress in Delta State. The royal fathers observed that the financial and other resources used for litigation could be channeled to impacting lives. While congratulating the governor on his victory which they described as an ‘’affirmation of the collective mandate of the people across the state’’ they urged him to continue to run an inclusive government that would further promote unity, peace and development across the three senatorial districts in the state. The Chairman of the Delta State Council of Traditional Rulers, Emmanuel Efeizomor II, had also encouraged Ogboru to accept the hand of fellowship offered to him by the governor. Ogboru had on five occasions contested governorship elections in the state on the platform of different political parties: the defunct Alliance for Democracy (AD) in 2003 against James Ibori; the Democratic Peoples’ Party (DPP) in 2007 and 2011 against Emmanuel Uduaghan; and, on the platform of the Labour Party (LP) in 2015 against the incumbent governor, Okowa. The 2019 contestation made it the fifth time he would be contesting and losing. And like in previous experiences, he is resolute in pursuing his petition to the apex court.

Follow Us on Social Media

Related posts

error: Content is protected !!
WhatsApp WhatsApp us