A’Ibom APC loses another two federal seats at tribunal – TheNigerialawyer

The All Progressives Congress (APC) in Akwa Ibom has lost two
federal constituency seats as the Election Petition Tribunal 11
sitting in Uyo on Wednesday delivered judgment in favour of the
Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

Seats lost to the PDP were that of Abak/Etim Ekpo/Ika and Eket
federal constituencies for which the tribunal chairman, Justice
Jennifer Ijohor declared Aniekan Umanah and Pat Ifon respectively
as winners.

APC candidate for Abak/Etim Ekpo/Ika federal constituency,
Emmanuel Ekon had challenged the victory of Umanah of the PDP while
Kufre Akpabio of the APC had also challenged the declaration of Pat
Ifon of the PDP for Eket federal constituency.

In their separate motions, the petitioners prayed the court to
cancel the elections on the grounds of not being in compliance with
the provisions of the Electoral Act, nullify the certificate issued
to the 1st Respondents as the winner of the February 23 elections
or in the alternative.

The court first gave its ruling on a motion filed by the
petitioners seeking to foreclose the Respondents from defending the
case on grounds that the Respondents made a typographical slip on
the process.

The court held that since the court had already determined a
motion on that subject by dismissing the petitioners’ application
in July 9, 2019, the court could not as now sought by the
Petitioner sit on appeal over its decision.

However, the court dismissed the motion of the petitioner and
held that the Respondents had a right to defend the case and that
they had done so within the limits of the law.

On the merit of the case, the court, after a review of the
evidence given by the witnesses and all documents before the court
held that the Petitioners did not prove non-compliance with the
Electoral Act and further that the non-compliance, assuming the
tribunal were to even consider that such was established in any
little way, was not sufficient non-compliance such as could
substantially affect the results of the elections.

The court held that the evidence of all the witnesses of the
Petitioners were insufficient to prove substantial non-compliance
which is the only grounds that could lead the court to decide in
favour of the Petitioner.

The court held that: “Proving non-compliance would require a
unit by unit prove by the petitioner… consequently, the
Petitioner’s attempt to use 11 polling unit agents to establish
non-compliance in an election that covered over 200 polling units
could achieve anything but never a proof for substantial
non-compliance with the provisions of the Act”.