In a dramatic manner, three Justices of the National Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Uyo delivered separate judgments in the petition filed by Senator Godswill Akpabio, former Governor of Akwa Ibom State, challenging the election of Senator Chris Ekpenyong into Akwa Ibom North Senatorial District.
Akpabio, former Senate Minority Leader of the the All Progressives Congress (APC) who scored 83,158 votes in the National Assembly elections conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC lost to Ekpenyong of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) who scored 118,215 votes.
Akpabio, therefore, challenged Ekpenyong’s declaration at the National Assembly Elections Petition Tribunal sitting in Uyo, Akwa Ibom and cited unlawful cancellation of his collated votes by INEC that gave his opponent an edge in the election.
Delivering a majority judgment, Justice W. O. Akanbi, the Chairman of National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal with the concurrence of Justice Ebetu, dismissed the petition and upheld the declaration of Ekpenyong as the winner of the February 23 National Assembly elections.
The tribunal had, on Friday night, stated that Akpabio failed to bring any witness from the polling units and thus could not prove Ekpenyong’s substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act.
However, in a split judgment on September 11, Justice Sheriff Hafizu, a member of the Tribunal, said there was preponderance of evidence to prove that Senator Akpabio, now the Minister of Niger Delta Affairs, was robbed of victory in the February 23 National Assembly election.
Justice Hafizu held that it was his view that Senator Akpabio overwhelmingly won the election and ought to have been returned as the duly elected Senator for Akwa Ibom North West Senatorial District.
In a dissenting judgment, Justice Hafizu held that the contention of the Respondents that Senator Akpabio ought to have called unit polling agents to prove his case was wrong since Akpabio had not challenged the results of the units and therefore there was nothing to prove.
Justice Hafizu observed that the case of Senator Akpabio centred on cancellation of duly collated votes at INEC office which went beyond the units, citing the case of Dr William who had admitted during trial that Senator Akpabio’s votes were altered in INEC office in Uyo on the instructions of Mr Mike Igini, the Resident Electoral Commissioner, and said such alterations were unlawful.
He said he found merit in the Petitioner’s case that his collated votes which showed that he won the election was surreptitiously and unilaterally cancelled by an INEC official so as to hand over victory to Ekpenyong.
Justice Hafizu also held that from evidence adduced during the trial it was obvious that the Returning Officer had cancelled the votes of Obot Akara local government area due to an established case of over voting and said it was wrong for the same cancelled result to be re-validated in INEC office in Uyo.
The Minority Judge held that the Witnesses paraded by the Respondents were unreliable as they gave contradictory evidence during trial. He cited cases of witnesses who had alleged that they were abducted by APC thugs and forced to thumb print for the party only for card reader reports to put a lie to such claim, a contention that the majority judgement glossed over.
He argued that INEC was wrong to have cancelled the 61,329 votes garnered by APC in Essien Udim local government area against PDP score of 9,050 votes. He said the unlawful cancellation of the votes was a clear case of robbery since it did not follow the due process of INEC guidelines.
The majority judgment also glossed over evidences that were given in the case including certified true copies of results released by INEC which were tendered by the Petitioners. It also remained mute on the Police reports that the elections were free, fair and credible.
Accordingly Justice Hafizu voided the declaration of Engr Ekpenyong as the winner of the election and declared his return invalid. He also declared Senator Akpabio as the winner of the election having garnered majority of the lawful votes and ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission to present a certificate of return to Senator Akpabio as the duly elected Senator of Akwa Ibom North West Senatorial District.
Attendees and lawyers at the Tribunal openly applauded the judgement of Justice Hafizu, describing it as sound and bound to stand the test of time and devoid of any pecuniary consideration but justice delivery.
Counsel to Senator Akpabio, Mr Adekunle Oyesanya, SAN praised Justice Hafizu for his courage in giving the dissenting judgment represented the position of the law.
Also, Samuel Ikpo, counsel to Ekpenyong applauded the justices for the ruling, saying that the defendant is ready to defend the matter even in the Appeal Court.
Recall that a lawyer and human right activist, Barrister Leo Ekpenyong had raised an alarm penultimate week in a widely published article: “Judgment for sale” alleging that two members of the National Assembly elections petition tribunal in Akwa Ibom State had been compromised and predicting that there would be a split in the judgment the Akwa Ibom North West Senatorial District matter.
Earlier, the National Assembly Election Tribunal had declared Hon. Aniekan Umanah as the winner of the February 23 elections for Abak/Etim Ekpo/Ika Federal Constituency.
The Petitioners, The APC and its candidate, Mr. Emmanuel Ekon, had challenged the election of Mr. Umanah on the grounds that he was not duly elected by the majority of lawful votes cast at the elections.
The Tribunal had also upheld the election of Mr. Patrick Ifon as the duly elected candidate for the Eket/Esit Eket/Ibeno/Onna Federal Constituency and consequently dismissed the petition of Akpabio Kufre of the APC and its candidate.
The APC had challenged the election on the grounds that the elections on the 23rd February, 2019 which produced Mr. Ifon as winner was invalid due to corrupt practices and that it was not held in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Act.
The court held that the petitioners could not prove the case made by them of corrupt practices and non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act.
