November 28 is set aside as the day for Federal High Court to give final verdict on the long-drawn legal battle between Mr Umo Eno and Mr Akan Okon bordering on alleged certificates scandal.
Eno, the Akwa Ibom Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate is being challenged by Okon, the state governorship aspirant over his eligibility to contest the 2023 general elections.
At the resumed hearing at Federal High Court, Uyo on Friday, October 14, counsel to Umo Eno urged the Court to dismiss the suit filed against him by Mr Akan Okon, for it is “frivolous, tendentious and wholly speculative.”
Counsel to the 1st and 2nd defendants, Paul Usoro, SAN submitted that Mr Okon failed to prove any iota of his allegations against the 2nd Defendant and as such does not deserve a favourable outcome.
Related news
- Umo Eno tenders certificates in court, disowns confirmation of result
- I never saw Umo Eno’s WAEC certificates’ original- Forensic examiner
- Akan Okon’s suit against Umo Eno suffers as Court adjourns to Sept 12
In the joint final written address adopted by Justice Agatha Okeke at the court presided over by Justice Agatha, Usoro argued that the plaintiff came to court to seek the disqualification of Umo Eno on the basis of the allegations of fake 1981 and 1983 WAEC results, falsified birth certificate and fake voter’s card.
The legal luminary argued that Pastor Eno, in all respects, is qualified to fly the party’s flag in the governorship elections, having scored the highest votes of 993 and also possessing the constitutional qualifications for the office.
Describing the suit as an abuse of court process, the 1st and 2nd defendants also maintained that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and prayed all the reliefs sought by the plaintiff be denied.
He also referred the court to the preliminary objections contained in the 1st and 2nd defendants joint written address that the court lacked jurisdiction on the matter.
The preliminary objection is supported by a six paragraph affidavit sworn to by one of the counsel to the defendants, Felix Orok.
Paul Usoro,SAN also adopted the 1st and 2nd defendants’ written address on objections to 12 exhibits tendered by the plaintiff and provisionally admitted by the court.
He argued that to save the time of the court, they decided to limit the objections to five of the 12 exhibits.
“The exhibits P2 and P3 which were the forensic reports and ancillary documents prepared by the plaintiff’s first witness.”
Exhibit P10, he reasoned, is a University of Uyo students information document and the Exhibit P17 is the purported letter from WAEC to AADN, with Exhibit D10 being the computer generated document tendered by the plaintiff through the 3rd witness of the defendants as a document of the West African Examination Council.
He said that the objection is based on the provisions of the Evidence Act, 2011 and urged the court to reject the admission of the five Exhibits, P2,P3, P10, P17 and D10.
The leading counsel drew the court’s attention to the objections raised by the plaintiffs, who opposed the original certificates tendered by the 1st and 2nd defendants, on the argument that they were not served on time and can only be admitted by an order of the court and by the consent of the parties in the case.
Meanwhile, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC has announced that Pastor Umo Eno is a genuinely registered voter who is eligible to vote and be voted for, in any election in Nigeria.
On the argument by the plaintiff that INEC had refused to oblige him of the voter’s register to confirm if Pastor Umo Eno was a registered voter, the counsel to INEC, Emmanuel Eze argued that the plaintiff never applied formerly to the State Resident Commissioner of INEC for confirmation of the status of the 2nd defendant.
The INEC counsel said the INEC register which is undergoing updating in line with the continuous voter’s registration, is due to be ready in January next year.
He maintained that he as a staff of INEC and as a principal legal officer of the 3rd defendant, he has responsibility to defend his organisation and as a legal officer, he has the right to provide statements of facts, and guide the court accordingly.
He wanted the court to discountenance the objection to his statement of facts by the plaintiff.
Okey Amaechi, SAN who appeared for the Plaintiff, held that PDP failed to comply with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 as well as its guidelines for the Governorship primaries in nominating the 2nd Defendant as its candidate.
The plaintiff, among other things, also reasoned that since the 1st and 2nd Witnesses of the defendants were sworn and testified on Subpoena Duce tecum, and were not cross examined, their evidence should be discarded.
After listening to their submissions, Justice Agatha Okeke adjourned the matter till November 28 for final ruling.
