From Rose Ejembi, Makurdi
SOURCE: THE SUN
SOURCE: THE SUN
The National and State Elections Petition Tribunal presided over by Justice Mosunmola Dipeolu yesterday upheld the election of former Senate president, Senator David Mark.
Justice Dipeolu, who dismissed the petition brought by Daniel Onjeh of the All Progressives Congress (APC) against Mark, held that the petitioner (Onjeh) failed to substantially prove that the senatorial election in Benue South District did not comply with the Electoral Act 2010 as amended.
Onjeh is contesting that the re-election of Mark was marred by irregularities such as ballot stuffing, manipulation of votes, inducement, falsification of results, abuse of office, over-voting as well as mutilation of results sheets.
Dipeolu disagreed with the petitioner, arguing that the evidence of his witnesses were contradictory as they were based on hearsay, which, she said, was not admissible in law.
“Witnesses contradicted their statement in admitting that the election held free and fair in their polling units. Their evidence is based on hearsay,” she said.
The tribunal, while noting that the documentary as well as oral evidence did not show that the election was fraudulent, held that the people who tendered the documents were not the makers, stressing that the documents were tendered without linking them to the petitioner.
“The petitioner and his witnesses did not link documents to the case. They did not show figures to prove non-compliance. He did not prove that non-compliance affected the result of the election. Ballot boxes and papers should have been brought to court to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The polling agents should have made issue of falsification, even as the petitioner did not produce or invite anyone who alleged harassment or intimidation.”
Justice Dipeolu, who dismissed the petition brought by Daniel Onjeh of the All Progressives Congress (APC) against Mark, held that the petitioner (Onjeh) failed to substantially prove that the senatorial election in Benue South District did not comply with the Electoral Act 2010 as amended.
Onjeh is contesting that the re-election of Mark was marred by irregularities such as ballot stuffing, manipulation of votes, inducement, falsification of results, abuse of office, over-voting as well as mutilation of results sheets.
Dipeolu disagreed with the petitioner, arguing that the evidence of his witnesses were contradictory as they were based on hearsay, which, she said, was not admissible in law.
“Witnesses contradicted their statement in admitting that the election held free and fair in their polling units. Their evidence is based on hearsay,” she said.
The tribunal, while noting that the documentary as well as oral evidence did not show that the election was fraudulent, held that the people who tendered the documents were not the makers, stressing that the documents were tendered without linking them to the petitioner.
“The petitioner and his witnesses did not link documents to the case. They did not show figures to prove non-compliance. He did not prove that non-compliance affected the result of the election. Ballot boxes and papers should have been brought to court to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The polling agents should have made issue of falsification, even as the petitioner did not produce or invite anyone who alleged harassment or intimidation.”
No comments:
Post a Comment