The Bayelsa State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, on Thursday, fixed April 22 for parties to adopt their final briefs of argument in the suit filed by the All Progressives Congress, APC, and its candidate, Chief Timipre Sylva, to challenge the outcome of the November 11, 2023 gubernatorial poll in the state.

The Justice Adekunle Adeleye-led tribunal okayed the matter for adoption of addresses, after Governor Douye Diri, his deputy, Lawrence Awhrujakpo and the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, who were cited as respondents in the matter, closed their defence.

Each of the respondents produced a witness that testified before the tribunal, even as they tendered several electoral documents in evidence.

Governor Diri’s witness, Mr Gesiye Isowo, identified himself as the Secretary of the PDP in Bayelsa State.

Among exhibits he tendered before the tribunal included his party membership card and his Permanent Voters Card.

Diri, through the witness, also tendered in evidence, the official result of the election as well as the final declaration of the result, which were contained in INEC’s forms EC8D and EC8E.

The governor equally tendered INEC’s forms EC8B and EC8C.

While being cross examined by counsel to the petitioners, Mr Sylvester Elema, SAN, the witness told the tribunal that he registered and voted at Unit 9, Ward 10 in Kolokuma/Okpokuma LGA.

“There was restriction of movement on the day of the election. I did not go to Nembe, Ogbia and Southern Ijaw because of the restriction, but I had agents in all the polling units. I was in constant touch with my agents in all the LGAs,” he stated.

Asked if it was true that the National and State Assembly elections held in the state in February and March 2023, the witness said he was in court only with respect to the governorship election.

“I am not INEC. If you ask about my party’s primary, then I should know,” he added.

The petitioners had contended that voters registers that were tendered in evidence and marked as Exhibit R1- R19 by the tribunal, which was generated on January 25, 2023, were only used for the National Assembly election and not governorship poll.

However, in his evidence, the witness insisted that the registers were used for the governorship poll.

He identified his name as No. 179 in the voters register that was used at his polling unit.

The petitioners opposed the tendering and admissibility of the register which they said was not furnished to them before hand as directed by the tribunal.

On their part, the respondents asked the tribunal to disregard the objection and admit the exhibit as relevant to the case, saying it would help to confirm if the witness actually voted during the election or not.

Continuing his testimony under cross examination, the witness, told the tribunal that some of the voters register were not ticked because election did not hold in those areas.

Asked if he knew one Commissioner of Police named Tolani Alausa, the witness, said: “My lord, he was a very notorious police commissioner in Bayelsa State.”

The witness insisted that INEC discharged its function creditably by conducting the election in compliance with provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and Electoral Act 2022, adding however that there was wilful resistance of the use of BVAS by the APC and its agents.

He told the tribunal that in various Wards in Nembe LGA, no vote was recorded, indicating that election did not hold there.

The witness said results of the election that were tendered by the petitioners, were manufactured by the APC.

“In fact, looking at the results that were tendered, the writing looked similar, as if it was written by one person. And looking at it closely, it looks like that was the writing of my brother, Dr Dennis Otiotio.”

The statement of the witness irked Mr Otiotio who not only testified before the tribunal earlier, but also the Chairman of the APC in Bayelsa State and a member of the party’s legal team.

According to the witness, contrary to what the petitioners produced before the tribunal, pink copies of results of the election were not given to agents of political parties or security agencies.

“Pink copies are only for INEC,” he insisted.

He further told the court that voters register for areas where the APC produced election results from, were not ticked and no vote was recorded there.

In his own defence, the deputy governor produced a former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs in Bayelsa State, Mr Gowon Toruyouyei, as his witness.

The witness said he retired in January and was subpoenaed to appear before this tribunal.

While being cross examined, the witness confirmed that the deputy governor is a legal practitioner whose Call to Bar certificate was listed in INEC’s form.

Asked if in all his interactions with the 3rd respondent, he could be described as an illiterate, the witness, said: “He could not have been an illiterate. He is very educated.

“I will describe him as someone that has the requisite experience and qualification to be elected into any office in the country.”

In its own defence, the PDP, brought a former Attorney General of Bayelsa State, Talford Ongolo, as its witness.

He maintained that Sylva could not have been validly sponsored for the election by the APC, having already been elected as governor twice.

“I worked as the DG of his campaign at one time, so all these facts are within my knowledge,” he added

The witness said he was not physically present at Ogbia and Nembe LGAs on the election day, “but virtually, I was there.”

He said he served as the State Collation Agent of the PDP during the election and also voted at his polling unit at Southern Ijaw.

The witness identified his picture on the voters register.

He told the tribunal that those whose names were not ticked on the register, did not vote on the election day.

“It is a standard procedure that once you vote, your name is ticked,” the witness added.

Despite objection by the petitioners, a certified copy of the voters register containing the name of the witness was admitted in evidence by the tribunal.

Meanwhile, after all the respondents closed their defence, the tribunal adjourned the matter for adoption.

It directed the parties to file and exchange their respective processes before the adjourned date.

Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.