Tribunal: Labour Party Seeks To Rectify Significant Errors In Final Written Address As Judgement Day Draws Close

Tribunal: Labour Party Seeks To Rectify Significant Errors In Final Written Address As Judgement Day Draws Close

A mild spectacle occurred at the Enugu State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal when Governor Peter Mbah, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) opposed efforts by the Labour Party (LP) and its governorship candidate, Chijioke Edeoga, to rectify significant errors in their final written address.

INEC, Governor Mbah, and PDP were listed as the 1st to 3rd Respondents in the petition initiated by Edeoga and his party, aimed at contesting the legitimacy of Mbah’s victory as the elected governor of Enugu State.

Read Also Money Or Madness? – Lady Was Entertaining A Man At A House Party While N@k*d (VIDEO)

Justice K. M. Akano, who headed the Tribunal, reserved judgment on the Chijioke Edeoga of LP’s petition after the parties presented their final written addresses.

Read Also Where Is It Located? – VIDEO Of Shirtless Men Being Given Er0t!c Services In A Barbershop By Sk!mpily Dressed Ladies Set Tongues Wagging (WATCH)

However, during this process, a minor commotion arose when the petitioners inadvertently requested the court to declare LP as the winner of the Rivers State governorship election instead of the Enugu State governorship election in their final written address.

Following the Respondents’ adoption of their final written addresses, the petitioners’ lead counsel, Chief Adegboyega Awomolu (SAN), applied to correct some significant errors in their previously submitted final written address.

In addition to mistakenly mentioning Rivers instead of Enugu, the Petitioners had used the word “negative” instead of “positive” in paragraph 4.4 line 1. They also noted an ‘error’ in paragraph 4.3 (a) line 2, where they referred to the 2nd Respondent (Peter Mbah) as the ‘Petitioner’.

However, INEC, represented by Abdul Mohammed Rafindadi (SAN), opposed the application, arguing that it aimed to alter the stance the Petitioners had initially taken in their written addresses. INEC emphasized that requesting an amendment of a final written address was procedurally flawed and urged the court to dismiss the application.

INEC contended that this was not merely a typographical mistake but an admission by the Petitioners that they had lost the case.

Also opposing the application, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), the lead counsel for Mbah, argued that granting the application would lead to an irreparable injustice against the Respondents.

He asserted that the Petitioner sought to introduce further arguments after the Respondents had already presented their final written addresses, effectively closing the matter.

The LP team, in their final written address, based their argument on allegations of forgery concerning Mbah’s National Youth Service (NYSC) discharge certificate. They also claimed falsification of election results and over-voting in certain polling units.

However, the Respondents – INEC, Mbah, and PDP – countered these allegations in their written addresses, dismissing the claims and criticizing the petitioners’ witnesses, particularly the LP Polling Unit agents. The Respondents maintained that the Petitioners failed to prove the allegations of falsification of results and over-voting.

Regarding the Petitioners’ reliance on Mbah’s NYSC discharge certificate, the Respondents characterized it as “irrelevant,” stating that it was neither a qualification for the governor’s position nor an educational credential listed in Section 177 of the 1999 Constitution.

Furthermore, the Respondents asserted that the Petitioners had not proven the case of forgery against the governor.