From Uche Nnorom, Makurdi
Parties in the Governorship election case in Benue State have differed on issue of jurisdiction to hear the matter before the Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Makurdi.
It would be noted the matter which was billed for commencement of hearing after the pre-hearing session on Wednesday 14th June, 2023 failed to hold.
It was gathered that a new panel, been the third since the matter was moved from Lafia to Makurdi,was constituted headed by Justice Ibrahim Mohammed.
Hence, this necessitated a fresh pre-hearing session on Thursday 15th June, 2023.
During the hearing, the petitioners(PDP) argued strongly that the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the matter while, the respondents vehemently opposed and asked the tribunal to decline jurisdiction of the petition.
Raising his application, Douglas Pepe, SAN for the petitioners said they have diled a counter affidavit accompanied by written add.
He aked 3 questions for the answer which will resolve the application one way or d other.
“Whether the soul of the petiton falls under ambit of section 134 1 a, if tnis is in the affirmative application must stays. Whether the petitoner fall within the ambit of persons who cam present an election petition under section 138 of the lectoral Act if yes applicstion must fail. Whether they are facts in support of the grounds which can be accommodated under sect if yes application must fail.
The entirety of the petiton is premised on novel on sect 134 sub 3 of the Electoral Act 2022. Act was done in Abubakar vs INEC. Section 31 and 138 sub 1 of d Electoral Act. 138 did not interfere with 134 sect 285 sub 14 of d 1999 Constitution does nt apply to Election Petition. Sect 29 sub 4 of Electoral Act is significant in this direction as it gives every member of public including petitoner right to access any info supplied to INEC by a candidate 29 sub 5 restrict right of action 2 an aspirant .U
“nder new electoral act petitoner have right but not given right to file pre election matter 31 sub 5 of 2010 petitoner should have filed a complaint relatiing to false info but under new act they can only come through section 134. The Petition is talking about forged document presented by first respondent to the third respondent. What we are saying in the petiton is that there was never a sponsorship and nomination. You cannot put nothing on anything. There is limited time for nomination and sponsorship once it elapsed nomination ended 180 before the election anything outside that it cannot be used to defeat an election. Our petiton is on solid ground”, he argued.
In his argument counsel to Govermor Hyacinth Alia Sunday Ameh SAN held that issues dealing with validity of 2nd and 3rd respondents that happened before the election is a matter for regular court at the fed high court
Ameh also said the petitioners did not participate in nomination of 2nd and 3rd respdents so they lack the locus standi, maintaining that no political party can challenge section 285 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic which deals with nomination no matter how pained it is.
“The Petitioners did not participate in the nomination of the 2nd and 3rd respondents form EC9 which talks about forgery published before the election had cause of action. I urge the tribunal to decline jurisdiction of the case”, the Governor’s counsel stated.
Lead counsel to the Deputy Governor Samuel Ode, Mamman Osuman, SAN for the 3rd respondents through Prof. Omoreigbe said pursuant to section 29 sub 5 and 84 of Electoral Act, the entirety of the petition should be dismissed as it is founded on pre election matter.
He argued that on the issue of jurisdiction every matter that relates to pre-election must be filed 14 days after the occurrence of the event and only the High court has jurisdiction, adding that section 177 that talks on qualification and section 182 which deals with disqualificarion that they gave have been incorporated into 134 sub 1 is immaterial as it does not change the law.
According to him, ‘an election petition can be provided for in provision of 285 sub 2 jurisdiction is to determine if a person have been validly elected to position of govship or deputy governor vested in it and cannot do otherwise.
