By Awele Ugborgu
The Elections Petitions Tribunal sitting in Asaba, the capital of Delta State, has affirmed Hon. Austin Chikezie of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as the winner of majority of votes cast at the March 9, 2019 House of Assembly Elections held in Aniocha South State Constituency of Delta State.
ALSO READ: Abiodun meeting with Ogun education stakeholders now
Describing the case of the petitioner, Hon. Angela Nwaka of the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) as a jamboree of allegations and a wild goose chase, during a three-hour judgement delivered at the High Court Complex in Asaba, the tribunal ruled that the petitioner brought unreliable witnesses and failed to provide cogent, credible and compelling evidence with regards to the plethora of allegations brought before the tribunal.
The tribunal chided the petitioner for relying on the evidence of the respondent, Hon. Chikezie to prove her petition rather than bringing evidence before the tribunal, if she were serious in her bid to secure a declarative statement by the tribunal.
On allegations of falsification of results, the tribunal ruled that the petitioner out to have furnished the tribunal with two sets of results, the alleged fake result and the genuine one, in order to drive home its allegation that the results were truly falsified. On over-voting, the tribunal held that the petitioner ought to have tendered the voters register before the tribunal and show that by removing the figures resulting in the alleged over-voting, she would have emerged victorious.
The tribunal also dismissed allegation of violence and thuggery, adding that it took the testimony of the only three witnesses called by the petitioner with a pinch of salt for being hearsay evidence as the three witnesses admitted not being physically present at the places they claimed violence took place.
The tribunal also observed that the failure of the petitioner to file her final written address in respect of the second respondent within the time frame allowed by law and without applying for extension of time was fatal to its case.
It also scolded the petitioner for dumping documents on the tribunal, failing to adduce credible evidence and for abandoning the original issues and bringing up fresh issues in its final written address.
It therefore dismissed the petition for being superfluous, vague, imprecise, speculative, fundamentally defective and liable to be struck out.
