The Labour Party (LP) has accused the Enugu State tribunal of inconsistencies and irregularities in its judgment.

The party called on the judiciary to ensure that justice prevails in the case of Enugu State Governorship election involving its candidate Chijioke Edeoga and Governor Frank Mbah of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP).

LP is contesting the election at the appeal court on the grounds of over-voting and allegations of forged certificate of National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) by Mbah.

The Enugu State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal, had earlier dismissed LP’s petition against Mbah as incompetent and lacking in merit.

Speaking at a press conference on Wednesday in Abuja, leadership of the party, led by its National Publicity Secretary, Obiora Ifoh, lamented that the Enugu and Nasarawa Gubernatorial judgements as well as that of Nkanu East constituency, all had similar facts but were given contrary Judgements

Ifoh said Enugu State Governorship Election Tribunal judgment on the disputed election appeared to have ignored the facts in issue and fell short of the expectations of both the majority of Nigerians and legal pundits who have continued to criticize the fundamental logic and the premise upon which the decision was reached.

According to him, “With the recent judgment of the Governorship Election Tribunal in Nasarawa State and the Nkanu East State Constituency Tribunal judgment, the Labour Party is forced to revisit the travesty of justice that took place in the Enugu governorship tribunal judgment, especially given that the three situations presented similar facts, yet different pronouncements were made by the judiciary.

Giving instances of the irregularities, he said the Enugu Governorship Election Tribunal discountenanced the testimonies of the party’s material witnesses who testified that there was manifest over-voting in Owo and Ugbawka for the erroneous reason that they were not accredited witnesses of the Party.

He however, noted that the tribunal erred in that regard because the law had always been that every voter in Nigeria is an eligible witness before a tribunal, more so when the said witnesses were members of the Labour Party.

“Two, as already established in Torti Vs Ukpabi, it has long been a settled issue that what determines the admissibility of an evidence is its relevance.” Ifoh stated.

The Spokesperson further noted that juxtaposing the above decision with the judgment delivered in the case of Nasarawa, the Governorship Tribunal in Nasarawa rightly admitted the testimonies of the material witnesses who came to testify that the votes of the PDP in Ashigie Ward, Chiroma Ward, etc were wrongly suppressed and thereafter ordered the restoration of the said votes to the PDP, even when the witnesses therein were not accredited witnesses of the PDP.

He also pointed out that the Tribunal in Enugu jettisoned the provisions of Section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2022 which provides that where there is original or certified true copy of a document before the court or tribunal that can establish non-compliance and it is shown that the said non-compliance is manifest on the face of that document, parties are not required to adduce oral evidence.

He said the Enugu Tribunal strangely feigned ignorance of the above provisions of Section 137 of the Electoral Act by insisting on the needless and additional requirement of calling of oral witnesses to prove over-voting in Uwo and Ugbawka, even when the Labour Party already filed copious INEC certified true copies of the BVAS Accreditation Reports that evidentially proved the case of the Petitioner.

“Again, in juxtaposition with the judgment delivered in the case of Nasarawa, the Tribunal in Nasarawa, in line with the provisions of Section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2022, rightly relied on the documentary evidence contained in the certified true copies of the print out of the BVAS Accreditation Reports to cancel the votes in Gadagwa Ward, Nasarawa Eggon Ward, Shege Ward, Sabon Gari and in other wards where over voting took place without necessarily insisting that oral witnesses be adduced in support of the tendered documentary evidences.” Ifoh said.

“In conclusion, our argument herein is that Enugu governorship election, Nasarawa governorship election and Nkanu East State Constituency election presented similar facts, yet the Enugu governorship tribunal gave a different judgment from what was correctly held by the Nasarawa governorship tribunal and the tribunal in Nkanu East State Constituency election petition. “ he said.

Ifoh therefore, appealed to the general public to stand with the party to call on the judiciary to ensure that justice prevails as always, warning that; “ If the injustice perpetrated in Enugu by both the INEC and the Election Tribunal, sitting as the court of first instance, to stand, tomorrow the consequences for us all may be dire.” (Daily Sun)

Update news