ADHA SPEAKER WINS AS TRIBUNAL STRIKES OUT SUIT AGAINST INEC, PDP

The Tribunal Petition Tribunal sitting at Yola, the Adamawa state capital has dismissed a petition filed before it by former Majority Leader of state House of Assembly and Member who represented Uba/Gaya constituency, Hon. Mohammed Atiku Hayatu.

The Court held that the petitioner relied on documentary hearsay and the weaknesses of the defense to support his case and failed to strengthen his suit with credible and convincing evidence to get judgement in his favour.

Hon. Atiku Hayatu, instituted the suit at the court against the Independent National Electoral Commission(INEC) for canceling election in 3 polling units, over voting, lacked of accreditation and lacked of compliance with the electoral act and argued that the electoral body has no power to cancel election as done during the supplementary election by INEC.

He joined the electoral body, Speaker of the House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. Aminu Iya Abbas, and the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP) as 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents in the petition.

Hon. Atiku Hayatu, told the court that the present Speaker of the 7th Assembly was not duly elected by the majority of the eligible voters in the supplementary election conducted by the first respondent on 10th March, 2019.

He further prayed the court to declare the election of the speaker null and void and ordered INEC which is the 1st respondent to conduct fresh election at the affected areas.

Delivering their judgment on the suit today, the Chairman of the Tribunal, Justice Suleiman Akanbi, who was assisted by 2 other justices held that Hon. Atiku Hayatu, failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore struck it out in its entirety.

Justice Akanbi, declared that Hon. Atiku Hayatu relied on documentary hearsay without tendering credible and convincing evidence in the sense that he was not physically present at the polling units on the day of the rerun and could not read the total number of votes cast and the accredited voters as ascribed in the electoral law.

He said that the petitioner tendered bundles of evidence before the court which he supposed to lead the evidence on those documents, adding that the former lawmakers was supposed to have testify on those documents, but failed to do so.