TRIBUNAL RESERVES JUDGMENT IN SUIT AGAINST GUYUK LAWMAKER

National /House of Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal has reserved judgement in petition against Hon. Sunday Peter, Member representing Guyuk constituency.

The tribunal reserved the judgement in the petition instituted against the lawmaker by the erstwhile member who represented the constituency, Hon. Adwawa Donglock.

The tribunal told the parties that the date for judgement will be communicated to them whenever the judgement is ready.

This followed the adoption of final written addresses by the petitioners and respondents through their counsels at Thursday sitting.

Adopting his final written address and reply on points of law dated the 24th July and 2nd August, 2023, respectively, the 1st respondent( Hon. Sunday Peter) through his counsel, J. O. Makinde, urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition.

Makinde, argued that the petition is narrowly on the issue of over voting and that in the course of proceedings, it was clearly demonstrated that there was no over voting at the polling units being challenged.

He told the tribunal that the testimonies of PW 4,5,9 and 11 be discountenance, saying that no ballot paper was tendered before the tribunal.

While adopting his written address and reply on points of law, the petitioner, Hon. Adwawa Donglok through his counsel, E. O. Odo, said that the respondents are referring to old authorities decided based on Section 53 of the Electoral Act 2010 which ties over-voting in a unit to the number of registered voters as contained in voters registers.

Odo said that the position of the petitioners is that proof of over-voting no longer requires production of voters registers as section 51(2) of the Electoral Act 2022 ties over-voting to number of accredited voters.

He informed the tribunal that the number of accredited voters is well proved by production of results for all the units in contention which the petitioner's have done.

According to him, the Respondents are contending that the petition should be dismissed because petitioners did not provide ballot papers. 

He stated that the petitioners only made the concession in respect of some units because they did not want to give the tribunal avoidable work and not all the units.

He urged the tribunal to find and hold that the petition has merit, competent and enter judgment for the petitioners.