|
THE Kogi State Governorship
election’s ruling last week which was in favour of Governor Ibrahim
Idris has practically confirmed all the news reports The Graphic had
been carrying since the beginning of the hearing of the petition.
The Graphic in pursuit of facts of the petition before the tribunal,
was variously vilified by the opposition camp for “bias reporting.”
But the tribunal in a landmark ruling on Tuesday, 2nd December,
2008, justified The Graphic and put to rest the truth of the case.
In his three hour ruling, the tribunal Chairman, Justice Abdullahi
Yusuf, confirmed the fact that Winniball, a company owned by the
petitioner’s lawyer, Dr. Alex Izinyon, had unlawfully applied to
West Africa Examination Council (WAEC) to have access to Governor
Idris ordinary level result.
He said that the 21st respondent in the petition (Governor Idris),
did not authorize the counsel to the petitioner to act on his
behalf, adding that such a request was illegal.
The tribunal Chairman also added that the petitioner’s lawyer,
knowing the relevant laws in that respect, had no basis to arrogate
to himself such powers by asking WAEC to submit Alhaji Idris’ result
to him for authentication.
It would be recalled that on 27 Nov. 2008 during the final
submission by both parties, Dr. Izinyon told the tribunal that he
was misrepresented by various newspapers in the country (including
The Graphic) concerning the forging of Alhaji Idris’ result, as if
he was a “common criminal.” threatening legal action after the
ruling.
Delivering judgment, the tribunal chairman accepted the position of
the WAEC, which earlier in its testimony averred that the Governor’s
O’level certificate tendered by the petitioner’s lawyer was forged.
Justice Abdullahi went further to say that the only body that could
authenticate O’Level results in this country is the WAEC, which
issued the certificate, adding that the tribunal had no alternative
than to believe the submission of the examination body which agreed
that the governor’s certificate was authentic.
On the allegation of electoral malpractices, violence and
over-voting, the tribunal noted that the petitioner did not provide
any document to prove the weighty allegations, adding that they were
wild allegations which at best were “speculative.”
He ruled that the allegations of violence and other electoral
malpractices were criminal in nature which placed the burden of
proof beyond reasonable doubt, on the petitioner.
Justice Abdullahi maintained that the petitioner did not present any
alternative result from any polling station to disprove what was
tendered by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
He said that relying on the results in possession of INEC to prove
his allegations was incurably fatal to the petition.
The incidents of violence and electoral malpractices, he ruled, were
not carried out by the respondent or his agent.
The incidents of electoral offences committed in some polling
stations in the state were not substantiated as the police or any
law enforcement agent were not aware of such ugly instances.
One of the major fatalities of the petition was that the petitioner
did not tender any election result or document purported to be the
correct one, even when he was arguing that what was in possession of
INEC was not correct.
Also in the cause of proceedings, the purported owner of the forged
“Ibro’s result” was not called to testify.
|
