Kogi West: Adeyemi, APC close case against Melaye

TRACKING___SENATOR Smart Adeyemi and the All Progressives Congress (APC) yesterday closed their cases at the National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja over last year’s Kogi West rerun.

Adeyemi won the poll with a margin of over 25,000; the highest in the history of the senatorial district. However, the runner up in the election, Dino Melaye, petitioned the tribunal, claiming that he was the winner.

Counsel to Adeyemi and APC, Dr. Otitoju Oladapo and M. Abdullahi, closed their cases without calling a witness, saying the petitioner’s position was enough to support their prayers to uphold the election.
Otitoju said: “At the pre hearing, we all acknowledged to call our witnesses. However, during the hearing and adjournment for today, I reviewed the evidence given by the petitioner’s witnesses before the court. I have found evidence that most of them lied on oath and admitted so before the court, and agreed they lied before the court.

“In view of that, they (petitioner’s witnesses) have contradicted themselves with their evidence before the court based on the aforementioned evidence elicited from the 70 witnesses.
“On this note my Lord, we are closing our case because they have confessed before your lordships that they lied.”

Counsel to 3rd respondent (APC), Abdulahi, said he was not calling any witness because many of the petitioner’s witnesses during cross examination lied, “They admitted before your lordships and their claims contradicted their written statement, which they adopted before your lordships. I hereby apply to close our case.”
Counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Chris Alashy, did not object the 2nd and 3rd respondents closing their cases.

He said it would give room for both parties to have enough time for their final written addresses.
However, the tribunal turned to a hot argument scene immediately counsel to the petitioner (Dino Melaye), Prof. Egbewole, pleaded to the court to allow the petitioner’s witnesses come first with their written address.

This was objected to by the respondents’ counsel.
Counsel to 1st respondent (INEC), Alashey, while objecting to the petitioner’s plea, said: “It’s true that the 1st respondent (INEC) didn’t call any witness because the petitioner’s witnesses support the 1st respondent’s pleading.

In view of that, the evidence garnered from theirs is enough to support my plea and we are to file our written addresses first before the petitioner’s.”
Dr. Oladapo, in his own objection, relied on paragraph 46 (7) of the First Schedule of the Electoral Act to support his claims.

“Having core evidence in that magnitude, the 1st respondent is entitled to file his final written address before the petitioner.
“Witnesses and calling of evidence are two different things. In the case of Hafzad International Ltd and others vs Eco Bank PLC 2018, evidence is what is necessary in court, which supports my argument above.”
Counsel to the APC urged the tribunal not to give audience to the plea of the petitioner’s counsel, Prof. Egbewole, “We are not confused when they used the word evidence in paragraph 46 (10, 11,12 and 13) of First Schedule, different from the witness they used in paragraph 4 (5). This simply shows there is clear difference from the word evidence and witness. What was used in paragraph 46 (10) was evidence and not witness.

“On the above, having elicit substantial evidence during cross examination of the petitioner’s witnesses, we are to address your lordships first before the petitioner, and on this we urge your lordships not to allow the petitioner to address you first, but the respondents as opined by paragraph 46 (10)”.
After much deliberation from all counsel, the Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Sambo, adjourned till May 6 (today) to rule on who is to first file its final written addresses.