Proceedings at the Plateau State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal took an interesting dimension on Monday, July 29, when defending witnesses confirmed some irregularities during the 2019 general elections in the state .
Sani Inusa, Munzeli Lawal and Abdullahi Maigoro, defence witnesses of the All Progressives Congress (APC), gave some startling revelations on results sheets of their respective polling units in Jos north local government. Lieutenant General Jeremiah Useni (Rtd), of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), is challenging the victory of Governor Simon Lalong of APC in the 2019 polls at the governorship elections Tribunal sitting in Jos, Plateau state.
On resumption of hearing of Lalong’s and INEC defence on Monday at the tribunal, Inusa confirmed to the tribunal that the number of valid votes and rejected votes surpassed the number of accredited voters at the Sarai Mangu polling unit, where he served as APC Agent. Sunday Odey, counsel to Useni had, during cross-examination, asked Inusa of the actual number of valid votes recorded on Exhibit P25 and he answered, “374 votes “ “What was the actual number of the accredited voters for your polling unit? Odey asked. “374 voters,” Unusa answered..
Also testifying, during cross examination, Maigoro, APC agent told the tribunal that the alterations done on the original copy of the result sheet didn’t reflect on the duplicate copy. Odey asked, “ Look at exhibit P60A, the duplicate result sheet, is there alteration on it as on the original copy?” Maigoro responded, “No, the alterations do not reflect on duplicate because we effected them at the Collation centre.” “Look at it again, is there any signature of an INEC official on it?” Odey further asked. And Maigoro said, “No, there isn’t.” “Why isn’t there any INEC official’s signature on it?” Odey asked. The witness said, “ because there was alterations on the copy.” Garba Pwul SAN, however, told the tribunal that the witnesses that testified on Monday were all that they had for the day in their defence and asked for an adjournment to enable them review their remaining witnesses for July 30. All other counsel in the matter did not object to the application for adjournment. The chairman of the tribunal, H.A. Suleman frowned at the application which she described as too early for the day looking at the time at their disposal. “We hope this attitude won’t repeat itself more that we yet to collect the remaining list of your witnesses and evidences considering the time at our disposal,” she said The tribunal adjourned the case until July to July 30 for continuation of hearing of defence.
Post Views: 838
