A’Court reserves judgement on Bayelsa Gov’ship election ‎

The Court of Appeal Abuja Division on Tuesday reserved judgment till later date in three separate appeals that arose from the judgment of Bayelsa State Governorship Election Tribunal.

The Court of Appeal reserved its decisions after it took submissions from counsel to All Progressives Congress (APC), Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

This, the Court of Appeal, did after it struck out the objection raised by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) against the appeals challenging the judgment of the state election tribunal that affirmed the election of Governor Seriake Dickson of Bayelsa State.

APC and its governorship candidate at the election, Chief Timipre Sylva, had filed the appeals after the tribunal upheld Governor Dickson election.

Also on Tuesday, the appellate court refused the request by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to amend its brief by adding some words which it claimed was an omission.

Arguing the main appeal, lead counsel to the appellants, Chief Sabastine Hon (SAN), submitted that the tribunal was in great error when it dismissed the petition.

Hon further submitted that the governorship tribunal ‎misinterpreted section 26 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2011, which he argued, talk of postponement and not cancellation of an election.

He argued that the cancellation of the December 6, 2015 governorship election in Southern Ijaw makes any other decision taken by INEC null and void.

He added that contrary to the position of the respondents that the appellants waived their rights by participating in the January 9, 2016 re-scheduled election, the appellants indeed tendered a protest letter against the cancellation and that there was no opportunity to go to court.

Hon therefore urged the court to grant the reliefs sought by his clients and upturn the judgement of the tribunal.

In his arguments against the appeal, counsel to Governor Dickson, Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), said the appellants did not supply the results of the December 6, 2015 election but rather brought evidence showing that they participated in the January 9, 2016 election.

It was his contention that an election that did not produce result is no election citing section 27 of the Electoral Act, 2011.

Oyetibo further argued that before the tribunal, the appellants did not produce evidence from polling units to prove allegations of electoral fraud and other forms of malpractices.

In urging the court to dismiss the petition, the lawyer argued that the appellants also failed to prove allegations of electoral violence. ‎