Supreme Court hears Jime’s appeal against Ortom today

The Supreme Court has fixed January 13, to hear the appeal filed by the governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Emmanuel Jime, challenging the unanimous judgement of the court of appeal which dismissed his appeal and affirmed the decision of the tribunal which upheld the election of Governor Samuel Ortom.

This is contained in a hearing notice sent to the parties in the matter by the director of litigation of the apex court. The Supreme Court shall also on the same day hear the appeal filed by Gov. Ortom.

A five-man panel of the court of appeal led by Justice A.O. Belgore had on November 28, 2019 dismissed Jime’s appeal for lacking in merit and awarded cost of N150, 000 against the appellants to be paid to each of the respondents in the suit.

It also upheld all the ruling of the Benue state Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, which on October 7, 2019 dismissed Jime’s petition for failing to provide substantial evidences to prove his allegations of over- voting, non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended and that the second respondent, Gov. Ortom did not score the majority of lawful votes cast at the poll.

Daily Times recalls that the governorship election tribunal held that the petitioners alleged the non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act in 380 polling units, but only called witnesses in 30 polling units, adding that it is impossible for 30 people to prove non-compliance in 380 polling units.

The tribunal stressed that the smart card reader is essentially for identification of the permanent voter’s card of a would-be voter, while the voters register is for the accreditation of a would-be voter.

Read Also: Armed Forces Remembrance Day: We want a united, secured Nigeria – Bishop

It maintained that until Section 49 of the Electoral Act, 2010, is amended, the permanent voters registers remains the instrument for accreditation and the smart card reader machine cannot be the basis of challenging any election, as doing so will amount to forming clouds and winds without rain.

The tribunal described the testimony of the witnesses called by the petitioner as inadmissible hear say evidence, contradictory, inconsistent unreliable and untruthful without any value.