In a recent development, the tribunal has made the decision to postpone the judgement on the case involving the Governor of Cross River.
The Cross River State Governorship elections petition tribunal has concluded its proceedings and is currently deliberating on a crucial suit aimed at the removal of the incumbent Governor, Bassey Otu, and his deputy, Hon Peter Odey, from their respective positions of power in Cross River State.

In the case bearing number EPT/CR/GOV/02/2023, the plaintiffs, Professor Sandy Onor, the gubernatorial candidate for the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2023 election, along with his party, the PDP, have jointly filed a suit against the election results that proclaimed Senator Bassey Otu as the victorious candidate.
Following the conclusion of the adoption of final written reading by the respective counsels, the tribunal, presided over by the honorable Justice Okenn Ineh, has conveyed its intention to provide a definitive judgment date to all concerned parties.

Speaking before the court, Dr. Joshua Y. Musa, the counsel for the petitioners, emphasized that the evidence obtained during the cross-examination of the respondents not only strengthens the petitioners’ case but also exposes the falsehood in the evidence presented by the second and third respondents, namely Governor Otu and Peter Odey.

In his address to the court, Dr. Joshua Y. Musa, the counsel for the petitioners, explicitly clarified that their case does not revolve around accusations of forgery directed towards any of the respondents.
Consequently, the authorities cited by the respondents, insinuating the necessity of calling witnesses from institutions, are irrelevant and do not logically follow. The crux of the petitioners’ case lies in the fact that the second and third respondents have perjured themselves under oath.
During his address to the court, Dr. Joshua Y. Musa, the learned counsel for the petitioners, emphasized that the second and third respondents, in their attempt to refute any allegations of perjury, inadvertently presented documents that unveiled a troubling pattern of forgery.
In doing so, they unintentionally opened a proverbial Pandora’s box, laying bare the inconsistencies and discrepancies within their testimonies.
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s representative, with a firm conviction, implored the tribunal to declare the votes garnered by the second and third respondents as wasted. This assertion was primarily grounded in the argument that the said respondents lacked the necessary qualifications to participate in the election. Furthermore, the petitioner sought for the tribunal to declare their candidate the rightful winner of the elections.

In contrast, the lead counsel representing the second and third respondents, the esteemed Prof. Mike Ozekhome, ardently beseeched the court to dismiss the petition on the grounds of being frivolous, lacking merit, and serving as a distraction. Prof. Ozekhome further emphasized that the petition constituted an abuse of the court process.

As an additional point, it was communicated by Prof. Ozekhome that the withdrawal of grounds two and three by the petitioners essentially undermined their own case. This critical withdrawal inadvertently conveyed the acknowledgment that the elections were, in fact, validly conducted. Consequently, it was implied that the viability of the petition itself was significantly compromised.

“From my own submission today, the truth is that, from the 10th of July 2023, when they withdrew grounds two and three of the petition, which talked about discrepancies, non-accreditation, non-e-transmission through BVAS, through iRev and all the other alleged malpractices, that time when they withdrew those allegations which were funny and untrue allegations, their petition collapsed like a pack of cards, he said.

In response to the aforementioned matter, the representative for the first respondents, K. O. Balogun, provided his perspective and endorsed the standpoint put forth by Professor Ozekhome concerning the eligibility of the second and third respondents. Counsel Balogun respectfully implored the tribunal to dismiss the petition on these grounds.

It is worth noting that while both the second and third respondents were notably absent during the court proceedings, the first petitioner, Mr. Sandy Onor, respectfully attended the session on Monday.
In conclusion, the tribunal has decided to postpone the judgement in the case regarding the removal of Otu from Cross River. Further proceedings and deliberations will resume at a later date.

Like Our Story ? Donate to Support Us, Click Here

You want to share a story with us? Do you want to advertise with us? Do you need publicity/live coverage for product, service, or event? Contact us on WhatsApp +16477721660 or email Adebaconnector@gmail.com