Ndom-Egba vs Onor:The Cross River State National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal adjourns sine die, reserves judgment

The Cross River State National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Calabar, Cross River State capital, has reserved judgement on the petition between Senator Victor Ndom-Egba (SAN) of the All Progressive Congress (APC) and Senator Sandy Onor, of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

All the parties concerned, FAZE NOTE TV  gathered had submitted their written addresses. Ndoma-Egba in his petition is faulting the declaration of Onor by INEC as the winner of the February 23 election on grounds that he (Ndoma-Egba) was deliberately excluded by INEC on the eve of the election from contesting the Cross River Central Senatorial election in the sate.

While submitting the addresses, counsel to Onor (the 1st respondent), Mr. Patrick Akan urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition by Ndoma-Egba on grounds that the totality of the petition from the evidence led, “defeats the purpose of their action citing the tribunal to look at paragraphs 19, 21, 23 and 24 of the principal witness on oath. I submit that based on these paragraphs, a case of pre-election matter was preponderantly pleaded.

“That matters that are pre-election are not within the purview of this court. The cases showed that the issues have been litigated upon and are all subjudice”, Akan said adding that “the petition was also defeated by inconsistencies and contradictions…as they changed their cause of action of exclusion to the result of the poll announced by INEC”.

Counsel to PDP (2nd respondent), Mr. Joe Agi (SAN), also filed their addresses including the reply to the petitioner’s address saying, “my lord we adopt both addresses of ours and rely on them in urging our lordships to strike out the petition or dismiss it.

Referring the tribunal to paragraph 730 of the second petitioner’s final written address of July 15, Agi submitted that in the petition by the 1st petitioner (Ndoma-Egba), “from his own pleadings, he cannot in law be excluded because the law says only the political party that can be excluded and not the candidate. In that wise, the Supreme Court said it is wrong to say candidate contested election. In his pleading he said he was not a candidate and was excluded by INEC. Having said so, it is only his party that can come to tribunal and not him” because only section 137 of the electoral Act gives the locus for one to come to court.

Counsel to INEC, Professor Jacob Dada who is holding the brief of Mr. Peter Jiya, equally said they have submitted their written addresses and “we adopt the said written addresses and rely on it as our argument. We urge the tribunal to say the petition is incompetent and should be dismissed”.

However, counsel to Ndoma-Egba, Chief Emeka Offodile (SAN) who was assisted by 13 other lawyers asked one of the counsels in his team, Mr. Effefiom Ekong to take the submissions on behalf of the team.

Accordingly, Ekong said they filed their addresses and responses as required by law to each of the three respondents and “we respectfully adopt all the arguments in our final address and as per submission to this petition, we urge we urge your lordships to grant all the requests as sought by our petition”.

In his reply to the argument of Akan and Agi, he said, “the submission of our petition is against the 3rd respondent (INEC) and the 1st (Onor) and 2nd respondents (PDP) joined as nominal parties that may be affected so they are merely an attachment. It does not lie on their mouth to respond on a case that is hanging on INEC.

The second point is that the 1st respondent that brandish this issue of pre-election matter to colour their case, I draw my lordships to the substantive petition in paragraphs 5.5 and 5.8 of our final address of 22nd July which clearly establishes the factual date our cause of action crystallizing or make our last point of action complete; that being 23rd February when result was announced and that is when our cause of action was completed on the pre-election matter”.

On the Appeal court ruling or order which INEC relied on or said to have misinterpreted, Ekong said, it was apparent that there was only one reasonable interpretation of that order which said don’t temper with status quo until the case was disposed of and “that was the appeal at that time, so it will be irrational for the court of appeal to destroy the matter. Therefore, I urge my lordships in the interest of justice to grant all the reliefs by the petitioner”.
The lead judge, Justice Vincent Agbata who thanked the counsels for their cooperation, said the “court has reserved judgement sine die and a date of hearing notices will be served and published on notice board for the judgement”.