Based on the legal proceeding that occured yesterday, Hon. Martins Azubuike can best be described as a man fighting for survival.
While Isialangwa North indigenes are celebrating Martins Azubuike as Speaker, the celebration may be cut short by the petition of Ihuoma Ezechi of APGA.
The fate of Martins Azubuike will be decided this month of October, if the tribunal kicks him off, it could be his early retirement from politics.
Enjoy the proceeding of Yesterday (2/10/2015)
House of Assembly Tribunal Isialangwa north state constituency
R. U. Oyiwunna for the petitioner
N. U. Ahiaiwe for the 1st Respondent
Elizabeth Eli holding brief for O. S. Oweazin for the 2nd – 4th respondents
Esther Nwosu for 5th-6th respondents
R1 adopts his final written address and ask the tribunal to dismiss the petition as lacking merit
There are many authorities in this address to show that a petitioner who fails to plead expressly that all the substantial irregularities substantially effected the outcome of the election is incomplete
The next issue is that of card readers. What the appeal court decided is that card reader is not part of our law in APC vs. Abaje
The electoral law had been concluded before the invention of the card reader. There is nothing like card reader in our electoral law
The only place you will see card reader is on the electoral manual and guildlines of inec made to its staff in 2015 election as a means of accreditation
In our reply address we made a point that a guild line is a subsidiary legislation and cannot expand the provisions of the electoral law
(He quotes the electoral act and a supreme court judgement to buttress the point)
Exhibit B tendered by P which is a press statement of inec
In the statement once made it clear that card reader was relaxed in 28th march election and that implies that card reader is not compulsory
Exhibit A1-A7 which is the card reader data is on the face of it expected to cover 11th and 25th April election
There is no separate figures for both elections
There was no election in isialangwa north on 25th April so we ask the tribunal to disregard exhibit A1-A7 as lacking value
R2-4 adopts her final written address
Ask the tribunal to dismiss the petition and declear that the 2nd-4th R have complied with electoral act in declaring and returning the 1st R who scored the highest votes in the said election cast . she close her case
R5-6 adopts her final written address
She inform the tribunal that she raised two issues for determination and which had been argued extensively and do not intend to repeat them over again.
Both the legal and statutory authorities are before the tribunal and that will enable the lordship reach a just conclusion and dismiss the petition
The P have failed to establish his case against all the respondents including the 5th-6th R
She rest her case
P adopts his final written address
P in proving his case before the tribunal and showing the irregularities that was done by the 2nd to 4th respondent which gives the 1st R the purported victory
We tendered among other exhibits, exhibit A1-A7
Exhibit B&C which were the guideline made by the 2nd -4th respondents for the conduct of 2015 general election and in particular the house of assembly election held on 11th April 2015
This exhibit were made by the 2nd to 4th R in regard of powers given to it by the electoral act as amended
This exhibit were tendered by staff of the 2nd to 4th R upon a subpoena by this tribunal and confirmed under cross examination on 12 sept 2015
We submit with respect that the issue of substantial compliance in the conduct of an election does not arise when the said election was conducted in violation with the guild lines set for the said election
We urge the tribunal to look at exhibit A1-A7 vis-à-vis to exhibit k tendered by 1st R
A look at them show that the total no of purported valid votes cast in exhibit k is put at 26,833 whereas the total no of both successful accreditation and failed accreditation as seen in exhibit A1-A7 is 23,786.
The answer to this conflict can be found on paragraph 28 of exhibit c
I want the tribunal to take careful look of it.
We submit further that assuming without conceeding that any form of manual accreditation was allowed for April 11th election.
There is no evidence on record from any of the respondents demonstrating how the purported Manual accreditation was arrived at.
The onus is on the 2nd-4th respondents to demonstrate how the manual accreditation was carried out.
There was no witness of the respondents before this tribunal testifying to how the manual accreditation was done.
On section 49 of the electoral act referred to by the 1st R, we equally refer him to sub section 2
We urge the tribunal to grant the relief sort by the petitioner.
We urge the tribunal to adopt judiciary activism and judiciary creativity not judiciary backwardness
The case ends for final judgement.