Get real time updates directly on you device, subscribe now.
The tribunal siting in Asaba, on Monday 7th September, Monday overruled the objections of Okowa/PDP and admitted the comparative analysis of the card reader
accredited voters vis-a-vis the over-accreditation as contained in election results sheets as well as the resultant over-voting that led to the declaration of Okowa as winner of the April 11 Delta state gubernatorial election.
The analysis done in 9 columns by Emerhor/APC Star witness Mr Ore Ohimor, contained facts derived strictly from already admitted unit by unit card readers accreditation report and the unit by unit voter’s result sheets as declared by INEC. .
Counsel to the first respondent (Okowa) had sought to stop the admission of the document arguing that it was neither front loaded nor was it accompanied by proper certification as is required by law for a document prepared by a computer and as such, failed to meet the requirement of the evidence act section 84 subsection 2.
Counsel to the second respondent (PDP) aligned with the first, stating that the document was prepared during the course of the hearing and therefore could not be admissible, that only a document that was front-loaded can be admitted.
The second respondent also concluded his objection by stating that the document wasn’t dated and proper certified.
The petitioner’s reply relied on point of law stating that in paragraph 16 of its petition, the comparative analysis was well pleaded, and paragraphs seven and eight of the witness’s statement under oath also clearly pleaded same.
He further stated that the witness only used the computer to prepare the comparative analysis of the results relying on his own intellectual capacity and not that of the computer to generate the analysis of results and as such computer certification was not applicable.
The tribunal, in its ruling, agreed with the petitioner stating that all documents prepared during a hearing that pertains to the petition in question is admissible, and the fact a computer was used to prepare the comparative analysis doesn’t mean that it was the computer that generated figures or inputs contained therein.
Related Posts
The tribunal also noted that most documents – if not all – used during the course of the hearing so far were prepared by a computer, stating there was no reason why this particular document should be treated differently.
The tribunal agreed that the witness had carefully prepared the document arranging them in nine (9) columns as facts contained in paragraphs seven and eight of the witness statement.
That after a carefully review of the analysis of the results, they hadn’t seen any reason whatsoever to decline its admissibility. Going further, it stated that “Omisore vs Aregbesola” and “Abudu vs Audu” cases as cited by the 1st respondent and 2nd respondents respectively were not applicable in this case.
The tribunal finally admitted and named the comparative analysis/summary of results as exhibit “P34”.
Under cross examination, EMERHOR/APC’s witness came under a barrage of questions which he answered by using the analysis to expose the over voting and result manipulations committed during the governorship election of 2015.
He alleged that the comparative analysis/summary of the results shows clearly why the election should be nullified.
Further sitting has been adjourned to Monday 14th September 2015 for the continuation of hearing and for the respondents, OKOWA/PDP to present their defence, including calling of witnesses.
Rinsola Abiola
