More trouble for Edoja as DPP aspirant files fresh charge against him
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
0
comments
The electoral victory of the Member representing
Ughelli Constituency II in the Delta State House of Assembly, Hon. Rufus Edoja
Akpodiete of the Democratic Peoples Party (DPP) may be short-lived as a an
aspirant of the party for the same position in the 2011 general election, Mr.
Julius Bobi has filed a fresh charge of what he termed as “blatant breach of
section 25 (1) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 and section 118(1 )(a) (c) (k) of the
electoral act 2011.”
It would be recalled that As a result of the Court
of Appeal, Benin City ruling on the suit number CA/B/237/2012 brought before it
by Jenkins Gwede which was dismissed, Counsel to the appellant, Ikhide Ehighelua
had headed to the Supreme Court to seek redress on the ruling by the Appellate
Court.
At
the Appeal court ruling, the presiding judge, Justice Helen Ogunwumiju had
ruled that, “Under
cross examination, the 2nd respondent (Akpodiete Edoja) had admitted
that he resigned from his employment the day he authored Exhibit P1, owing to
the fact that issues were raised as to his eligibility to contest the election
due to the fact of his then current service with the Delta State Oil Producing
Area Development Commission (DESOPADEC).”
The trail judge had discountenanced
Exhibit P1, on the ground that, Dan Azumi Mohammed (Ag. National Secretary of
the 4th respondent; DPP) could not explain how the appellant got
Exhibit P1 to Abuja.
The ruling states, “The fact that
the nomination papers of the appellant got to Abuja before the date the 2nd
respondent withdrew his candidature in writing, is in my humble view of no
moment.
“What is important to establish and
what was established during the cross examination of the 2nd
respondent, was that he at a point, wrote a letter to withdraw his candidature
and also took back his nomination deposit from the party.
“After deliberating on the reliefs
and various grounds of the suit, the plaintiff’s case was dismissed and the
court sum up that the 2nd defendant did not withdraw and the 1st
plaintiff was never a nominated candidate.
“It is true that the appellant at
the trial court had the onus to prove that the 2nd respondent
withdrew, having tendered page 2 of exhibit P1, he had discharged the first
burden of proof and it was left to the 2nd respondent to refute that
evidence.”
Exhibit P1 consists of the
following; “INEC form: Notice of change of candidate pursuant to section 33 and
35 of the Electoral Act, 2010, it has the passport photograph of the appellant
and that of the 2nd respondent, duly signed by them and the national
Chairman and Secretary of the party.
“Letter of withdrawal as a candidate
to contest the position of the Delta State House of Assembly duly signed by the
2nd respondent with his name written under his signature.
“Letter by the Democratic Peoples
Party (DPP) submitted and addressed to INEC titled “Submission of Name for
substitution (Page 3).
“INEC Form CF0001A submission of
name of candidate by which the name of the appellant was sent to and received
by INEC.
“INEC Form EC4B (i) and INEC Form
CF001 for the appellant. It includes nomination form and affidavit in support
of personal particulars.
“Letter of the Democratic Peoples
Party stating that the 2nd respondent withdrew the mandatory deposit
of N2million deposited with the party on the ground that he had been
substituted as a candidate for the election. It is signed by the State chairman
f the party.”
“The answer to the issue of substitution is
clear. Page 3 of Exhibit P1 submitted and addressed to INEC, shows that the 4th
respondent de facto, substituted the appellant, for the 2nd
respondent, whether there was a de jure substitution recognizable in law is
another matter.
“It was the forms used to nominate the
2nd respondent that were attached by the party to the papers
submitted for the appellant. The purported substitution of the appellant cannot
thus be recognized in law since it was not properly done.
“As stated by the counsel to the 2nd
respondent, a person not nominated as a candidate for an election cannot claim
to be returned in respect of an election in which he was not at first instance,
nominated by some party members, in accordance with S.32 (1) of the Electoral
Act, 2010, she added
It is based on the above scenario
indicting both Hon. Edoja and Mr. Gwede that Mr. Bobi is laying claims as the
right candidate to have truly contested the election on the platform of the
DPP.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment