The Rivers State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Port Harcourt, Wednesday struck out some contentious paragraphs bordering on criminal allegations in the petitions filed by the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) governorship candidate, Sir Celestine Omehia against the victory of Governor Chibuike Amaechi of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), in the April 2011 governorship elections in the state.

The APGA governorship candidate had on January 30, 2012 through his counsel, Barrister James Ejike brought an application in form of a petition alleging that the PDP used the police, the Joint Task Force (JTF), the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and political thugs to rig the governorship elections in favour of Governor Chibuike Amaechi.

In an unanimous ruling on the application, at the resumption of the tribunal, the three-man panel  led by its Chairman, Justice Abdullahi Liman struck out the application for lack of merit, noting that the criminal allegation of rigging brought against the police, JTF, INEC and political agents by the petitioner could  not be sustained.

The tribunal ruled that paragraphs 10(1), 25 and 12 amounted to an infringement of fair hearing of the accused persons, adding that the accused persons were not given the opportunity to respond to the allegations as sought by the petitioner in the petition.

According to him, the petition was incompetent and offensive as the  persons mentioned therein were not originally joined in the petition before the tribunal.

Justice Abdullahi Liman, therefore, used the opportunity to announce that the period of pre-trial hearing had been closed following the ruling on the applications on the criminal allegations before the tribunal.

Before the ruling on the application, counsels to Governor Amaechi, Deputy  Governor, Engr Tele Ikuru, Barrister Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN), and PDP, Barrister Nathaniel  Oke (SAN) respectively and INEC’s counsel, Barrister Emmanuel Ukala (SAN) had urged the  tribunal to strike out paragraphs 10,11, 25 and 12 as contained in the petitioner’s application.

They argued that it would be contrary to the tenets of justice and fair hearing if the accused persons were not given the opportunity to be heard, adding that in law when individuals were named in criminal matter, they must be joined as parties in the matter or such paragraphs be struck out.

The tribunal upheld this argument and prayer in its ruling. Earlier in an interview with journalists, Counsel to Governor Amaechi and  Deputy Governor, Engr Tele Ikuru, Barrister Ifedayo Adedipo said by the ruling, all the issues bordering on the criminal irregularities had been foreclosed, adding that what it meant was that the petitioners would now look for another grounds to prove their case before the tribunal.

Besides, the state Governorship Election Petition Tribunal rejected the election result sheets tendered by All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) governorship candidate, Sir Celestine Omehia as an evidence before it.

The tribunal rejected the result sheets following an objection raised by INEC counsel, Barrister Emmanuel Ukala (SAN) who drew the attention of the  tribunal to  purported certified copies of INEC result sheets, noting that the result sheets tendered by Sir Celestine Omehia did not comply with the provisions of the law as provided in section 104 of  the Evidence Act.

He noted that the act provides that for a document to be termed as a certified document, it must have certain features which, according to him, must contain the name of the certifying officer, designation, date and a covering note from the officer.

He posited that the purported INEC result sheets tendered by Sir Celestine Omehia and his counsel did not meet the specification as stated in the Evidence Act, and urged the tribunal to reject the result sheets.

Ruling on the objection, the Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Abdullahi Liman sustained the objection as raised by  INEC counsel, Barrister Emmanuel Ukala and directed the counsel to Omehia to submit  fresh result sheets in line with the provisions of the Evidence Act.