The 2023 Labour Party (LP) Gubernatorial Candidate, Deacon Kennedy Pela has described a report being circulated in the media that ‘Pela’s counsel goofed during adoption of final written address’, as watery and absolute failure of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP).
There had been a report making rounds that counsel to the petitioners (LP and it’s candidate) in 2023 gubernatorial election of Delta state, Mathias Emeribe during the presentation of final written address to the governorship election petition tribunal, had issues in adopting his final written address dated and filed on September 21.
However, in a statement signed by his Special Assistant, Matthew Igiogio, Team Better Delta, the LP governorship candidate, Deacon Kennedy Pela, further described the publication as macks of desperation on the respondents aimed at watering down the facts of the case in the public domain be judgment day.
The statement reads in parts; “Our attention has been drawn to a press release with the title “DELTA GUBER: Pela’s Counsel goofs as parties adopt final written addresses” issued by the Press Unit of government house Asaba which is been circucirculated. Unfortunately, the press release was an absolute failure of the Respondents and their vuvuzela trumpets to appreciate that the counsel to the petitioners is neither a witness in the petition nor is he expected to rehearse the entire trial that was conveniently closed with evidence by all the parties on the 15th of September 2023.”
“Secondly, the press release is obviously a hurried reaction to the fear of the notorious fact that the failure of the 3rd Respondent to resign whatever office he was holden, whether political or otherwise, is fatal to the election of the 2nd Respondents.”
“Thirdly, the 2nd to the 4th Respondents in joining issues with the petitioners made a fatal error by agreeing with the Petitioners that the 3rd Respondents was the Chairman of the Board of Inland revenue of the state which office the petitioners alleged that he never resigned from even before the general election. The fact that the counsel erroneously referred to his as “commissioner” rather than Chairman at the final written address stage cannot change the pleadings nor the evidence already led in proof of the petition before today. It’s only a display of childish excitement on the part of the music players of the Respondents to see what would help them to suit their paymasters that has given them that one non issue to report to their paymaster.”
“Fourthly, and unfortunately, they had their fear when the tribunal room became a lecture theatre of sorts when the petitioners counsel went to town on principles of law touching on the new Electoral Act, which is obviously lost on the Respondents. Their fright or fears stems, further from the failure of the Respondents to convincingly explain the failure of the 1st Respondent to comply with the mandatory provision of section 73 of the Electoral Act, 2023, a novel provision, which places a burden on INEC to show that they actually conducted Election by tendering election documents which captures the recording of result sheets, the serial numbers of the documents, the quantity of ballot papers and other sensitive INEC materials etc prior to the voting on election day.”
The statement added that; “Upon a request by any of the contenders in the petition, INEC is duty bound to present the said documents. The consequences of failure for INEC to do so on election day is the invalidity of the election under 73(2) of the current Electoral Act, 2022. Indeed, section 73(3) imposes the heaviest penalty of either 10 million naira or two years imprisonment or both, on the officers of INEC that refused to comply with section 73(2). This section is intended to make INEC demonstrate that they conducted election first before they can be availed of utilizing the substantial noncompliance principles under section 135 of the Electoral Act, 2022.”
“Fifthly, if they had known that counsel’s final written address is neither pleadings nor evidence concerning the case, they would have simply resigned to faith and pray that their principal escape this sledge hammer about to befall them, because they obviously never saw it coming and consequently did not have adequate defence to the petitioners petition.”
“Finally, this publication smacks of desperation aimed at watering down the facts of the case in the public domain as we await judgement. It most definitely will not succeed, because”. The statement noted.
