Tribunal To decide ACN Petition Against Gov Suswan Thursday

The reconstituted governorship election petition tribunal sitting  in Makurdi, Benue State  has adjourned till 8 December, 2011 to  decide whether to hear again the petition filed by Professor Steven Ugbah of the Action Congress of Nigeria, ACN against Governor Gabriel Suswam of the People’s Democratic Party, PDP and the certificate forgery allegation against the governor brought to the tribunal by Professor Daniel Saror of ANPP.

At the hearing of the two cases yesterday in Makurdi, the chairman of the tribunal, Justice Halima Muhammed adjourned till Thursday to rule on the applications of respondents seeking the termination of the status of the petition.

In his submission, counsel to Governor Suswam Damian Dodo, SAN urged  the tribunal to dismiss Ugbah’s petition for reasons that its status bar had since elapsed in line with the 1999 constitution.

He argued that section 285 (5), (6) and 7 of the constitution that deals  with time frame is not only mandatory but absolute, adding that the said provision does not admit qualification and urged the court to resist any attempt to introduce it.

Dodo insisted  that there is strong appeal of sentiments by the petitioner that any contrary interpretation other than that given by the Supreme Court will visit hardship on them, noting that if there is any relief for hardship, it does not lie with the tribunal but the Supreme Court.

“The Supreme court did not give direction that the petition should be heard outside the time limit of 180 days,” Dodo insisted.

Counsel to the People’s Democratic Party, PDP, Solo Akuma, SAN adopted the submissions of Dodo while urging the tribunal to give literal interpretation to section 285 sub (6) of the 1999 constitution.

However, counsel to ACN and ANPP, Mr.  Olawarotimi Akekerdolu, SAN and Chris Orpin vehemently opposed the motion,describing it as “mischievous”, “unfounded” in law and lacking merit, stressing that the cases are commencing afresh.

Akeredolu contended that by section 287 (1), the decision of the Supreme Court must be obeyed and enforced in any part of the country.

He also held that section 285 (6) deals with hearing of a petition at first instance, adding that the constitution has no specific provision to limit the powers of the Supreme Court to direct retrial of a petition.

“The fate of petitioners would be on the decision made by the Supreme Court and to hold otherwise would be a mockery of the Supreme Court orders to hear the petition on its merit. It will also amount to judicial rascality,” Akeredolu said.

He argued that the legislature would not have intended the monstrous construction that respondents are giving to section 285 to alienate the right of the petitioner and urged the court to dismiss the application with substantial cost.

By Ubong George/Makurdi