On Wednesday, the Enugu State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal concluded its proceedings and reserved judgment on the petitions contesting the election victory of Governor Peter Mbah. The parties involved in the case presented their written addresses during the proceedings.
Presiding over the resumed session of the Tribunal, Justice Akano, who headed the panel, announced the decision to reserve judgment, with a specific date to be communicated to all parties concerned.
Chijioke Edeoga, the candidate of the Labour Party, has raised objections against the declaration of Peter Mbah from the Peoples Democratic Party as the duly elected governor by the Independent National Electoral Commission in the March 18 gubernatorial elections in the State.
While the petitioners (Edeoga and Labour Party) were present in court, Peter Mbah, the second respondent, was represented by his legal representatives on Wednesday.
In this case, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) serves as the first respondent, with Dr. Mbah and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as the second and third respondents respectively.
During the presentation of his argument, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, representing Peter Mbah, urged the court to dismiss the Labour Party’s petitions, asserting that they lacked merit and were merely an academic exercise.
Similarly, Anthony Ani, SAN, counsel for the Peoples Democratic Party, contended that the petitioner’s argument was vague and lacked sufficient evidence.
Concluding his final address, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, the lead counsel for the Labour Party and its gubernatorial candidate, urged the tribunal to uphold his clients’ stance and grant the requested reliefs. He emphasized that it had been conclusively established that Peter Mbah was not constitutionally qualified to contest the election due to the presentation of a forged national service certificate to INEC at the time of the election.
Chief Adegboyega Awomolo highlighted various issues brought forward by the petitioner, such as over-voting, the non-use of BVAS, and the alleged forgery of the NYSC certificate. He cited these factors as compelling reasons for the tribunal to rule in favor of his client (Edeoga).
