Tribunal says it has jurisdiction over case against Oshiomhole

Retired Maj-Gen. Charles Airhiavbere of the PDP filed the petition against Oshiomhole.

Airhiavbere had alleged that Oshiomhole did not possess the minimum qualification and that the modern school certificate presented by him (Oshiomhole) before INEC was fake.

He also alleged that INEC did not conduct the election in compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2012 (as amended).

Named as co-defendants in the petition were Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), INEC, the Edo Resident Electoral Commissioner and INEC Returning Officer.

The tribunal had on Sept. 4, following an application by the PDP, struck out its name as a co-respondent petitioner in the petition.

But Oshiomhole on Wednesday brought an application challenging the competence of the tribunal to entertain the petition.

Oshiomhole’s counsel, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) had urged the tribunal to dismiss Airhiavbere’s petition for lack of competence and jurisdiction.

Olanipekun argued that only the Federal High Court had the jurisdiction to hear the case, citing several authorities to back his submission.

But Efe Akpofure, counsel to the petitioner, who described the respondents’ application as premature, urged the court to dismiss their application.
 
Akpofure also urged the court to take a holistic view of the petitioner’s case along with his pleadings.

He said the Electoral Act 2010, as amended, did not preclude the tribunal‘s jurisdiction from hearing and nullifying an election if it discovered a candidate used falsified certificate to contest an election.

In his ruling, the Chairman of the three-man tribunal, Justice Suleman Ambrusa, said after due consideration of the submissions and cases cited by the counsel, it was of the view that the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

On the allegation of non qualification of the first defendant (Oshiomhole)  to contest the election, Ambrusa said the allegation was a pre-election matter.

He added that the petitioner had the opportunity to have explored the avenue of dealing with the matter before the election proper.

The tribunal chairman said section 3(1), sub section (6) of the act, as amended, ``does not vest in the tribunal powers to enquire into the issue of qualification or otherwise of a candidate as it is purely a pre-election matter’’.

Ambrusa further held that some of the particulars contained in the petition were scanty and not precise, and therefore described the petitioner’s quest as ``pursuing a wide goose chase’’.

He said that the particulars in the petition were vague and not tied to any ground.

The chairman added that the petitioner failed to provide specific particulars in the body of the paragraphs to substantiate  grounds of the relief being sought.

The tribunal will, however, on Friday deliver ruling on the application by the petitioner, urging the tribunal to compel INEC to provide all the certified copies of the voters' register in all the units and wards of the contentious local government areas