Credibility: Oshiomhole slams Airhiavbere

BENIN CITY - It was a drama of sorts at the resumed hearing of the Edo State Election Petitions Tribunal, yesterday, as Counsel to Governor Adams Oshiomhole queried Airhiavbere’s credibility as he mounted the witness box, telling him that he was detained for three months while in the Army for questionable conduct.

Airhiavbere had taken Oshiomhole to the tribunal over the July 14 gubernatorial election in the state alleging that the Edo governor does not possess the requisite academic qualifications and that the elections were fraught with irregularities.

At the resumed hearing yesterday, the tribunal admitted two documents: the Western Region of Nigeria Gazette No 17, Volume 5 of April 5, 1956 and the Tribune Newspaper of July 12, 2012 as exhibits.

The Gazette admitted in exhibit provides that a child must attain the minimum age of six years before being admitted into primary school.

Airhiavbere who was the sole witness of the plaintiffs, under cross-examination, initially refused to acknowledge the fact that Oshiomhole had certificates which he referred to as ‘documents’. However, under further cross-examination, he admitted that Oshiomhole indeed had certificates which he was compelled to readout in the open tribunal by Ken Mozia, SAN, Counsel to the 2nd Respondent.

Oshiomhole who then queried Airhiavbere’s credibility as a witness told the tribunal that Airhiavbere was detained for three months for questionable conduct which necessitated his compulsory retirement.

The plaintiff, however, insisted that he served the Army meritoriously for 37 years before retirement.

Earlier, there was legal fireworks between the Plaintiff’s Counsel, Chief Efe Akpofure (SAN) and Counsel to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, Messers Niyi Akintola (SAN), Prince Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN) and E.R. Emukperhuo on the admissibility of clippings of the Nigerian Tribune of 12th July 2012 and Western Regional Gazette and maps of 1956 as exhibits.

While Chief Akintola, Oyeyipo and Emukperhuo agreed that the documents in question must be pleaded and listed, they however added that the tendering of the documents by the Petitioner was a classical case of the abuse of Court process.

They submitted that under Order 20, Rule 3 of the Federal High Court and under the 4th Schedule of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended, such documents must be filed along with the petition and must not just be listed.

According to Akintola, “we did not oppose earlier documents sought to be tendered because we knew they were listed and pleaded. But in this case, they left everybody at sea on what national newspaper they were talking about. There are conditionalities that must be met, but this was not done in this case. The Petitioner cannot hide under any other documents, the pleadings must be complete.

“ It is against the rule of pleadings, it’s very inchoate. No map or gazette was listed in the petition, and I therefore urge the Tribunal to reject the documents and throw them out through the window.”

On his part, Counsel to the Petitioner, Chief Akpofure, submitted that there was a gross misconception by Counsel to the Respondents in relation to the Court process.

He said the authorities cited by them were grossly inapplicable to the circumstances of the proceeding before the Tribunal, adding that the case off the Petitioner was that the first Respondent was not qualified academically to contest the election at the time he did.

He therefore asked the Tribunal to admit the documents as exhibits.

In his ruling, the Tribunal Chairman, Justice Muazu Pindiga, said after “considering the submission of Counsel and our attention being drawn to the ruling of the Tribunal and mindful of the Court of Appeal ruling, it is our view that the issue be viewed with caution. We therefore admitted the documents to be tendered as exhibits.”

The tribunal then adjourned the matter till Wednesday December 5 for the Respondents to all in their witnesses.