.png)
Iheanyi Chukwudi
Enugu State Governor, Dr. Peter Mbah on Friday shunned the order of the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Enugu State by refusing to appear before it.
The Tribunal led by Justice Kudirat Akano made an order on Thursday for a subpoena to be served on Mbah through his counsel for him to appear before it to clarify issues surrounding the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) discharge certificate which he submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) before the March 18 governorship election.
When the court resumed sitting on Friday, counsel to the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP), Alex Amujiogo, reminded the Tribunal of its order and noted that Gov. Mbah was not in court.
Addressing the panel he said, “This Honourable Tribunal had on June 22, 2023 made an order that the subpoena be served on Barr Peter Mbah through his counsel. We have since done that for him to appear today.
“My Lord, it is obvious that he is not in court under the pretence of immunity. And today is my last day for me to close my case; my hands are tied and I have no choice than to close my case.”
The panel asked the counsel to the 1st Respondent to open his defense, the counsel, Humphrey Okoli, applied for a date and when his application was not objected to by any of the parties, the chairman of the panel, Justice Akano adjourned the case to Saturday, June 24 for the 1st respondent to open defense.
Speaking to newsmen on his next line of action, Amujiogo said, “It is now left for the tribunal, in the course of this matter to know the next step that they will undertake as regards his (Mbah) refusal or inability to appear today before the Tribunal; let us watch and see what the battle will be like, between the tribunal and the governor
“It has two legs, the tribunal can exercise its power of sanctions against the person who refuses his order; you also know that judgment is always at hand; it is the last option. The ball is on the court of the Tribunal to do things one way or the other.”
Disagreeing with him, the lead counsel to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Anthony Ani (SAN) said there is no issue of sanction because the petitioner did not comply with the provisions of the law in serving the subpoena, stressing that if the right processes were followed, the Governor would have been in court.
He said, “The petitioner has not complied with the mandatory provisions of the law; the default provision, respecting election petitions, is the Federal High Court Rules, which is very clear on service of Subpoena Testificandum or Duces Tecum.
“Now when you serve a subpoena, that subpoena should have been filed alongside the originating process that is the petition. And in filing it, you have to comply with the relevant order; I think Order 3, Rule 4 of the Federal High Court Rules and serve the witness you are subpoenaing with what we call Form 1A; that form 1A, will mandate the witness to file witness deposition on oath, and then you also serve the witness you are expecting with your pleadings.
“In this case, they should have served the Governor with the petition, to enable the Governor file a deposition on oath, and then come to court to adopt that deposition.
“So you don’t serve just ordinary paper, that’s what the Court of Appeal called it, you don’t just serve only the subpoena without the accompanying documents. If they had complied with the provisions of the rules of court, I’m sure the Governor must have been here;
“There is no issue of immunity here; if they had done the proper thing, the Governor would have been here, but they didn’t comply with the law, if you comply we will comply, if you don’t, we won’t comply.”
Comments