2023 LAGOS GOV. ELECTION: TRIBUNAL DISMISSES PDP’S APPLICATION TO CROSS-EXAMINE SUBPOENAED WITNESS
Read Time:3 Minute, 40 Second
By Aishat Momoh. O.
On Monday, the Lagos State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal denied a request by the candidate for the People’s Democratic Party to cross-examine a witness who had been subpoenaed on allegations that the witness had not given accurate testimony.
The second witness was Adekanmbi Olaolu, a member of the West African Examination Council (WAEC) National Office in Lagos who had been subpoenaed by the tribunal at the request of Olajide Adediran’s lead attorney, Clement Onwuenwunor (SAN).
In defiance of the petitioner’s assertions that Governor Sanwo-Olu (the second respondent) lacked a school-leaving certificate, the official produced a May/June O’level result given in 1981 by one Ijebu Ife Community Grammar School carrying the names of the governor.
The document was admitted as one of the many exhibits before the three-person panel, which was presided over by Justice Arum Ashom.
However, the petitioner’s attorney informed the tribunal that the witness’ testimony was in conflict with its prior conclusions after a search on WAEC’s online result verification portal allegedly revealed that the Governor’s name and result were not included there.
Additionally, he requested permission from the tribunal to cross-examine the witness in order to contest the veracity of the testimony provided by the WAEC officer.
“there is a major conflict between what the witness has just brought and what we earlier tendered which was also issued by WAEC. Our search before the polls had discovered that the governor had no result on WAEC’s portal and now this witness is bringing something different which contradicts their earlier position. He is not being a witness of truth. He has also refused to give more evidence on what he presented, and says the Council doesn’t produce hard copy of certificates or retain duplicate certificates.”
In their responses, INEC’s counsel, Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN) described the petitioner’s grouse as a storm in a teacup.
“This witness hasn’t made two contradictory statements. there is nothing to warrant treating him as a hostile witness. At the very best, he has only given evidence not palatable to my learned friend. We urge you to refuse the application of the Petitioner.”
Counsel, Muiz- Banire (SAN) representing the governor and his deputy, Obafemi Hamzat, who are the second and third respondents in the petition, also aligned himself with INEC’s position.
“Exhibit P36 is a product of one ijebu ife community grammar school, not WAEC while exhibit b2 is a product of one grandex ventures LTD, not WAEC. No one has led evidence to establish the authenticity of that portal so the attachment to it is totally unreliable. No witness has even testified on the said grandex, section 230 of the
Evidence Act doesn’t avail the petitioner the right to seek leave of court to declare the witness hostile.”
The fourth respondent, the All Progressives Congress’ counsel, Abiodun
Owonikoko (SAN) on his part said the option for the Petitioner to cross examine the witness is foreclosed as he has already ended his examination in Chief with the witness.
“A hostile witness isn’t the same as an unfavorable witness. This is a case of contrived hostility, he should sink or swim with his witness as only the Court can label a witness as hostile.”
The fifth and sixth respondents, the Labour Party and its candidate Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour, however, asked the tribunal to approve the petitioner’s motion, claiming the witness was being antagonistic toward the truth and displaying hatred.
The tribunal ruled that the petitioner was not permitted to cross-examine the witness and that WAEC could not be directly linked to the exhibit carrying the portal’s conclusions. Only the other attorney was allowed to cross-examine the WAEC official.
During cross-examination, the witness informed the tribunal that the governor had been determined to be eligible for a certificate issued by the concerned school and that the internet portal didn’t exist as of 1981.
“Since there was no portal in 1981, this Master list of 581 candidates that sat for the exam at the school is the primary information that will be fed into the result verification portal.
I think electronic registration of candidates started in 2004.
For migrating results we have three portals
The council doesn’t retain duplicate copies of certificates.”
Further hearing is fixed till July 4, 2023.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0