Tribunal rejects PDP’s pleas for reexamination over inconsistent statements

<p>The Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abeokuta metropolis, on Wednesday rejected the pleas of the counsel to the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP) Mr Gordy Uche, SAN, seeking reexamination for his witness after certain inconsistencies were discovered in her statement.</p>, <p>The party had called a witness, Mrs Shittu Omobolanle, from Makun, Sagamu, to appear before the panel and testify in it’s favour based on her experience in the gubernatorial poll of March 18, 2023.</p>, <p>Meanwhile, in her statement, the witness gave her polling unit number as 27-20-14-020, whereas, her voter’s card indicates 27-20-14-004 as her PU number.</p>, <p>Counsel to Governor Abiodun, Kehinde Ogunwunmiju, SAN, pointed out the discrepancy during cross examination, when he asked her to read out the numbers on the two documents. Subsequently, the petitioners’ counsel – Gordy Uche SAN – attempted to get her to explain the reasons behind the inconsistencies.</p>, <p>Uche SAN argued that opportunity for reexamination should be freely granted to enable his witness explain the facts behind the two numbers, citing the Evidence Act and other authorities to substantiate his stance.</p>, <p>In their reactions, counsels to respondents vehemently objected to the argument, on the ground that there was no ambiguity whatsoever in the two documents.</p>, <p>They equally cited relevant authorities, including that of the Supreme Court in Natasha v The State, to buttress their positions that reexamination can only be allowed along the line of argument of the petitioners’ counsel if there was any ambiguity in the issue sought to be reexamined. In his response to the objection, Uche SAN agreed that reexamination was truly limited to ambiguities only but argued that the discrepancies in the witness’ written statement and voter’s card were an ambiguity within the meaning of the Evidence Act.</p>, <p>Replying on points of law, Ogunwumiju SAN clarified that the issue in question was not an ambiguity. He invoked legal authorities and judicial d