News Editor
By Dauda O Omaku
LAFIA — AS the governorship election petition tribunal sitting in Lafia resumed defence hearing in the petition filed by opposition PDP governorship candidate David Emmanuel Ombugadu, confusion again raised its head as Governor Abdullahi Sule’s witnesses allegedly based their testimonies mostly on heresay.
Confusion and contradictions became the order of the day before the three man panel by the witnesses in a bid to defend the 2nd Respondent, Alhaji Sule Audu Sule in the Petition against him
Featured as witnesses designated as RW2 – RW7 were Isham Abubakar, Dan Azumi, who testified as the 1st witness for the Thursday sitting was called as the 2nd Respondent’s 2nd witness designated as RW2
Testifying before the tribunal, the RW2 confirmed the scores of the Parties at the Polling Units recorded in the EC8A as been the same scores that are supposed to be entered in the corresponding EC8B
The admissibility of the witness evidence supports the Petitioners’ case which is largely that the scores of the Parties in the polling units results in forms EC8As in Gayam and Chiroma wards were incorrectly entered into the respective EC8Bs.
On his part while testifying as Sule’s 2nd Respondent’s 3rd Witness designated as RW3. Abdullahi Danlami Hashimu said under cross examination by Counsel to INEC that there were incorrect entries from the polling units results Forms EC8A into Form EC8B.
When confronted by the Petitioners’ lead Counsel, Samuel J. Okutekpa SAN, the witness confessed that all he said relating to various Polling Units in support of APC and Abdullahi Sule were things he was told as he did not witness any of the issues.
Under the fire of cross examination, the witness also revealed that the appropriate forms EC40GPU were not filled to substantiate the allegations made by Abdullahi Sule in respect of identified Polling Units.
After taking the evidence of the available witnesses, the Court adjourned to 25th August, 2023 for continuation of the 2nd Respondent’s defence upon the application of the 2nd Respondent’s Counse
