NASS Tribunal: Drama as INEC lawyer rejects document issued by its Commission in Enugu

A lawyer from the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, Mr. Benson Ibezim,yesterday, stunned the National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Enugu when he rejected a certified true copy of a document issued by the Commission, saying it could not be admitted in evidence for doubtful authenticity and competence of the INEC Legal Services Department to endorse the said document.
The drama ensued at the continued hearing of the petition of the former governor of Enugu State, Dr. Chimaroke Nnamani of the People for Democratic Change, PDC, challenging the declaration of Senator Gil Nnaji of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, by INEC as the winner of the Enugu East senatorial election conducted on March 28, 2015.
The counsel to INEC, third respondent in the petition, who was in the habit of agreeing to every submission by counsels to the first and second respondents, Senator Nnaji and the PDP, respectively, while stressing as usual that he had nothing more to add, apparently did not know where to draw the line when he told the tribunal that he was “in the same boat” with the two respondents in objecting to the admission in evidence of a certified true copy of the card reader polling unit accreditation report, even though it was signed by the Director of Legal Services of the electoral commission, which he was representing.
Counsel to the petitioner, Mr. O. Jolaawo, who had earlier tendered four documents for admission in evidence without objection by the respondents, had further sought to tender in evidence the card reader polling unit accreditation report generated by the Information and Communication Technology, ICT, Department of INEC for the Presidential/National Assembly elections and signed by the Director of Legal Services of INEC.
This was, however, met with the stiff objections of the lead counsel to Senator Nnaji, Mr. P.I.N. Ikwueto, SAN, and that of the PDP, Mr. P.M.B. Onyia, saying it did not meet the requirements of the evidence act as the INEC Director of Legal Services, who signed the document was not competent to do so, not being an ICT expert.
Counsel to the petitioner, Ojolaawo, who immediately pointed out the anomaly of the INEC lawyer joining the other respondents in denying and objecting to a document duly signed and issued by the very commission which he represented, urged the tribunal to disregard his objection offhand.
He averred that even though the counsel to INEC was defending the election in dispute, he could not object to documents authenticated by the commission.