Bayelsa State chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC) has accused Justice Kazeem Alogba-led state election petition tribunal sitting in Abuja of bias.
In a statement issued in Abuja yesterday by an ex-officio member, Mr. Akpoebi Benson, the party alleged that incidences at the proceedings of the tribunal “ahas shown that there is bias in this case.”
The party was reacting to the decision of the tribunal rejecting the public demonstration of electronically-generated evidence to the hearing of the tribunal after the same had been admitted.
The evidence was to show whether or not the Southern Ijaw local government election was cancelled or postponed as announced by Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Justice Alogba had, on Tuesday, while admitting the evidence, a DVD, through a private television station, Channels, stopped it from being played.
This happened during the process of demonstrating the recorded video clip of the cancellation that was announced by the state Resident Electoral Commissioner, Baritor Kpaghi.
In the statement issued on behalf of the party after the tribunal’s decision, the APC contended that keeping the evidence without demonstrating it was not fair.
‘’The decision by the tribunal to admit the evidence in one breath and avoid it being played to the hearing of the tribunal is a clear case of perversion of justice and brazen bias.
“This is a rape of court proceedings more so that the nation’s apex court, the Supreme Court had, in Dickson vs Kubor, ruled in a similar case…”
‘’We are worried that a lower court of jurisdiction, like a tribunal could flagrantly give a contrary decision on the same issue that had been settled by the Supreme Court. Wherein the source of such powers are unknown to law, actions as this, taken by the election petition tribunal can only be products of compromise.
‘’Our fears about the impartiality of the tribunal have been on and suppressed for long. But Tuesday’s decision was one too many. It gave out the tribunal as a biased body that contends with integrity challenges. This is more so that Governor Dickson has been boasting about how he has pocketed members of the tribunal.
‘’For the avoidance of doubt, the DVD in question was processed and stored in a computer owned by Channels TV and there was certainty about its compliance to the extent that the same has to be demonstrated once admitted in evidence. The evidence so admitted but kept away cannot be for sale in the market but for demonstration to serve justice as enunciated by Section 84 of the Evidence Act.
In Kubor v Dickson the Supreme Court examined the provisions of Sections 84, 34(1)(b) and 258 of the EvidenceAct 2011 regarding the concept of a ‘document’ and the admissibility of electronic evidence.

Related News