At exactly 12:17 pm on Saturday, the Rivers State Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja declared that it was satisfied that the All Progressives Congress (APC) and its candidate in the April 2015 governorship election in the state, Dakuku Peterside, being the petitioners, have proven their case against the electoral victory of Nyesom Wike, the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the election.

This set the tone for what was to come next.

But before finally sacking Wike as governor of Rivers State at exactly 12.53 pm, the three-man tribunal headed by Justice Suleiman Ambursa, ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct a fresh election for the state within the next 90 days.

The tribunal verdict was based on its decision that Wike’s victory followed non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act.

In the judgment, read by Ambursa for about three hours, the tribunal held that the petitioners successfully proved their case that the election was conducted in total disregard for electoral guidelines.

For example, Justice Ambursa held that the process of accreditation for the election was compromised with the use of incident forms rather than adherence to card readers.

“While we agree with the second respondent’s (Wike) position that card reader was just introduced, but the usage of the card reader is to complement voter register. The election was in total disregard for guidelines, the issue of accreditation in election cannot be compromised.

“Even, some of the witnesses of the respondents said they were not aware of the use of card reader for the election,” Ambursa said stressing further that the tribunal hinged its decision to annul the election on contradictory position by the second and third respondents (Wike and PDP).

The tribunal held that some of the figures given by Wike’s witnesses contradicted the figures presented in the documents tendered by PDP while defending the case and that it was not impressed with the way the witnesses of the respondents presented themselves during cross examination by the petitioners.

According to Ambursa, some of the witnesses of Wike and the PDP, who had written their evidence and tendered them before the tribunal, later claimed that they could not read when they were confronted with INEC results sheets during cross examination.

“We are in agreement with the petitioners that the evidences presented by the respondents were unreliable. The respondents on their part were unable to defend the allegations in the petition.

“The petitioners have proved their case as required by the law that the second respondent was not validly elected,” the tribunal ruled.

BLOW-BY-BLOW DETAILS

11:02 PDP argued that the Petitioners levelled allegations of crime against the military which was not joined as a party. PDP also argued that non-usage of card reader cannot be grounds of nullification of election. PDP thus argued that the petitioners failed to prove their case and case should be struck out.

11:18 The petitioner, Mr. Peterside, argued that the card reader machine was made mandatory by INEC’s guideline and has the backing of the Electoral Act.

11:31 The tribunal adopted only one issue for determination – whether or not the petitioners have proved their case.

11:40 The Tribunal dismissed preliminary issues concerning the competence of the tribunal raised by the respondents. It is now dwelling on its sole issue for determination

11:49 The tribunal restated the petitioners’ allegations including poll being marred by intimidation of voters, non-availability of result sheets, snatching of electoral materials, non-collation of results at wards and LG levels etc.

11:50 The Tribunal stated that the evidence of the petitioners’ witnesses is relevant and reliable.

11:54 The tribunal stated  that INEC has the power to insist on card readers. It is not open to anybody to act otherwise – tribunal

11:57 According to the tribunal, Exhibit A9 presented by the petitioners, which is a report by head of election monitoring team of INEC office in Rivers State, Charles Okoye, confirmed the allegations of the petitioners – Tribunal

11:58 The tribunal says card readers were introduced by INEC to ensure credibility and transparency

11:59 We don’t see any conflict between the introduction of card readers and the provisions of the Electoral Act, the tribunal states.

11:59 A simple glance at the results (Exhibit A10) showed that the election was not conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act, the tribunal states.

12:01 According to the tribunal, an INEC witness said he was not aware of directive by the Commission on the exclusive use of card readers for accreditation.

12:05 According to the tribunal, INEC had directed that if the card reader failed the election should be postponed to the next day.

12:09 According to the tribunal, presiding officers called by the respondents as witnesses said they resorted to manual accreditation because the card reader failed. They said they were not aware of INEC’s directive to postpone the poll under such circumstances.

12:10 The tribunal stated that the characters of voters called by Mr. Wike were impugned under cross-examination.

12:15 The voter- Mr. Wike’s witnesses- dodged questions under cross-examination and refused to answer questions on documents the petitioners confronted them with, the tribunal states.

12:15 We are in agreement that the evidence of the witnesses of Wike and INEC is incredible and unreliable, Tribunal states.