BREAKING: TRIBUNAL AGREES WITH EDWARD PWAJOK (SAN) ON THE RIGHT PROCEDURE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION

By: Valentine Adese (JP),

The National/State Houses of Assembly Tribunal sitting in Jos, the capital of Plateau State has finally ruled on the right mode and procedure that must be taken to Cross-examine witnesses in the Petitions before it in Petition No: EPT/PL/HR/01/2023, filed by Fom Dalyop Chollom, who is challenging the election conducted by INEC for Riyom/Barkin-ladi Federal Constituency of Plateau State on the 25^th of February, 2023.

CENTER: DALYOP CHOLLOM AND OTHERS AT THE TRIBUNAL

The Petition is also challenging the winner of the election, Hon. Peter Gyanden, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as declared by INEC.

In its ruling today, the Tribunal upheld the provision of the Evidence Act 2011, which provides that in both Civil and Criminal cases, which also includes Petitions, it is the Respondents/Defendants that should start with Cross-examination, while the Petitioners/Plaintiff(s)/Defendants as the case may be, ends the process.

The ruling was caused by an objection raised by Edward Pwajok (SAN), Counsel to the Petitioners, when P. A. Akubo(SAN), Counsel to the 2^nd Respondent (Hon. Peter Gyanden), wanted the Petitioners to start Cross examining the lone witness called by the 3^rd Respondent (PDP).

Akubo (SAN) in urging the Tribunal to give direction on the pattern to take by Counsels in the matter had told the Tribunal to take Judicial Notice of the procedure being adopted in the other Tribunal panels in the state and the Presidential Tribunal sitting in at the Court of Appeal Abuja.

AKUBO SAN AT THE TRIBUNAL

According to him, the tradition already established is that, the Petitioners start the Cross-examination first and the Respondents follow.

However, in a quick objection to that line of suggestion, E. D. Pwajok (SAN) raised opposition.

Pwajok (SAN) in part said, “In opposing the application of the Counsel to the 2^nd Respondent, for the Tribunal to alter the settled procedure of Cross-examination, it is when a Respondent leads Evidence in Chief, the other Respondents will Cross examine, if necessary, before the Petitioner(s). This is the normal procedure of Courts in Civil and Criminal cases.

“We rely on Section 217 of the Evidence Act 2011, which reads as follows:

“Where more than one defendant is charged at the same time, a witness called by one defendant may be Cross-examined by the other defendant and if Cross-examined by the other defendant such Cross-examination shall take place before Cross-examination by the prosecution”.

“On the reference made to the procedure at the Presidential Tribunal at the Court of Appeal, and the submission that, this Tribunal should take Judicial Notice of the procedure, our submission is that, there is no documentary or visual Evidence before the Tribunal.

“More so, no item of the Evidence Act 2011 draws the attention of the Tribunal that it is the address of Counsel for the Court to take judicial notice.

“The Counsel is just been speculative. I urge the Tribunal to adopt the procedure provided by the Evidence Act, 2011.

“After the Examination-in-Chief of the witness, then, the 1^st Respondent will begin, Cross-examination”.

E.D. PWAJOK SAN AT THE TRIBUNAL WITH PATIENCE DAVOU

In another ruling of the Tribunal today and in the same Petition, the Tribunal also held that, the Counsel to the 2^nd Respondent, P. A. Akubo (SAN) has lost his right to Cross examine the witness of the 3^rd Respondent, Mr. Panshak Elijah Dakyen (Esq) since, he had earlier adopted him as his witness and the witness had also adopted his written statement on Oath in the 2^nd Respondent’s reply to the Petition during the Examination in Chief led by D. P. Dusu (Esq), Counsel to the 3^rd Respondent (PDP).

Although Akubo (SAN) further raised the Issue of fair hearing citing section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, the Tribunal held in the ruling that, “The Counsel had amble opportunity to do so, but he waved it.”

Earlier, while opposing the right of the Counsel to the 2^nd Respondent to Cross-examine Mr. Panshak (Esq), Pwajok (SAN) had argued that, “The witness had adopted his deposition on Oath to the 2^nd Respondent’s reply brief.

E.D. PWAJOK (SAN) AT THE TRIBUNAL WITH PATIENCE DAVOU

“For adopting two statements, it means the 2^nd Respondent has also done his Examination-in-Chief and the witness has adopted his statement on Oath for both parties.

“This is not done even in Area Courts”.

TO BE CONTINUED…