Tuesday 11 July 2023


By: Valentine Adese (JP),

Mr. Pankshak Elijah Dakyen (Esq), a Legal Practitioner and a politician, who is a witness to the 3rd Respondent, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Petition No: EPT/PL/HR/01/2023, has told the National/State Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Jos, the capital of Plateau state that, the Report of the 25th September, 2021, repeated State Congress, does not have the scores of other contestants except for the summary of results.

Under Cross-examination by the Petitioners Counsel, Edward Pwajok (SAN), Mr. Panshak informed the Tribunal that, he won and his score is indicated in the report, but he cannot see that of his fellow contestant(s). Adding that, he is not the maker of the document.

Panshak (Esq), who was made to identify, the PDP’s Constitution and Guidelines for the party’s primary elections, told the Tribunal that, the letter signed by one Yakubu Chocho, the party’s Organizing Secretary, was done in May, 2022.

When shown his statement that he made, specifically paragraph 7g, Panshak told the Tribunal that, there was full compliance to the Judgment of Court.

Adding that, “Supervening Judgments have made rubbish of all the itemized issues in the Petition”.

When shown the front page of the Court of Appeal’s decision, dated 28th October, 2022, Panshak told the Tribunal that, as at October, 2022, the 3rd Respondent (PDP) had already complied with the order of Court.


However, when referred to the Judgment of the Court of Appeal (COA), dated 6th May, 2022 at page, 47 and asked to read it, the COA stated in the Judgment that, “A disbanded leadership of the party cannot run the business of the party in view of the Judgment of the State High Court.

Panshak also added that, “The Court of Appeal ratified our position and the case referred to is the Local Government (LG) elections on the Plateau. PDP appealed against the Judgment of the COA to the Supreme Court.

“The Appeal was dismissed in Chambers, as it was listed as a Pre-election case, while the case is about the “Exclusion of PDP from participating in the Local Government elections here on the Plateau.

“The Supreme Court did not set aside the Judgment of the COA, but they said that the Local Government matter, as a matter of policy, ends at the state”.

When Pwajok (SAN) further asked, if he knows the Report of the Congress has a delegate list, Panshak told the Tribunal that, he does not know and that the list is not in the document shown to him.

Adding that, “The exhibit does not contain the list of the congress results sheet where the list of scores was entered. The last page only has summary result sheet. I did not contest for the office of the Assistant Legal Officer alone.

“The name of my opponent is not on the list. However, I am not the maker and nothing shows how accreditation for the Congress was done”.

However, before the Cross-examination of Mr. Panshak (Esq), the Petitioners, the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent had closed their cases.

E. D. Pwajok (SAN) closed the Petitioners’ case on their behalf by Tendering more 3 documents and withdrawing 2, which are court Judgments.

I. A. Madaki (Esq) the Counsel to the 1st Respondent closed its case by not calling any witness or tendering any document.

According to him, “The matter is slated for commencement of defense in this petition. On behalf of the 1st Respondent, we have decided not to call any witness. We shall be relying and subscribing to the case of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.

P. A. Akubo (SAN), while opening and closing the 2nd Respondent (Hon. Peter Gyanden) case, told the Tribunal that, “We are prepared to begin our defense. I shall start by tendering documents as contained in our schedule of documents filed before this Tribunal. That is, INEC’s Report for the repeat of State Congress of 25th September, 2021, and 4 others.

“We have only one witness. We rest our case on the Petitioners’ case and list of documents already tendered on their behalf on the last adjourned date and today.

“And will further rely on the witness to be called by the 3rd Respondent. This is the same witness we intend to call. This is  to allow for better case management”.


No comments:

Post a Comment