New panel begins sitting in Kashamu appeal

bibing

The newly-constituted panel in the appeal filed by Buruji Kashamu challenging the ruling of Justice Ebiowei Tobi, which nullified his election as a senator representing the Ogun East Senatorial District, sat for the first time at the Appeal Court, Ibadan, on Wednesday with counsel for all parties stating their cases.

The initial panel was sacked by the President of the Appeal Court, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, on Monday after Buruji’s petition which alleged that the panel must have been compromised by the All Progressives Congress.

After listening to the counsel representing Kashamu and his party, the Peoples Democratic Party and counsel representing Dapo Abiodun, who initiated the earlier petition at the tribunal that sat in Abeokuta, the Chairman of the new panel, Justice A.G. Mshelia, promised to deliver ruling soon based on the time frame remaining before the case finally rests.

In the earlier ruling of Justice Tobi in Abeokuta, Kashamu’s victory ahead of the APC’s candidate, Dapo Abiodun, was nullified while a re-run election was ordered in 110 polling units.

On Wednesday, Kashamu’s lawyer, Alex Izinyon (SAN), said the tribunal committed an error by hinging its judgement on the evidence of Prosecution Witness 44, who according to him was not an expert.

Izinyon said the witness confirmed that he was hired by Abiodun and the APC to analyse the polling materials, hence his evidence should not be relied on.

Kashamu’s counsel argued that the witness lacked an established skill and expertise as a forensic expert, praying that the panel should allow the appeal of his client and set aside the decision of the tribunal.

He also prayed that the panel should dismiss Abiodun and the APC’s petition at the tribunal.

Counsel for the PDP, Mr. Ajibola Oluyede, also called on the panel to grant the appeal of his client, stating that statues and cases are unanimous that elections were not meant to be totally perfect.

He argued that out of the 11 complaints presented before the tribunal by the first and second respondents, only four were accepted by the tribunal on the basis of faulty evidence.

Source: Punch