Hearing in the petition between the Speaker, Plateau State House of Assembly Rt. Hon. Moses Thomas Sule and the past Majority Leader and member representing Mikang constituency, Hon. Naanlong Gapyil Daniel resumed last Saturday at the elections petition tribunal sitting in Jos, the Plateau State capital.
Naanlong had filed a petition against the speaker at the tribunal, challenging his declaration as winner in the last election to represent Mikang constituency in the state assembly.
The former member had in his petition, joined the People’s Democratic party (PDP) on which platform Sule contested the election, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as defendants in the case.
According to a report made available to THE NIGERIA STANDARD by the Press Secretary to the speaker, Mr. Peter Tongshep, Naanlong had during the hearing brought forth a witness through his lead counsel S.S Obende, with the view to substantiating his claim that PDP lacked the constitutional prerequisite to participate in the last elections.
However, the witness Mr. Ponkap Daniel, who at the start of his testimony before the tribunal claimed he was a bonafide member of the PDP from Tunkus ward, later admitted to not having the party’s membership card to substantiate his earlier claim.
The former majority leader, who contested and won election to the state assembly in 2015 on the platform of the PDP, but shortly after assumption of office defected to the then ruling All Progressive Congress (APC), is now challenging the victory of Sule on a constitutional grounds amongst others, that the PDP did not have a properly constituted state party structure that could provide the constitutional leverage to participate in all the elections conducted.
In their respective cross examinations, the lead counsels to both INEC and the PDP, N.S Obimaje Esq. and S.Oyawole Esq., articulated their questions in simplicity with a view to establishing the authenticity of his membership of the party vis-a-vis his familiarity with the party’s constitution, but the responses of Mr. Ponkap was rather unconvincing.
The witness who had also told the tribunal that he was very familiar with the constitution of the PDP, later declined knowledge of some sections in the party’s law book, when he was asked if he had read the content of part 50 of the PDP’s legal document, a section which spells out clearly the organ of the PDP saddled with the responsibility of nominations and presentations of candidates for all elections on behalf of the party.
Testifying further, Ponkap said he was not aware of any repeat congress organised by the PDP, in compliance with a court judgment, adding that he obtained a nomination form of the party to contest for a position in his ward, and that he had waited all this while for the party to fix a date for the congress.
Even though the petitioners were prepared to present a second witness before the tribunal, it was not possible as the tribunal had to adjourn sitting till the 21th of July 2023, for continuation of hearing since the day’s sitting had stretched to late hours of the day.
