The Tribunal determined that the information sought by the LP might be gained through cross examination or through the petitioners during evidence.
On Saturday, the Enugu State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal denied the Labour Party’s request for an interrogatory against Governor Peter Mbah.
Chijioke Edeoga of LP filed the application for interrogation of Mbah, the second defendant in the petition he filed before the Tribunal.
LP’s Application Date
The application was made when the case was last heard on Thursday, June 22, and it was adjourned until June 24 for a judgement.
The three-member panel, led by Justice K. M. Akano, denied Edeoga’s application in its ruling today, June 24.
Also, the Tribunal determined that the information sought by the LP might be gained through cross examination or through the petitioners during evidence.
The petitioners have seven days to prove their case, while the first respondent, INEC, has two days to call witnesses.
The second and third respondents were each given four days.
Ifeanyi Ogenyi, one of the LP’s senior counsels, told journalists after the Tribunal’s session that the party was ready to submit its witnesses.
He said: “The petition was heard today for a ruling and the release of the pre-hearing report.
“The ruling concerned the petitioners’ application for interrogatories, which sought answers from the second respondent, Peter Mbah”.
According to the petitioners, he should answer some questions about when he was named Chief of Staff.
Based on his responses to the petition, he was appointed commissioner of finance in Enugu State, summoned to the Nigerian Bar, and attended the institutions he attended.
“However, the court stated this morning in its considered ruling that those questions can be elicited during cross examination.
“It also stated during evidence through the petitioner; so, the court denied the interrogatory application.
“The Tribunal’s report on the pre-hearing session was then delivered today, bringing the pre-hearing session to a close.
“In their report, they outlined the issues raised by the parties, both petitioners and respondents.”
After all of that, the Tribunal rescheduled the matter for trial on July 7.