Kaduna governor election: Ashiru informs the tribunal that INEC’s results were inconsistent

Isa Ashiru, the Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) candidate for governor of Kaduna State in the general elections scheduled for March 18, 2023, asserted that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in the state had released two conflicting election results.

He stated that election results were altered to advantage the All Progressives Congress (APC), which is currently in power, while speaking before the electoral petition tribunal in Kaduna on Monday.

Ashiru, through his lead attorney Oluwole Iyamu, claimed that INEC is in charge of the falsification of election results after adopting his last written address before the tribunal’s three-person bench.

In his final written statements, Ashiru also demanded that the INEC declaration that named Uba Sani as the current governor of Kaduna State be reversed and accused voters of abusing the electoral process by casting too many ballots.

Iyamu responded to the question of why polling unit agents were not called as witnesses by saying, “Election results were manipulated outside the polling units before they were declared at the INEC in favour of APC. We have proof that the Petioners won the election since all of our agents at the polling places of the other parties received their duplicate copies. When challenged by our agents’ certified duplicate copies, neither INEC nor Uba Sani produced opposing originals or duplicate copies, respectively. The same INEC signed all of the results, yet they are in disagreement.

Iyamu then urged the panel to reject the respondents’ applications, claiming that no legal authority could be found for their allegations.

The attorneys for the first (INEC), second (Uba Sani), and third (APC) respondents requested that the written addresses of Ashiru and PDP be rejected in their respective arguments.

The attorney for Governor Sani, Chief Duro Adeyele, SAN, asserted that the written addresses of Ashiru and PDP are invalid and that this is against the law.

“In my opinion, submitting three different addresses constitutes an abuse of the legal system. The petitioners’ only remaining option is to select one of the three, he said.

The tribunal continued to deliberate until a date that would be announced to the attorneys for the petitioners and respondents, respectively, after all parties adopted their final written addresses.