By Jonathan Ugbal
A former federal lawmaker and Cross River State Central Senatorial candidate of the People’s Democratic Party, PDP, in the 2023 general elections, Honorable Bassey Eko Ewa on Tuesday told the Calabar division of the Federal High Court presided over by Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu that he never left the party as insinuated by the Plaintiff in suit number FHC/CA/CS/100/2022, Honorable Goddy Ettah.
Mr. Ettah, a former State Secretary of the PDP and Commissioner for QUality Education who contested the primaries with Mr. Ewa is seeking among other things, an order for the Court to mandate the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to publish his name as the duly nominated senatorial candidate of the PDP for the February 26th, 2023 elections.
The PDP, Mr. Ewa, and INEC are listed as the first, second, and third defendants respectively.
The matter, which was filed early in June 2022, was slated for the second defendant to open their defense with Mr. Ewa entering the dock to testify and be cross-examined by the other parties, the drama lasted over two hours.
The Dramatic Cross-Examination
While being cross-examined by the Lead Counsel to the first defendant, Innocent Ovat Esq. Mr. Ewa averred that “I have been a member of the PDP right from its inception.” He said he has never faced any disciplinary action and that the PDP has never charged him with any of such. Also, he said that he has neither engaged in anti-party activities nor has he been suspended, expelled, or called to any disciplinary action for such.
He said that Plaintiff had called him to inform him of irregularities in the ballot papers and that his name had been published in the ballot for the Southern Senatorial District instead of the Central. He told the Court that the Plaintiff told him that he, other aspirants, and the State chapter of the party had agreed on a draft that the plaintiff printed and made photocopies to correct the error.
He said when the ballots arrived at the venue, the plaintiff took him by hand and introduced him to the Electoral Officer before he signed the redesigned ballot paper.
He informed the Court that the plaintiff has never challenged his qualifications despite knowing him since 1999 when he was the Chairman of Council; and further claimed that he wasn’t surprised when he appointed one Praise Ubi as his agent at the primaries, a statement which he stuck by despite the repeated information to him by the Counsel to the plaintiff that it was a different person.
When the Lead Counsel to the Plaintiff, Ubi Williams Esq. asked him whether he knew the party that controlled the ruling government, he said he did not know. When asked whether his resignation from the position of an aide to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, a member of the APC did not mean he worked for the APC, he responded “I worked for the Nation and not the political party.”
The Plaintiff presented the question in different formats and he responded at one time that “I worked for Nigeria, I was offered an appointment by the government of Nigeria.” When asked whether his resignation letter addressed to the Speaker did not mean he worked for the APC, he submitted that: “An appointment by the Speaker is like an appointment of the President. The President appoints Judges and the Judges work for the country and not the President.”
He denied having dual membership of a political party at any time and posited that the constitution of the first Defendant did not mandate him to inform the party when he is taking an appointment.
On the roles of a Returning Officer and Electoral Officer as per the constitution of the first Defendant, he said he did not know. He told the Plaintiff’s Counsel that he was not aware of the Plaintiff’s position and that he was not qualified to contest in the primaries. He denied knowing the ruling party in Nigeria as well as the party of the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Furthermore, when told to answer true or false if he and the Plaintiff were keeping malice, he denied it, saying they have been good friends and had been talking.
While being cross-examined by the Counsel to the third Defendant, Samuel Odo Esq. he accepted that he was at the venue of the primaries held on May 24, 2022, saw INEC officials there, and denied that the Plaintiff was at any point harassed, beaten, thrown out and forbidden to enter the venue.
Thereafter, Ukweni SAN applied to close their defense as the other witness may not be available and in the interest of justice which the Court granted.
With the third Defendant not filing any processes to present a witness, the case was subsequently adjourned until November 16, 2022, for all the parties to adopt their arguments, statements, and written addresses before the judgment will be delivered.
Leave feedback about this