He told the tribunal that the petitioner’s case was misrepresented, as the election allegedly conducted on April 11, was not in accordance with the Electoral Act.

“None of the respondents cited has a nexus. The candidate for the election was not even allowed to vote”, he said.

Olanipekun maintained that the alleged election was not known to mankind or civilization.

He insisted that the cases cited by the respondents have no bearing in law. “The Akwa Ibom poll has no corrollation with EC8A, EC8C etc; they do not tally. We therefore urge your Lordships; on the aggregate of evidence before the tribunal that the petitioners have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt and grant the reliefs sought”, he said.

Earlier, counsel to the 2nd Respondent (PDP), Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), in a motion dated July 13,2015, supported by an 11 paragraph affidavit and a written address, submitted that while the petitioner is afforded the opportunity of filing a list of witnesses without disclosing their identities by virtue of Paragraph 1 and 2 of the Electoral Tribunal and Court Practice Direction which authorises the use of initials or letters in Witness Statement on Oath by witnesses, the provision violates the Equal Opportunity Rule written in Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution in so far as the same law does not permit the Respondents to do the same.

“The effect of the application My Lord is that only the witness statement of the 1st petitioner who testified as PW 48 is valid in law. All other witness statements on record filed by the petitioners are incompetent in law and should be struck out “, he submitted.

Responding, counsel to petitioners, Wale Olanipekun (SAN) in a counter affidavit and written address dated July 21,2015, prayed the tribunal to dismiss the application which he described as an abuse of court process. He reminded the 2nd Respondents counsel that he had earlier argued a similar application on July 14,2015 and was overruled by the tribunal and wondered why he should deliberately want to dwell on frivolity as a senior legal luminary.

On the Equal Opportunity Doctrine, Olanipekun said the application lacks merit in its entirety. “If his client(s) have chosen to use alphabets and the petitioners objected to that, that will be his argument to say his clients are entitled to the same approach. Law is not raised in a vacuum. His argument is off the cuff. Besides, the 3rd and 4th Respondents adored the use of alphabets and no one has crucified them in this same proceedings,” he submitted.

On his part, Paul Usoro, counsel to Governor Udom Emmanuel, the first respondent,   (SAN), tabled two motions for an application for extension of time to write and file a reply address in support of a motion on notice dated July 5,2015 and a second reply address dated October 7,2015 and prayed the tribunal to order the two reply addresses as deemed to be appropriately filed and served.