In a dramatic twist, the Labour Party (LP) and its governorship candidate in the April 11 governorship election in Delta State, Chief Great Ogboru, yesterday, cried out in court that his star witness has suddenly turned hostile.

The Delta State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Asaba, the state capital had subpoenaed the Independent National Electoral Commission Head of Department, General Administration and Procurement, in Asaba head office, Mr. Felix Enabor, to give evidence in the petition filed by Ogboru and LP, over the conduct of the governorship election in the state.

Soon after Enabor mounted the witness box and his written statement and other documents admitted by the tribunal as exhibit, rather than commence with the examination of the witness, Ogboru’s counsel, Mr. Robert Emukpoeruo, raised the alarm by way of a motion urgingthe tribunal to label Enabor as ahostile witness.

He contended that some paragraphs in the witness deposition were “animus”, and injurious to the petitioners.

But in a swift reaction, the counsels to Governor Okowa, PDP and INEC, Dr. Alex Izyion (SAN), Mr. Timothy Kehinde (SAN), and Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) respectively vehemently opposed the motion.

Izyon described the move as “very basal and unknown to law”, arguing that section 230 of the Evidence Act, has not been complied with.

He pointed out the request to label the witness as hostile and animusis not automatic as it cannot be invoked.

He said, “the petitioner is the one providing the witness upon an application, it is his witness, were the procedure is by deposition, particularly if the witness is adverse to his cases particularly to election petition, theyhavetaken a gamble, they ether swim or sink with the witnessthey have called”.

He said the petitioners are the ones that called the witness, and he obeyed the subpoena, adding that there was no evidence of hostility with the witness as there was nothing to show such, as he has the mandate of the petitioner to come and testify.

He further explained that the issues of the LP Chairman facing criminal prosecution over stolen INEC materials shouldnota hidden thing, adding that the issue of hostile witness was not new to jurisprudence, as thereare no enoughgroundsto treatwitness from INEC as hostile.

He also argued that Enabor has not made another statement that contradicts the one he deposed to in court that will amount to contradiction, hence there was no need to brand him a hostile witness.

The “tribunal is guided by law not by sentiment, we are bound by the rules of the procedure, the witness has adopted, so they are bound by it.”

In his submission, counsel to PDP, Mr. Timothy Kehinde (SAN), averred that “we shall be opposing this application to treat the witness as hostile. The condition precedent for the tribunal to exercise such decision has not been met.

According to him, “ a party producing a witness is under obligationnot to be allowed to impugnon the credibility of his witness by general conductor behaviour”, adding: “There is no doubtthat the witness is at the command of the tribunal , whose sole duty it is to helpthe tribunal to arrive at a justdecisionand not under any obligationto giveevidencethat is favorableto the parties exceptto saythe truth.”

Kehinde posited that the position of the petitioner that they do not have impute in the evidence of the witness, according to him, is nothing but suggestive of the fact that they have no opportunitytocoursethe witnessto commit perjury.

He pointed out that the fact the witness is not giving the petitioner a favorable evidence does not mean that he is hostile, adding that , before the application can be granted, there must be evidence that a contrary statementhas beenmade by the witness and he must be asked whether he has made such statementfor the records.

Kehindefurther pointed out that , all the deposition in the witness statement on oath are relevantin the caseand explains everything the witness knows about thematter,nothing in the statementto declare him hostile, as thatendshisduty to the party that calledhim , adding that the nextmoveis forthe respondentsto cross examine him.

Supporting his arguments with section 51(1) of the Evidence Act, Kehinde stated that there shallbe no oral examinationof the witnessby the petitionerbutjust to tenderthe document he has listed on oath.

He said granting the application would be tantamount to helping the petitioner to have an imputeinto the evidenceof the witnessand that will mean asking the judge to descendfrom his hallowedchambersas unbiasedumpirein the case.

Arguing in the same vein, counsel to INECOnyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), opposed the application saying it has no basisas provided under section 230 of theevidence act , that the petitioner relied uponforthe application , hencethe tribunalhas no facts beforeit upon whichto grant the application.

After listening to the arguments of all the counsels, Justice Gunmi has reserved ruling for 1st September, 2015

•Photo shows Chief Great Ogboru