The Action Democratic Party (ADP), Rivers State chapter has condemned what it described as the arm-twisting, financial inducement, harassment and intimidation of its witnesses for the Governorship Election Tribunal by the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP) and its agents.
In a statement issued in Port Harcourt, the state capital and signed by the head of its media team, Mr.Kendrick Christian, the ADP stated that the action of PDP and its agents was unbecoming of a responsible political party.
It warned that if the reports continued to come in, they would have no other alternative than to officially report the matter openly to the Tribunal.
The statement urged the PDP to desist from such action as only the truth would help the Tribunal to uphold justice, which would serve the best interest of the people of the State.
It further stated that it was appalling for counsels of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, Gov. Wike and the PDP to oppose producing the original press statements of INEC, which had been in the public domain, since it would help unravel the truth.
The party wondered why the Tribunal did not direct substituted service in their sitting on Friday and urged it to expedite action to see that INEC was served as soon as possible as it has no time since it would conclude its case on Wednesday July 17.
Meanwhile, the lawyer to the ADP Governorship candidate, Victor Fingesi, Dolapo Tella Attoni, Esq, had on Friday July 12 informed the Tribunal that the bailiff was finding it difficult to serve the subpoena on the National Commissioner and Chairman, Information and Voter Education Committee of the INEC, Festus Okoye, Esq.
He urged the Tribunal to order for substituted Service to the witness either through the INEC’s Counsel, Dr. Garba Tetengi, SAN, Newspaper publication in any of the National dailies or by pasting it on the gate of INEC in Abuja.
The Tribunal could not rule on that and adjourned till Monday July 15.
At the end of the Tribunal session, the lawyer to ADP told Journalists to ignore the rantings of hostile witnesses, whom he said could have been induced in one way or the other.
He stated that the case was not primarily based on the witnesses but on documents INEC ought to provide such as the press statements and some sensitive materials.
