Pre-hearing continued on Thursday in the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal at the high court, West of Mines Jos, venue of the tribunal.
Two petitions were entertained during the session on Thursday. These are Petition No. EPT/PL/NA/01/2019 between Hon. Danjuma Haruna of the All Progressive Congress (APC) and Engr. Solomon Maren of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Petition no EPT/PL/NA/SEN/01/2019 between Bature Rufus Daniel of the All Progressive Congress (APC) and Gyang Istifanus Dung of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

When the case file number 1 on the cause list was called, M.Y Dalung, counsel to Danjuma Haruna and APC (the petitioners) told the tribunal that indeed, the matter was slated for today for the adoption of pre-hearing answers. He stated that the petitioners pre-hearing answer was dated 2nd May, 2019 and filed the same day. Counsel humbly adopted same as their answers to pre-hearing information sheet.


Chief S.G. Odey, counsel to Solomon Maren and the PDP (1st and 2nd respondents) told the tribunal that the 1st and 2nd respondents answer to pre-hearing questions was dated 4th May, 2019 and filed the same day and humbly sought the permission of the tribunal to adopt same.
Nathan Umiche, counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the 3rd respondent told the tribunal that upon received of the pre-hearing information sheet, they responded on the 3rd May, 2019 and filed on the 6th May, 2019 and also adopted same as their answers to the pre-hearing information sheet.

In his further submission, counsel to the petitioners told the tribunal that the petitioners had indicated in paragraph 14 of their answers that they intended to file four applications which include:
1.     Motion on notice objecting to the competence of various replies
2.     Motion on notice praying for striking out of some paragraphs of the various replies to be listed in the motion
3.     Motion on notice for the disqualification of some of the responses to be listed in the motion and
4.     An application to subpoena.

Consequently, counsel asked for five days within which to file the stated applications which was granted by the tribunal. Counsel to 1st and 2nd respondents told the tribunal that they have also indicated in paragraph 14 of pre-hearing answers that they shall be filling three applications and asked for five days to enable them to do so which was also granted by the tribunal.
Counsel to 3rd respondents told the tribunal that on their part, they do not intend to file any application except only to respond to the various applications upon service on them stressing that in the event of that, they would need three days for each respondent (1st and 2nd) to respond. The tribunal also granted the request.



The case was adjourned to May 20th, 2019 for the applications to be heard.
In the 2nd petition, counsel to Hon Rufus Bature and the APC  (the petitioners) B.Z. Rimven told the tribunal that their pre-hearing answers to the pre-hearing information sheet was dated 2nd May, 2019 and filled on the same day are adopted same as their answers. Counsel to Hon ID Gyang (1st respondent), H N Ugwuala told the tribunal that their pre-hearing answers was dated 4th May, 2019 and filed the same day and adopted same as their answers.
S.G. Odey, counsel to the PDP  (2nd respondent) said their pre-hearing answers was dated 2nd May, 2019 and filed on the 4th May, 2019 and also adopted same as their answers. E.O. Akhayere, counsel to INEC (3rd respondent) told the tribunal that their pre-hearing answers was dated 3rd May, 2019 and file on the 6th May, 2019 and adopted same as their pre-hearing answers.

Counsel to the petitioners and 1st and 2nd respondents all stated the intentions of their clients as stated in various paragraph in their answers to pre-hearing information sheet to file series of applications and asked for five days each within which to file this applications and the tribunal granted their requests.
Akhayere, however, told the tribunal that the 3rd respondent do not intend to file any application but that they will respond upon service to the applications by the petitioners and respondents. Counsel further asked for four days each to respond to the petitioner and the respondent.

Before adjournment, counsel to 2nd respondent told the tribunal that he had an oral application to withdraw a process, “My Lords, I have an oral application to withdraw a process which we feel is not necessary. It is titled ‘1st and 2nd respondents reply to the petition dated 5th April, 2019’. We subsequently filed another reply which is a valid one and we intend to rely on it during trial. We humbly apply for the withdrawal of this process”.
The tribunal granted the application and the said process was subsequently withdrawn. The case was adjourned to 20th May, 2019 for  hearing of applications.