By: Valentine Adese and Eunice Maina
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) chapter in Plateau state is set to call 58 witnesses to prove the party’s claims with respect to the petition the party filed challenging the Chairmanship election result of Langtang North Local Government Council, at the Local Government Elections Tribunal sitting in West of Mines, Jos, the Plateau State capital, REALITY just gathered.
From the processes filed, the PDP has listed 48 witnesses it hopes to call to prove the Langtang North results and 10 Official Witnesses.
You would recall that the Tribunal by the Law establishing it, has only 90 days to make its decisions on the 77 petitions filed by the PDP, challenging the victory of the All Progressives Congress (APC), as announced by the umpire, the Plateau State Independent Electoral Commission (PLATSIEC)
However, you would recall that the PDP had already conceded 5 Local Government Chairmanship seats to the ruling APC in the state even before the Tribunal set up by the administration starts hearing the 77 petitions filed by the PDP aimed at challenging the outcome of the just conducted election conducted by the Plateau State Independent Electoral Commission (PLASIEC).
Disclosing the number of petitions filed by the PDP to newsmen at the Tribunal premises, at West of Mines Jos, after the formal inaugural sitting of the State Elections Tribunal Panel led by Justice, Jovita Binjim, as Chairman, the State Legal Adviser of the PDP, Binchen Jantur (Esq), flanked by the State PDP Publicity Secretary, John Akans (KSM), also broke it down further that the party filed 68 Councilorship petitions and 8 Chairmanship petitions.
Barr. Jantur explained that the PDP is not challenging the outcomes of Five (5) out of the 13 LG Chairmanship results and these include Wase, Kanam, Jos East, Shendam and Qua’anpan Local Governments (LGs).
According to him, “The PDP conceded to the APC in Kanam, Wase and Jos East local governments, but did not file petitions challenging the results of Shendam, and Qua’apan LGs for want of evidence”.