The Election Tribunal sit
ting in Calabar last weekend drilled Senator Bassey Otu and forensic experts led by Dr. Vincent Okarr, who mounted the witness box for cross examination.
Forensic experts who mounted the witness box to testify against the outcome of the National Assembly election for March 28 Southern Senatorial elections in Cross River which Otu of the Labour Party (petitioner) claimed he won, but was upturned and manipulated in favour of his opponent Chief Gershom Bassey of the PDP.
Okarr a retired military personnel and MD/CEO of Bode Forensic Technology was bamboozled and dazzled by lead counsel to first respondent Barrister Paul Erokoro (SAN) for several hours as the forensic expert was in the witness box for cross examination.
However, after several weeks of legal fireworks at the Election Petition Tribunal, Senator (Prince) Bassey Otu, seems not to be making any headway in establishing a primafacie case of election manipulation.
Otu who filed a petition before the tribunal seeking to upturn the victory of Chief Gershom Bassey to his favour, on the grounds of alleged manipulation of the election in his favour by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), told the tribunal “I remained the true winner of the election.”
The hearing of the matter was somehow prolonged because the forensic examiner, Dr. Vincent Oka who was hired by the Labour Party candidate could not prove the authenticity of his claims or forensic report when he mounted the witness box for cross examination.
Even at a point under cross examination, the forensic expert, in his report, said there were 21,782 (twenty thousand seven hundred and eighty two) multiple thump printing in favour of the PDP adding that no result of multiple thump printing was recorded for the Labour Party.
The forensic expert however created some ridiculous entertainment when he failed to provide tangible evidence of the 21,782 multiple thump prints to the tribunal.
He maintained that, he used the certified true copy and the duplicates for his analysis with which he arrived at his result.
To this end, lead counsel to the 1st Respondent (Gershom Bassey), Paul Erokoro (SAN), insisted that report of the forensic expert was not authentic even though the forensic expert claimed that it was the result which emanated from the scanned ballot papers and argued that the report of the forensic expert was not authentic stressing that the forensic examiner has contradicted his evidence by failing to provide tangible prove of the purported multiple thump printing.
“You claimed you arrived at this with the aid of automated finger identification system (AFIS) but do you know that even though AFIS machine has identified a particular finger making a particular imprint the forensic expert still needs scientific method to do interpretation?” He queried.
Friday Nwagbara, Calabar
