TheNewsGuru

Tag: PEPC

  • BREAKING: Despite heavy security, protesters storm presidential election tribunal

    BREAKING: Despite heavy security, protesters storm presidential election tribunal

    Dozens of protesters have stormed venue of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal in Abuja.

    The tribunal is currently declaring its verdict on cases brought before it by Atiku Abubakar (PDP), Peter Obi (Labour Party) against Tinubu (APC).

    Presence of heavy security as political bigwigs arrive the venue.

    But the protesters seem to have defied the tight security at the tribunal as they were seen carrying placards with various inscription.

    “Asiwaju on your mandate we stand,” read an inscription on one of the placards held by a hijab-wearing woman.

    Similarly, eccentric entertainer, Charly Boy, has called on Peter Obi’s supporters to occupy Abuja as the tribunal delivers verdict on the 2023 presidential election.

  • UPDATE: PEPC gives hint into nature of judgement, asks for patience

    UPDATE: PEPC gives hint into nature of judgement, asks for patience

    The Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC) has given a hint into the nature of the judgement to be passed today, regarding petitions challenging the outcome of the 2023 presidential election.

    TheNewsGuru.com (TNG) reports Haruna Tsammani, Chairman of the five-member panel of justices disclosed the hint, saying the judgement is a bit lengthy.

    Justice Tsammani, therefore, asked for patience over the nature of the judgement, disclosing that the election petitions tribunal had reached the zenith of the petitions.

    “Today we have reached the zenith of these proceedings. The judgement is a bit lengthy so we plead your patience,” Tsammani said.

    TNG reports the PEPC will deliver judgement in three petitions before the court.

    The issues at stake:

    1. 25% of votes in the FCT
    2. Alleged manipulation of results, overvoting
    3. Delay in electronic transmission of results
    4. Alleged double nomination
    5. Alleged perjury on age, dual citizenship
    6. Alleged forged certificate
    7. Alleged drug conviction

    Presidential election: Shettima, others in court for judgment

    Meanwhile, Vice President Kashim Shettima, Femi Gbajabiamila are all present in the Court of Appeal complex, venue of the judgment in the petitions challenging the election of President Bola Tinubu.

    Also present in court are Dr Abdullahi Ganduje, APC National Chairman, Governors of Bauchi, Yobe, Kogi, Ekiti, Imo, Nassarawa, Festus Keyamo and Nuhu Ribadu, National security adviser.

    The presidential election petition court had on Monday fixed today for the judgments in petitions filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), it’s candidate and Labour Party and it’s presidential candidate.

    The third petition was filed by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM).

    There is heavy security presence at the appellate court.

  • PEPC announces Judgement Day

    PEPC announces Judgement Day

    The Presidential Election Petition Court, has confirmed Wednesday as date for judgment in the three petitions challenging the outcome of the 2023 presidential election.

    Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal, Mr Umar Bangari confirmed the date to judiciary correspondents on Monday.
    According to Bangari, everything has been put in place to ensure that the judgment in the three petitions pending before the court is delivered hitch free.

    They are the petitions filed by the Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP), Abubakar Atiku, the Labour Party and it’s Presidential candidate, Mr Peter Obi and that of the Allied Peoples Movement, (APM).

    Bangari said that adequate security had been put in place and that only the invited members of political parties and the general public would be allowed into the court room.This, he said, was to avoid congestion and security breaches.

    He also said that media houses that wished to televise the judgment live would be allowed to do so but at no cost to the court.

    On June 23, Abubakar closed his case after calling 27 out of the 100 witnesses and tendered electoral documents.

    Obi called 13 witnesses.
    The legal team of President Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima also closed defence in the petition filed by Obi after calling one witness.

    The legal team of Tinubu had proposed to call 39 witnesses, but closed its defence after its witness in chief, the Senate Majority Leader, Michael Bamidele testified.

    Led in evidence by Tinubu’s lawyer, Wole Olanipekun, Bamidele told the court that the votes secured by Tinubu in Kano state were not properly recorded and Tinubu had a shortfall of10,929 votes.

    The two petitions, marked CA/PEPC/05/2023 and CA/PEPC/03/2023, were brought before the court.

    While adopting their final written address, Atiku and the PDP, through their team of lawyers, led by Chief Chris Uche, SAN, urged the court to declare that President Tinubu was not qualified to contest the presidential poll that held on February 25.

    They prayed the court to nullify the entire outcome of the presidential election and order a re-run or fresh contest.

    Atiku and his party alleged that the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, despite receiving over N355billion for the conduct of the election, deliberately by-passed all the technological innovations it introduced for the purpose of the 2023 general elections.

    They contended that INEC acted in breach of the amended Electoral Act, when it refused to electronically transmit results of the presidential election.

    “On the issue of transmission of election results based on new provisions in the Electoral Act, we are all in agreement, including the INEC, that there is a new regime in election management.

    The essence of the innovation was to enhance transparency in the collation of results, which was an area that we usually had problems and not the actual election, and secondly, to enhance the integrity of result declared.

    “We agree that INEC had an option and we brought a video evidence by INEC Chairman showing that the electoral body indeed chose an option.

    “It is our contention and it is here in evidence that witnesses admitted that results from the National Assembly election were transmitted but that of the presidential election was not.

    “My lords, in a situation like this, the burden shifts on INEC to explain. It is not on the Petitioner to explain why there was such technical glitch.

    ”We urge this court to hold that there was a deliberate non-compliance. The substantiality of the non-compliance lies on the national spread of the non transmission of results. It was national and not limited to certain polling units,” Uche added.

    While adopting his own final brief of argument, Obi and the LP, through their lawyer, Mr Livy Uzoukwu, SAN, argued that there was no glitch during the election but an intentional act to sabotage the outcome of the poll.

    Uzoukwu, SAN, while calling for the removal of President Tinubu, insisted that “an election where over 18,088 blurred results were uploaded to INEC’s IReV portal, is certainly a flawed election.”

    Meanwhile, in the two case, INEC, President Tinubu, Shettima and the All Progressives Congress, APC- through their respective lawyers, prayed the court to dismiss the petitions as grossly lacking in merit.

    INEC’s legal team, led by Mr Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, maintained that the presidential election was not only validly conducted, but was done in substantial compliance with all the relevant laws.

    The electoral body argued that the petitioners misconstrued and totally misunderstood the purpose of the technology it introduced for the 2023 general elections.

    It told the court that the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, BVAS, device was introduced for the authentication and verification of voters and for transmission of results from the polling units to the IReV portal.

    INEC’s lawyer said there was evidence to show that the commission went to great length to ensure that the technology functioned as designed.

    “The applications used on the BVAS device were developed in-house and tested again and again, both for performance and reliability.

    “The intention of the 1st Respondent to conduct a world-class election is clear from the evidence that was placed before this court,” he insisted

    INEC told the court that it was illogical for the Petitioners to claim that a candidate must secure 25 per cent votes in the FCT to be declared winner of a presidential election.

    It argued that such argument would run contrary to the spirit and intendment of the drafters of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, adding that FCT ought to be regarded as the 37th state of the federation that is without a special status during elections.

    Similarly, President Tinubu and VP Shettima, while adopting their written address, urged the court to dismiss all the petitions.

    Addressing the court through Olanipekun, Tinubu said it would not be in public interest for the court to set aside the decision of the electorates that led to their victory at the poll.

    Arguing that the petitioners completely failed to discharge the burden of proof that was required of them by the law, Chief Olanipekun, SAN, further accused both Atiku and Obi of merely dumping documents before the court.

    He told the court that his clients won one-third of votes in the FCT, adding that Obi had no locus to challenge the outcome of the election since his name was not found on the register of the LP.

    On his part, counsel to the APC, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, urged the court to hold that Tinubu scored over 25 per cent in about 29 states, adding that “to do otherwise will amount to constitutional absurdity.”

    He argued that Obi was “over ambitious” in his petition when he requested for a rerun poll, notwithstanding that he would not be legally qualified to participate.

    Fagbemi, SAN, stressed that all the issues the petitioners raised against President Tinubu have all been decided by various courts.

    “There is hardly any point agitated by the Petitioners that has not received judicial pronouncement and resolution.”

  • PEPC: Atiku in court as parties adopt final addresses

    PEPC: Atiku in court as parties adopt final addresses

    The Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Abubakar Atiku, was at the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC) on Tuesday as parties were set to adopt their final written addresses.

    The adoption of final addresses is the precursor to fixing a date for judgment in the petition of Atiku and the PDP challenging the outcome of the Feb. 25 presidential election.

    The  Justice Haruna Tsammani-led five-member panel of the court had on the last adjourned date directed parties to prepare their final briefs of argument and appear before it to adopt.

    The court, in a notice to the parties, invited them to adopt their written address with respect to the petition filed against President Bola Tinubu and Vice-President Kashim Shettima, praying the court to nullify their election.

    It will be recalled that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), had on March 1, announced that Tinubu of the ruling All Progressives Congress, (APC), won the presidential election ahead of 17 other candidates that participated in the contest.

    It declared that Tinubu scored 8,794,726 votes to defeat the two major contenders,  Atiku of the PDP, who came second with 6,984,520 votes, and Mr. Peter Obi of the Labour Party, who came third with 6,101,533 votes.

    However, dissatisfied with the outcome of the election, both Atiku and Obi approached the court to invalidate it.

    The duo, in their separate petitions, claimed that they won the presidential poll, even as they challenged Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the election.

    The petitioners are praying the court to nullify the election and order a fresh presidential election, with the exclusion of President Tinubu whom they argued was ab-initio, not qualified to participate.

  • PEPC, Please do substantial justice – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    PEPC, Please do substantial justice – By Sonnie Ekwowusi

    Scathing public criticisms have continued to trail the written address presented by the APC lawyers at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC). It is common knowledge that President Bola Tinubu failed to score 25 per cent of the votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, in the last February 25 Presidential election, as required by section 134 of the Electoral Act 2022. Despite the failure to satisfy this requirement, the INEC Chairman, Prof. Mahmoud Yakubu (who allegedly is currently under investigation for how he spent over $50 million in donations from the U.S. and the European Union in organizing the most fraudulent election in Nigerian political history), rushed out in the night while Nigerians were still asleep to announce Tinubu as the purported winner of the February 25 Presidential election.

    However, in their written address rounding off their entire defense before the PEPC, learned counsel for President Tinubu submitted that any interpretation of section 134 to the effect that Tinubu must score 25 per cent of the votes cast in the FCT to become President is, inter alia, a recipe for chaos and anarchy in Nigeria. In summary, President Tinubu’s lawyers argued that any interpretation of section 134 requiring Tinubu to score 25 per cent in the FCT would “lead to absurdity, chaos, anarchy, and an alteration of the very intention of the legislature.”

    In denouncing the statement as cheap judicial blackmail and a threat to the rule of law, some Nigerians argue that it is a pre-emptive move by the APC to intimidate the PEPC to deliver judgment in its favor. In their reaction, the PDP stated among other things: “The statement by the lawyers in the said written address, threatening crisis and anarchy in the country in the event of the court ruling that their clients did not meet the Constitutionally required 25% votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), is subversive, an affront to democratic order, and an assault on the corporate existence of the nation…the threats, either through counsel or officials of the APC, are calculated to intimidate and harass the judiciary and indeed Nigerians…The APC must, therefore, respect the provisions of the law and allow the judiciary to discharge its duties independently, without threats, intimidation, and coercion.”

    Without delving into the merits or demerits of Peter Obi & others V INEC & others and Atiku & others V INEC & others, since these cases are still sub-judice, may I respectfully say that it is very unfortunate that Tinubu’s lawyers should utter such contemptuous, disrespectful, and derogatory statements capable of bringing the entire judiciary into public odium. It is sad that the Nigerian judiciary has been constituted into an object of derision by some learned Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) who ought to labor to maintain the prestige of the judiciary.

    For example, not long ago, a lawyer in the law firm of a very respectable Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) telephoned their would-be client, telling them that their law firm never loses any law case in court and that most Nigerian judges are more or less in the bidding of their law firm. Imagine the arrogance. Sadly enough, till date, no disciplinary action has been brought against the SAN or his law firm. Where is the much-vaunted ethics guiding the practice of law? Where is the ingrained tradition of the Bar dictating that lawyers should be singled out from the rot by their candor, decency, gentility, and ethics?

    No lawyer or group of lawyers representing their client in court should give the impression that they are omnipotent and omniscient and that everything that falls off their mouth is the correct position of the law. Only God is omnipotent and omniscient. Like all mortals, lawyers also have their feet of clay. In the temple of justice, no lawyer is infallible, in the same way, it could be said that no judge is infallible. This was why Justice Chukwudifu Akunne Oputa (of blessed memory) reiterated the famous quotation in the landmark case of Adegoke Motors vs. Adesanya, “We are final not because we are infallible; rather, we are infallible because we are final.” So, lawyers appearing before the court should live in self-effacement in representing their clients in court.

    As officers in the temple of justice, they should refrain from prosecuting their clients’ cases with misplaced over-zealousness to the detriment or scuttling of justice. Their duty to the court is to assist the court in presenting facts and adducing the necessary evidence, which could aid the court in arriving at substantial justice.

    Consequently, I respectfully urge the PEPC to ignore the aforesaid offensive portion of the written address of APC lawyers. To begin with, the Supreme Court has held that a written address does not take the place of evidence. Curiously, during the trial, the APC lawyers kept on saying that they would adduce legal reasons why they objected to the numerous documents tendered in court. Paradoxically, rather than adduce such reasons in their written address, they were making conjectural ad hominem arguments that appealed to sentiments and emotions. Anyway, cases are not even won in court on the brilliance of a written address but the brilliance of evidence. In other words, no matter how brilliant a written address is, it cannot take the place of evidence.

    Therefore, the PEPC should not be deterred by any open or veiled threat contained in any written address. The essence of the legal system is justice. Justice denied is judiciary aborted. Therefore, the PEPC should not be afraid of doing substantial justice in the election petitions before it. “Fiat justicia ruat coelum” (Let justice be done though the heaven fail).

    Judges are called good because of their justice. Without justice, it will be impossible to promote societal aims. “Remove Justice,” said Saint Augustine, “what are kingdoms but great robberies.” For Justice Chukwudifu Oputa (of blessed memory): “Injustice breeds intolerance, violence, and social disorder; in the same way, justice brings along with it the blessings of peace and mutual understanding.” Small wonder Cicero praises justice to high heavens by stating that “the brightest of virtues shines above all in justice.” So, contrary to the threats of Tinubu’s lawyers, justice does not lead to chaos and anarchy in society. Rather, justice, as Justice Oputa stated, breeds blessings and peace.

    The so-called Nigerian question revolves around the failure to do justice. If every Nigerian is given his or her due in the scheme of things in Nigeria, there would probably be fewer social discontent and social strife in Nigeria. So, the PEPC should do substantial justice in the cases currently before it. It should not be afraid to do what has not been before in Nigeria. The law is an ass. If, for example, the Petitioners have proved that President Tinubu did not meet the requirements of the Constitution and the Electoral Act, the PEPC should courageously come to that conclusion without any equivocation, no matter whose ox is gored. Nobody is above the law of the land.

    The PEPC should be reminded that it is the cynosure of all eyes at the moment. The whole world is looking at the PEPC to do substantial justice in the election petitions before it. Therefore, the PEPC cannot afford to disappoint the whole world. The PEPC should remember that it is accountable to the Nigerian people, not to any political party, let alone any presidential candidate, in terms of its overall performance and in meeting the justice needs of the people in a timely and efficient manner. It must, therefore, interpret the law in a way that fulfills the needs and aspirations of the Nigerian people, as envisioned in sections 13, 14 (1)(2)(a)(b)(c) of the 1999 Constitution. It must not only dispense justice but must also be seen by the anxious public to manifestly dispense justice. This is why Lord Hewart, the then Lord Chief Justice of England, laid down the dictum in the case of Rex v. Sussex Justices, [1924] 1 KB 256, that “it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” The essence of the need for justice to be manifestly seen to be done was observed by Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, in Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v Lannon when he stated: “Justice must be rooted in confidence, and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: ‘The judge was biased.’” To date, the public constantly refers to Imo State Governor Hope Uzodinma, who came fourth in the last Imo State Gubernatorial Election, as the “Supreme Court governor” because they feel that the Supreme Court was wrong in imposing him on the people of Imo State.

    Therefore, the PEPC must brave all odds and endeavor to do substantial justice in the election petitions before it. Until now, the judgments of the Supreme Court, especially its recent ruling in the high-profile political cases of Ihedioha V Hope Uzodinma, Lawan V Machina, and Godswill Agbabio V Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and others, are understandably attracting strong, passionate, and scathing public criticisms. Members of the public are holding their heads in shame and stating that justice has departed from the Supreme Court, and all that is left in that Court are open robberies. Their hope in the Supreme Court as the bulwark of justice and an unbiased arbiter in the causes of the citizenry, amid the balkanizing influence of corrupt politicians and public figures, rightly or wrongly, seems to be shattered. In a nutshell, the confidence of the public in the Supreme Court as the last hope of the common man has considerably and regrettably waned.

    The international community is disappointed that the Nigerian Supreme Court Justices is slavishly adhering to technical legalisms and formalism at the expense of substantial justice. This is why seven members of Nigeria’s Supreme Court, including Chief Justice Olukayode, have been issued a visa ban by the United States government following their judgments in the aforementioned cases. While not rationalizing the visa ban because the U.S has no right to dictate to our Supreme Court the manner in which to deliver their judgments, the visa ban speaks volumes about the social stigma and public opprobrium in which judges (and, in fact, members of their respective families) suffer when they deliver unjust and inequitable judgments.

    Therefore, the PEPC judges should save themselves and their respective families from excoriating public criticisms and social stigmas associated with delivering unjust and iniquitous court judgments. They should adorn the breastplate of integrity, transparency, discipline, impartiality, and honor in the discharge of their duty to enhance judicial efficacy and efficiency and to bolster public confidence in the Nigerian judiciary.

  • Appeal court reacts to justice Ugo’s ‘resignation’ from PEPC

    Appeal court reacts to justice Ugo’s ‘resignation’ from PEPC

    The Court of Appeal headquar­ters, Abuja, cleared the air over report trending on so­cial media that a mem­ber of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), Justice Boloukuoromo Moses Ugo, has resigned from the five-man panel.

    Chief Registrar of the court, Malam Umar Mohammed Bangari, dis­missed the report and appealed to Nigeri­ans to ignore the fake news in its entirety.

    Reacting on the purported resignation of Justice Ugo from the PEPC, Bangari told judiciary correspondents that the report was the handiwork of armchair bloggers who would stop at noth­ing in reeling out fake and unsub­stantiated news.

    The Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal insisted that there was no iota of truth in the report which has gained traction in media space.

    Bangari said, “Justice Ugo is still on the panel of Justices of the Court” handling the petitions by the Al­lied Peoples Movement (APM), Labour Party (LP) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    Bangari while faulting the re­port said that neither his office nor the information department of the court was contacted before dishing out what he called “false report”.

    The news of the purported resignation of Justice Ugo from the Bench, citing demands “to kneecap democracy”, broke out on the internet in the wee hours of Thursday.

    The online report stated that Justice Ugo resigned from the bench, citing demands from the executive branch that he believes would destroy the country’s de­mocracy.

    In the statement as reported by the online platform, Justice Ugo said that siding with the govern­ment on the petitions challeng­ing the election of Bola Ahmed Tinubu would be the “death of Nigeria’s democracy” and that he could not in good conscience remain silent.

    According to Justice Ugo’s pur­ported statement, he was asked to “cripple the independence of the judiciary” by ruling in favour of a certain political candidate, whom he did not name but is widely be­lieved to be Bola Tinubu.

     

  • PEPC: Atiku, Obi have no proof that presidential election was rigged, says APC

    PEPC: Atiku, Obi have no proof that presidential election was rigged, says APC

    The  All Progressives Congress, (APC), has said that Alhaji Abubakar Atiku failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate his allegation that the presidential election was rigged in favour of President Bola Tinubu.

    The APC has also said that Mr Peter Obi and the Labour Party’s evidence against President Tinubu was minuscule and deficient in credibility.

    Both Atiku and Obi and their parties dragged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), challenging the victory of Tinubu at the Feb. 25 presidential election.

    The APC in its final brief of argument filed at the court through it’s team of lawyers led by Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, argued that Atiku and the PDP were not entitled to any of the reliefs they were asking for in their petition.

    The APC held that the petitioners only dumped documents on the court and claimed that such documents were enough evidence to prove their allegations.

    The party further argued that the petitioners failed to demonstrate or link the documents to specific allegations they raised against Tinubu’s victory.

    According to the APC,  it is not enough to merely identify exhibits without making the added effort to demonstrate their relevance by correlating them with witnesses adopted depositions.

    “On the effect of the dumping, we urge your lordships to hold that all the documents have no probative value.

    “The fact that the documents were tendered by learned senior counsel for the petitioners from the bar makes the case even worse for them.

    “The duty is not on the judge to retreat to his hallowed chamber and engage in cloistered examination of the documents that were dumped before him in the open court,” the party said.

    The party further argued that the allegation of the petitioners that the election was rigged, was not tied to any specific polling unit in the local government areas of each of the 24 states whose elections they challenged in the petition.

    They said that the petitioners made blanket allegations and that some of the allegations were criminal in nature.

    “The law required that they should be proved through cogent, credible and reliable evidence.”

    The party insisted  that most of the exhibits  tendered by Atiku were not relevant to the petition since they were not pleaded or set out any relevant fact.’

    “Aside from the allegation of non-qualification that the petitioners raised against the respondent, all other allegations in their petition are supposed to be set out on polling unit basis or proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

    The party submitted that the case of the petitioners must fall like a pack of cards and prayed the court to dismiss the petition and uphold the election of Tinubu.

    On the educational qualification of the president, the party argued that the exhibits tendered in court only established that he indeed attended Chicago State University in the United States and graduated with honours.

    The party also held  that the petitioners failed to produce the genuine certificate from which the alleged forged certificate was made.

    On the alleged forfeiture of 460, 000 dollars  following his alleged involvement in a drug related case, the APC, said there was no evidence that he was ever charged, convicted or fined for any criminal case.

    The party held that there was no  criminal proceedings or pronouncement of verdict of guilty against Tinubu to warrant his disqualification.

    On the allegation of dual citizenship, the APC, argued that his  possession of Guinean Passport was not a sufficient grounds to disqualify him from contesting or nullifying his election.

    The APC held that  the president was a bona fide Nigerian by birth and not by registration or neutralisation.

    “A Nigerian born citizen does not lose his citizenship as a Nigerian or his right to vote or be voted for in an election in Nigeria by acquiring dual citizenship of a second country.”

    Moreover, the party held that the s
    Tinubu’s sole witness had testified to Tinubu’s Nigerian citizenship.

    The party held that the petitioners submission that Tinubu did not secure 25 per cent of votes cast in the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Abuja, in the presidential election was pedestrian and preposterous.

    “The FCT does not enjoy a special status as a constituent unit or a state under Section 134(2) (a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

    “Abuja voters have no veto power to singularly hang the outcome of presidential election that is otherwise conclusive, simply because a candidate did not poll or secure at least one quarter of votes cast in the FCT in a presidential election.

    “We submit that there is equality before the ballot.”

    Recalled that the court on July 4, concluded hearing in Atiku’s petition as the respondents closed their defence.

    Atiku and his party who came second in the election, approached the PEPC asking the court to nullify Tinubu’s election and withdraw the certificate of return he was issued.

    Atiku and the PDP  called 27 witnesses as against the 100 they had said in the pre-hearing report that they would csll.

    For his part, Obi called in 13 out of the 50 witnesses he has planned on calling and tendered a plethora of documents including over 18,000 blurred results sheets on which INEC based its declaration of Tinubu as winner.

    The APC Obi and his party led evidence by calling witnesses from only a few polling units, wards, local government Areas and local area councils from the disputed states and the FCT.

    “Specifically, petitioners called a total of 13 witnesses only in a failed attempt to prove their allegations concerning the 119, 973 Polling Units, 8,809.”

    The Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), the first respondent in the petition called a lone witness just as president Tinubu also called only one witness.

    The APC, however, said that it found no reason to call any witness saying there was no point whipping a dead horse.

  • PEPC: Fireworks as President Tinubu defends election victory today

    PEPC: Fireworks as President Tinubu defends election victory today

    President Bola Tinubu will on Tuesday, open his defence at the Presidential Election Petition Court,(PEPC) to defend his victory at the Feb. 25 presidential polls.

    This is in the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku.

    Counsel to President Tinubu, Mr. Wole Olanipekun, SAN, made this known on Monday after the Independent National Electoral Commission,(INEC) closed its case against Atiku after calling a lone witness.

    The electoral umpire opened and closed its case against the petitioners after calling the lone witness, Mr Lawrence Bayode and tendering some documentary exhibits in evidence.

    One of the documents was a letter dated July 6, 2022, which Vice-President, Kashim Shettima,(the third respondent)  wrote to the commission.

    The letter was the notification of his decision to withdraw his candidature for senate under the platform of the All Progressives Congress, (APC) for the Borno central senatorial seat.

    Bayode who was led in evidence by INEC’s lead counsel, Mr Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, introduced himself as a Deputy Director of ICT for the commission.

    Under cross-examination by Olanipekun, the witness asserted that the presidential election was free, fair, credible and conducted in compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022.

    The witness, also told the court that the technical glitch that occurred on election day did not affect the actual scores of the presidential candidates as manually computed by polling officers in the forms EC8As at the different polling units.

    According to Bayode, INEC does not have an electronic collation system and results of the presidential election were manually collated and not electronically collated.

    For his part, counsel to the APC, Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN confronted the witness with a publication in Tribune newspaper where the commission had, a few days to the election said that it would no longer be able to go ahead with the electronic transmission of results.

    The document was admitted in evidence amidst strong opposition from counsel to the petitioners, Mr. Chris Uche, SAN.

    Uche, while cross examining the witness asked him if he was aware of the recently released European Union Observer Mission  Report on the Presidential Election.

    The witness said that he was aware of the report even though he had not read it.

    The respondents opposed the tendering of the document in evidence but reserved their reasons until the final address stage.

    The court, however, admitted the document in evidence and marked it appropriately.

    Uche proceeded to show the witness a certified true copy of the report and asked him to read a portion of the report where the EU said only 31 per cent of presidential election results uploaded on the IREV were mathematically correct.

    They further said that this was evident of the extent of training the commission gave to polling unit staff.

    The witness also read a portion of the report where the EU stated that the 2023 election was not a transparent and inclusive election as had been promised by the commission.

    The witness insisted that the technological innovations introduced by the commission into the electoral process were to guarantee transparency and integrity of the results.

    Uche, however, insisted that there was no technical glitch on the day of the presidential election and that the only glitch was human glitch or an INEC glitch.

    After the witness was discharged from the witness box, counsel to INEC told the court that that was the case of the commission as the had no other witness to call or documents to tender.

    Justice Haruna Tsammani, Chairman of the five-member panel of the court adjourned hearing in the petition until Tuesday.

  • ANALYSIS: Expectation high as Tinubu, INEC mount defence of election in court

    ANALYSIS: Expectation high as Tinubu, INEC mount defence of election in court

    By Wandoo Sombo

    Now that the petitioners have closed their cases at the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC), one can only wonder what strategy the respondents would employ to defend the legitimacy of President Bola Tinubu’s presidency.

    Well patience, they say is a virtue so Nigerians wait patiently as the respondents open their defence on July 3.

    On that day all attention at the PEPC will shift from the petitioners to the respondents; President Tinubu, Vice-President Kashim Shettima, the Independent National Electoral Commission, and the All Progressives Congress, (APC).

    The Petitioners are Labour Party (LP) and its presidential, Mr Peter Obi, Allied Peoples Movement, (APM) and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar

    They are expected to deflate all the arguments the petitioners have canvassed before the five-member panel of justices of the court headed by Justice Haruna Tsammani.

    The tables would flip and it would be the petitioners turn to cross-examine the witnesses that would be called by and the respondents.

    Counsel to INEC, (the first respondent), Mr. Abubakar Mahmoud, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria had told the court at the pre-hearing stage that his client, who conducted the disputed election, would call five witness.

    Mahmoud told the court he would require seven days to call the five witnesses to defend his client’s conduct of the election.

    Mr Roland Otaru, also a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, arguing for President Tinubu and Vice-President, Kashim Shettima who are the second and third respondents, said that his team would call 21 witnesses in nine days to defend their clients’ challenged victory.

    This number Otaru, however, said would exclude expert witnesses.

    Speaking for the APC, Mr Adeniyi Akintola, another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, said his client needed only nine days to call its seven witnesses, excluding subpoenaed witnesses to defend the victory of the ruling party at the polls.

    For the petitioners, it had been three weeks of drama, fireworks, some boring sessions and friendly banter between the bar and the bench to prove their allegations of electoral malpractice.

    The three petitioners eventually drew the curtain on their cases after calling a total of 41 witnesses; 27 for the PDP and its presidential candidate, 13 for LP and its presidential candidate and one for the APM.

    The APM was the first to call its witnesses and wrapped up on June 21 after the case had stalled for about three weeks.

    This was due to the petitioner’s inability to obtain a Supreme Court judgment of May 26 that was to determine whether the petition had life or was dead on arrival.

    When counsel to the party, Mr Gideon Idiagbonya eventually got hold of the judgment, he told the court there was nothing in the judgment to stop his client from continuing with the petition.

    In the judgment, the apex court had dismissed the PDP suit which sought the nullification of the presidential election on the grounds of double nomination of Shettima.

    The petitioner proceeded to open and close its case on June 21 after calling one witness, Ms Aisha Abubakar.

    Abubakar told the court that she was a politician and the Assistant Welfare Officer of the APM, (the petitioner).

    Under cross examination, she told the court that she wasn’t privy to when INEC got the notice of substitution for Borno Central Senatorial District for the APC.

    The witness told the court that she was aware of the Supreme Court judgment delivered on May 26.

    The APC, through its counsel, Mr Wole Olanipekin, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, tendered a copy of the judgment in evidence.

    Idiagbonya, objected to the admissibility of the document in evidence but reserved his reason for objecting to the admissibility of the judgment until the final address stage.

    Olanipekin made the witness read part of the judgment highlighting the part where the apex court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal that said both the president and vice-president were qualified to contest the election.

    The PDP and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku untilised their 21 days judiciously, calling 27 out of the 100 witnesses they had earlier touted to establish that the Feb. 25 presidential was won by them.

    One of the witnesses was Sen. Dino Melaye, the party’s governorship candidate for Kogi in the Nov. 11 governorship election.

    Melaye, the 23rd witness and dubbed a star witness of the petitioners, told the court that the final result of the presidential election announced by INEC was wrongly computed.

    Led in evidence by the petitioners’ lead counsel, Mr Chris Uche, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Melaye, who told the court that he was PDP’s National Collation Agent, identified himself as a businessman and a politician.

    Under cross-examination by INEC lawyer, Melaye said that he refused to sign the final result announced by INEC chairman, Yakubu Mahmood, because of the wrong computation of the figures.

    “The results were wrongly computed and announced. That was why I refused to sign. I don’t endorse fraud,” Melaye said.

    He also said that he walked out of the national collation centre before the end of the process as the national collation agent of the petitioners when he discovered what he described as fraudulent activities going on at the centre.

    He also said his party rejected the outcome of the poll on the ground that the results brought to the national collation centre by state electoral officers were at variance with the results recorded in the states.

    Melaye added that the results declared by INEC were also at variance with the ones computed from copies of the result sheets uploaded on IReV, an online portal designed to receive polling units result sheets real-time.

    The witness said that he had three major grouses with the conduct of the election one of which was the refusal of INEC to transmit the election results electronically to its portal.

    He said the Electoral Act 2022 mandated INEC to electronically transmit election results from polling stations to INEC’s IReV portal.

    Under cross examination by Tinubu’s counsel, Akin Olujinmi, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Melaye said the failure of INEC to transmit results from Form EC8As to its IReV was an infringement on the law.

    Another witness of the petitioners, Mr Hitler Nwala told the court that INEC deliberately deleted presidential election results from the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines.

    Nwala, a digital forensic analyst who was testifying as the petitioners’ 26th witness said he inspected 110 BVAS machines used during the presidential polls in the FCT.

    He insisted that all the machines he inspected had their data deliberately removed.

    However, during cross-examination, Mahmoud, counsel to INEC, faulted the report of the witness.

    Mahmoud said 110 BVAS devices examined by the witness were not sufficient sample size to establish the allegations against the commission.

    The LP and Peter Obi had said during the pre-hearing session that they would call 50 witnesses to convince the court that the presidential mandate was stolen from them.

    They ended up calling 13 witnesses one of whom was Ms Clarita Ogar who claimed she was a staff of Amazon.

    When Ogar, the 7th witness was called, the impression given was that she was a cloud engineer for Amazon Web Services Incorporated.

    However, in the course of her testimony, it was established that she was not in court on the mandate of the Amazon Web Services Incorporated, where she works as a cloud engineer and architect.

    The witness, who was led in evidence by the counsel to the petitioners, Mr Patrick Ikwueto, SAN, told the court, under cross-examination by Mahmoud that the subpoena in respect of the petition was served personally on her and not through her employer.

    “The Subpoena was not delivered to Amazon, but delivered to me. I am here as an expert witness, I am not here on the mandate of Amazon and, it is not true that am here as a Labour Party activist,’’ the witness said.

    In response to a question by counsel to the APC, Mr Lateef Fagbemi, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, the witness insisted that there were no technical glitches on Feb. 25, when the presidential election was conducted.

    Other witnesses were presiding officers of INEC who were subpoenaed and in their testimonies. They told the court that they were not happy in the course of their duty when the BVAS machines failed to transmit results on election day.

    Some of the witnesses specifically said that it was only the presidential election results that refused to upload.

    It is also worthy of note that the petitioners had subpoenaed the Chairman of INEC, Prof. Yakubu Mahmood.

    Mahmood responded to the subpoena by producing some documents through two senior officials of the commission.

    Mr Lawrence Bayode, Deputy Director, Information and Communication Technology had told the court that some documents requested by the LP and its candidate did not exist.

    The petitioners are amongst others, challenging the outcome of the presidential election on the grounds that as at the time Shettima, became the vice presidential candidate, he was still the nominated candidate of the APC for the Borno Central Senatorial election.

    They are equally challenging Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the presidential election, alleging that he was previously indicted and fined the sum of $460,000.00 by the United States District Court.

    The petitioners also say that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices and non-compliance with provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.

    In the weeks ahead, the onus will be on the defendants, using their facts, to prove the petitioners wrong.

    NAN

  • Presidential election results refused to upload, INEC officers tell PEPC

    Presidential election results refused to upload, INEC officers tell PEPC

    Three ad hoc staff of the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC) who were Presiding Officers for the Feb. 25 general election have told the Presidential Election Petition Court ( PEPC)  that only results of the presidential election refused to upload to IREV.

    The three presiding officers were subpoenaed by Alhaji Abubakar Atiku and the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP).

    Led in evidence by the petitioner’s counsel, Mr Eyitayo Jegede, SAN, the witnesses told the court that they were able to use the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machine to transmit results for the senatorial and house of representatives elections successfully.

    They however, told the court in their separate testimonies that they were unable to use the BVAS to transmit the presidential election results thereby making them unsatisfied with the entire election process.

    The three witnesses, Janet Turaki, Christopher Ardo and Victoria Sani  told the court that they were presiding officers in Yobe, Bauchi and Katsina  states respectfully.

    The witnesses all agreed that other aspects of the election went well until it was time to upload the presidential results then the BVAS machines refused to work.

    Turaki, under cross-examination by counsel to INEC, Mr Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN told the court that the accreditation of voters was successful and voting went on smoothly at her polling unit.

    She said it was after she attempted to upload the presidential election result after capturing it with the BVAS machine that the network went awry.

    The witness said that having failed to successfully upload the presidential election results, she handed over everything to her ward collation agent and filled the complaint form that INEC had provided for such purposes.

    She said that she and other party agents present signed the result on the form EC8A before she took it to the ward.

    For his part,  Ardo told the court under cross-examination by counsel to President Bola Tinubu, Mr Wole Olanipekin, SAN, that he felt unfulfilled in his assignment with INEC on the election day.

    He said this was due to his inability to transmit the presidential election result as required by law.

    In her own testimony, Sani under cross-examination by counsel to the All Progressives Congress,(APC), Mr Charles Edosanwan,  SAN, told the court that she believed that she performed her duties as a presiding officer to the best of her ability.

    The five-member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani adjourned proceedings until Tuesday for continuation of hearing in the petition.

    Atiku and the PDP are before the court challenging the outcome of the Feb. 25 presidential election.

    One of the grounds of their petition is that INEC failed to transmit election results to its (INEC Result Viewing Portal,  (IREV) in real time as the Chairman, Mr Yakubu Mahmood had said it would before the election.