TheNewsGuru

Tag: PEPC

  • Presidential election result: Dino Melaye told PEPC

    Presidential election result: Dino Melaye told PEPC

    Sen. Dino Melaye, a star witness of Alhaji Abubakar Atiku and the Peoples Democratic Party has told the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC) that the final result of the presidential election was wrongly computed and announced by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    Melaye, the 22nd witness of the petitioners made the assertion on Friday in Abuja.

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

    The witness said that the presidential result, as announced by INEC Chairman, Prof. Yakubu Mahmood, was wrongly computed and that he refused to sign the results.

    He added 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 the fraudulent activities going on at the centre.

    Under cross-examination by INEC’s lawyer, Mr Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, Melaye said most   PDP agents across the country did not sign the  Form EC8As which were the result from the polling units.

    The witness further said that the results brought to the national collation centre by state electoral officers were at variance with the results recorded in the state.

    Melaye 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 his depositions in his statements were based on his personal experience at the national collation centre and information from the party agents across the country who reported to him as the national collation agent of the party.

    He also said that some of the reports given by the agents were live feeds of what was happening at their location real time through the use of  technology.

    Under cross examination from counsel to President Bola Tinubu, Mr Akin Olujinmi, SAN, Melaye said that  the failure of INEC to transmit results from Form EC8As to its I-ReV was an infringement of the law.

    He, however, said that the result captured in Form EC8A could not be changed even where it was not transmitted electronically.

    The witness further told the court that as a contributor to the drafting of the Electoral Act, the conduct of the presidential election was not done according to the law.

    Said that  that electronic transmission of results from the polling units unto the IReV was a very important aspect of the election process, adding that without that, the election circle could not be said to have been completed.

    “Result is transmitted from polling units before you move to the ward collation center.”

    When asked to give the actual scores  of Atiku in the election since he claimed the scores were wrongly computed, the witness said that he did not calculate them directly but that they were calculated through his statistician.

    The five-member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani then discharged Melaye from the witness box after all the respondents had questioned him.

    The petitioners also tendered two sets of documents acquired from INEV via a subpoena issued on May 26 at Friday’s proceeding.

    The documents are the certified true copies of Forms EC8A series  from 13 local government areas of Nasarawa.

    The second set of documents are Forms EC40G and Form EC40G(2), which were summaries of polling units where elections were cancelled or disrupted.

    All the respondents objected to the admissibility of the documents saying they would  advance reasons for their objection at the fin address stage.

    The documents were however, admitted  in evidence. The court subsequently adjourned proceedings until June 19.

  • Court admits statisticians’ reports in Atiku ‘s petition

    Court admits statisticians’ reports in Atiku ‘s petition

    The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) on Wednesday admitted in evidence statistics reports of inspectors of the election.

    In a petition marked CA/PEPC/05/2023, Atiku Abubakar and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) are challenging the outcome of the Feb.25 presidential election which brought Tinubu as the winner.

    The respondents are Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC president Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    The petitioners’s 21st witness PW21) Samuel Oduntan is a statistician and a subpoenaed witness.

    He adopted his statement on oath which was objected by all the respondents when led in evidence by Eyitayo Jegede, SAN who represented Abubakar and the PDP.

    Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN represented INEC, Wole Olanipakun, SAN represented Tinubu and Lateef Fagbemi, SAN represented APC.

    The respondents’ counsel objected to the tendering of the statistician ‘s report from the inspection of the election, alongside the three appendages.

    INEC reserved their position on the demonstration of the content of the documents.

    Olujimi and Fagbemi told the court that their are not giving any consent because they objected to the admissibility of the documents

    They added that the petitioners never mentioned that the documents would be demonstrated.

    Mahmoud however, prayed the court to provide them with the soft copy of the flash drive of the documents.

    In response, Jegede asked for INEC to provide them with the voters ‘ register and the court also asked for it too.

    Earlier, Jegede told the court that the evidence in chief of the witness be taken today while the cross examination would be tomorrow.

    All the respondents ‘counsel confirmed that they all met and agreed on that.

    Meanwhile, the five-member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani adjourned until Thursday for cross examination of the witness and further hearing of the petition.

  • Peter Obi tenders blurred IReV evidence before PEPC

    Peter Obi tenders blurred IReV evidence before PEPC

    Mr Peter Obi and his Labour party (LP) On Wednesday tendered additional blurred INEC Results Viewing Portal (IReV) documents before the Presidential Election Petition Court  (PEPC).

    Obi and his Labour Party (LP) are petitioners in the petition marked CA/PEPC/03/2023 challenging the election which brought president Bola Tinubu into power

    Respondents are Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) president Bola Tinubu and Vice president Kashim Shettima and All Progressives Congress (APC).

    At the resumed hearing of the PEPC , the petitioners tendered, IREV reports downloaded and certified by INEC in 21 LGAs in Benue, 25?LGAs in Niger and 17 LGAs in Edo.

    Obi also tendered the IREV reports from 20 LGA of Bauchi and a bundle of blurred report, eight LGA of Bayelsa IreV reports were tendered also.

    IreV reports from Bayelsa marked blurred , no results or cancelled were tendered, Gombe eight LGA and a bundle of blurred report not linked to any LGA was tendered.

    IreV report for Kaduna, 21 LGA and two bundles of blurred reports not linked to any government area were tendered also.

    Tendered further are IreV certificates of compliance of six states excluding Akwa Ibom, and 28 states including the Federal Capital Territory (FCT)

    All the documents tendered were objected by all the respondents but admitted and marked as exhibits by the court

    The respondents however, reserved the responses to their objections to their final written addresses.

    At the end of tendering, Levi Uzoukwu, SAN counsel for the petitioners drew the court attention to unfruitful attempts to serve INEC chairman with a subpoena.

    The subpoena according to Uzoukwu was for him to produce certain documents.

    He added that he spoke to the lead counsel to INEC, Abubakar Mahmoud who promised to help out.

    He therefore, asked for an adjournment until tomorrow.

    Responding, Kemi Pinhero, SAN who represented INEC told the court that the petitioners ‘counsel should stop using INEC as ‘ a weeping boy.’

    ‘It is not correct that the office of the INEC chairman refused to be served, but PDP served several documents and received replies”

    He added that it have become the habit of the petitioners each time they want an adjournment to find a blame on INEC.

    Other respondents’ counsel however, did not object to the prayer for adjournment.

    Meanwhile, the five-man panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani adjourned until tomorrow for further hearing of the petition.

  • Tribunal: PEPC admits Peter Obi’s video flash drive in evidence

    Tribunal: PEPC admits Peter Obi’s video flash drive in evidence

    The Presidential Eection Petition Court (PEPC) on Friday admitted two video flash drive in evidence brought by Mr Peter Obi through a subpoenaed witness to prove his petition against president Bola Tinubu.

    Obi and his Labour Party (LP) are petitioners in the petition marked CA/PEPC/03/2023 challenging the election which brought president Bola Tinubu into power.

    Respondents are Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) president Bola Tinubu and Vice president Kashim Shettima and All Progressives Congress (APC).

    The court admitted two video flash drive tendered through a subpoenaed witness of Obi and his Party.

    At the resumed hearing of the petition, Levi Uzoukwu, SAN counsel for the petitioners, told the court, the proceeding would be conducted by Jubrin Okitepa, SAN

    He said the proceeding would also require soft ware engineering.

    A subpoenaed witness from channels TV was called , named Lucky Obowo-Isawode, a reporter and editor.

    The counsel informed the court that two subpoenas dated May 30 and June 6 were served on the TV station to produce the video clips.

    The video clips, he said, are an interview with the chairman of INEC, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu .

    The second one is that of Mr Festus Okoye National Commissioner and Chairman of the Information and Voter Education Committee of INEC.

    The respondents counsel are Kemi Pinhero, SAN for INEC ,Akin Olujimi, SAN for president Tinubu and Vice president Shittema.Afolabi Fashanu, SAN for APC .

    They all did not oppose the witness but objected to his adoption of his statement on oath.

    Olujimi for the 2nd and 3rd respondents objected to the adoption of his witness statement on oath

    According to him, it is against the provision in the Electoral Act

    “It is settled that election petition must be filed within 21 days after the announcement of the election.

    “The documents sent out must be accompanied by the petition, list of witnesses and their statements.

    “The witness statement was filed today, three months after the announcement of the results ” he said.

    He added that he has looked at the pages of petition and did not see the name of the witness.

    “The wwitness s not competent to testify before this court, this point have been settled in the decision of this court ” he said.

    Pinhero aligned with the submission by Olujimi.

    “The petitioners were aware of the videos and ought to have filed it along with the petition as required by the law”

    He therefore urged the court to discountance the adoption and uphold the objection.

    Fashanu for APC aligned with the submissions of the other respondents ‘counsel.

    He added that there is no distinction between a subpoenaed witness and ordinary witness for the purposes of compliance.

    He therefore urged the court to uphold the objection and refuse the adoption for void of merit.

    Okitepa told the court if there is something to dismiss, it is the objections of the respondents.

    “A subpoena we know is an order of the court issued against a person .

    “It is not a witness in control of the petitioner or respondent and is competent to testify.

    “If a subpoenaed witness can testify orally what injury would we suffer? I submit, none.

    “It will rather quicken the hands of justice,” he said.

    No injury should be suffered, I therefore urge the court to overrule the objection, you need to see the video.

    He told the court that the evidence the subpoenaed witness brought were Live interviews with INEC chairman and Mr Festus Okoye.

    The videos flash drive were tendered and admitted in evidence and the counsel prayed that it should be played.

    Olujimi objected that it should not be played because the flash drive was not served on them.

    He submitted that they don’t know what the contents of the flash drive was, and need to know in other to prepare themselves.

    “Having not served us before the proceeding, it would not be in the interest of fair hearing,” he said.

    Fashanu for APC aligned with Olujimi while Pinhero for INEC said the video can be played since it is already admitted in evidence.

    Meanwhile, the five-member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani adjourned until tomorrow for the videos to be played and further hearing of the petition.

  • INEC yet to give us vital documents after collecting N6.69m – Atiku alleges

    INEC yet to give us vital documents after collecting N6.69m – Atiku alleges

    The presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, on Wednesday, blamed the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), for clogging the wheel of progress in the prosecution of his petition.

    Atiku told the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC) on Wednesday in Abuja that inspite of paying N6.69 million to the commission for certified true copies of documents he intends to tender in evidence, the commission failed to make the documents available.

    Speaking through his lawyer, Mr Chris Uche, SAN, the petitioner said that it was discouraging for the commission to say that some of document they paid for were outside Abuja.

    “We thought all these documents will be made available to us and we wont have to go to the states to collect.”

    Uche then proceeded to tender certified true copies of documents for 10 out of 21 local government areas of Kogi which were the only documents the commission had made available for the day.

    The petitioners also tendered form EC8D for Anambra state.

    Form EC8D is the form for election result from the state.

    Abubakar asked the PEPC to declare him Nigeria’s president-elect.

    Alternatively, Atiku urged the court to cancel the election and order a fresh election due to alleged irregularities that marred the Feb. 25 poll in thousands of polling units.

    These are part of the seven prayers anchored on five grounds in the petition he filed against the victory of the president-elect, Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

  • PEPC admits exhibits of 6 States in evidence against Tinubu’s election

    PEPC admits exhibits of 6 States in evidence against Tinubu’s election

    The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), has admitted in evidence, exhibits from the Labour Party and Mr Peter Obi in six additional states to prove their allegation of irregularities in the Feb. 25 Presidential Election.

    The petitioners on Thursday, tendered exhibits in six states including Rivers, Benue, Cross River, Niger, Osun and Ekiti states.

    At Friday’s proceedings, the petitioners tendered exhibits in six other states including Adamawa

    Bayelsa, Oyo, Edo, Lagos and Akwa Ibom.

    The exhibits were certified true copies of  Forms EC8A used in the  presidential election.

    The petitioners presented  forms EC8A for 21 local government areas of Adamawa and eight local government areas of Bayelsa.

    Others are 31 local government areas of Oyo, 18 local government areas of Edo, 20 local government areas of Lagos state and 31 local government areas of Akwa Ibom.

    Counsel to all the respondents in the petition objected  to the documents being admitted in evidence but withheld their reasons until their  final addresses.

    Mr Peter Afoba, SAN, who handled Friday’s proceedings on behalf of Obi and the Labour Party thereafter prayed the court for an adjournment having exhausted all the documents they had to tender for the day.

    Afoba prayed the court to deem all  the admitted documents as been read but all the respondents refused to give their consent to the request on the grounds that they had objected to the documents being admitted in evidence.

    The court chaired by Justice Haruna Tsammani subsequently adjourned further hearing of the petition until June 5.

  • INEC explains refusal to accept admittance of own documents in evidence

    INEC explains refusal to accept admittance of own documents in evidence

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on Friday in Abuja, seized an opportunity presented at the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC) to explain its reasons for refusing that its own documents be admitted in evidence.

    The presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP,) Mr Peter Obi and his party sought to tender the documents as exhibits to establish their petition against the conduct of the Feb. 25 Presidential Election.

    INEC had on Thursday, through its counsel, Mr Kemi Pinhero, SAN, objected to the admission of several documents brought to the PEPC by the petitioners  for the purpose of tendering them as exhibits in support of their petition.

    At Friday’s proceedings, INEC also objected to all the certified true copies of the Form EC8A the petitioners sought to tender from local governments across six states.

    INEC’s counsel, Pinhero told the court that the electoral body kicked against the tendering of certified true copies of the documents, mainly election result sheets, on the grounds that they were strange to the petition.

    Pinhero explained that issues were not joined in the local government areas where the result sheets were sought to be tendered, adding that it was wrong for the petitioners to go beyond the areas where the election was disputed.

    According to INEC, the local government areas unlawfully smuggled into proceedings of the court are totally strange to the petition and cannot stand in the face of the law.

    The Chairman of the Court, Justice Haruna Tsammani, however, held that it was wrong for INEC’S lawyer to attempt to give reasons for his objection now when all parties had agreed during the pre-hearing stage to give reasons at the address stage.

    The counsel, however, said that he was compelled to offer some explanation following the bashing the commission received in the media that it was objecting to the admittance of its own documents in court.

    Meanwhile, the court has admitted as exhibits, Forms EC8A from 21 local government areas of Adamawa,  Lagos state, eight local government areas of Bayelsa and parts of Rivers and Niger  as tendered by the petitioners.

  • I was forced to sign election result sheets, Atiku’s witness alleges in court

    I was forced to sign election result sheets, Atiku’s witness alleges in court

    Retired Capt. Joe Agada, the first witness of the  Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku told the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC) that he was allegedly forced to sign the result sheet of the presidential election.

    Agada also told the court that  other agents of the party were equally forced to sign the result sheets of the presidential election at their separate polling units and at the state level.

    Agada, giving his evidence-in-chief before the court on Thursday in Abuja said that he was the Kogi Collation Officer for PDP in the Feb. 25 presidential election.

    He alleged that ballot papers and result sheets were manipulated by compromised electoral officers in collusion with agents of other political parties.

    Led in evidence by Atiku’s lead counsel, Mr Chris Uche SAN, the witness alleged that he was present in several polling units where Bimodal Voter Accreditation System machines (BVAS) were manipulated.

    Agada told the court that he visited over 20 polling units in the state and watched as PDP agents were being forced to sign the result sheets as a condition for the agents to be given a copy of the result sheet.

    Under cross examination by INEC’S lawyer, Mr Abdullahi Aliyu, SAN, the witness claimed to have voted at Ogugu in Olamaboro but that he was allowed to move round to monitor the election because of the special election duty tag provided by INEC to party agents.

    While being cross examined by Mr Akin Olujimi, SAN, counsel to President Bola Tinubu, the witness insisted that he signed the result sheet only because it became clear that INEC would withhold it if he didnt sign.

    Agada who admitted giving evidence for Atiku in 2019 told the court that he did not put his grievances against the election in his witness deposition on oath.

    When being cross examined by Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, counsel to the All Progressives Congress (APC), the witness admitted to relying on the information given to him by other agents of the party to draw his conclusions.

    For his part,  Mr Solarin Adekunle, the second witness for the petitioners and the Ogun Collation Officer said that he refused to sign the collated results in protest against electoral malpractices.

    Adekunle specifically alleged that election results were inflated  prompting him to decline signing the result sheets.

    For his part, Rep. Uzoma  Abonta told the court that the election was a nullity  on the grounds that there were so many irregularities, discrepancies and non compliance with rules of the electoral act.

    Abonta said that because INEC failed to electronically transmit election results, what was declared did not reflect the genuine wish of the people of Abia where he is from and where he voted.

    Having called three witnesses, the petitioners asked for an adjournment.

    Justice Haruna Tsammani adjourned  further hearing in the petition until Friday.

  • You are wasting time of court, PEPC tells Peter Obi, Labour Party

    You are wasting time of court, PEPC tells Peter Obi, Labour Party

    The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), on Thursday in Abuja, admonished the legal team of the Labour Party and its presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, for failing to properly organise its schedule of documents for seamless tendering as exhibits.

    Obi and his party filed a petition challenging the outcome of the Feb. 25 presidential election.

    At the resumed hearing of the petition, the court frowned at the team’s inability to present its schedule of documents in a manner that would be easy for the court to comprehend.

    This led to the court abruptly stepping down hearing in the petition for some minutes to enable the lawyers, led by Prof. Awa Kalu, SAN, to put its house in order.

    After resuming from the short break, the presentation of documents being handled by Mr Emeka Okpoko, SAN, still seemed not be have been done in the direction that had been agreed upon during the pre-hearing stage.

    This led to the judges asking Obi’s team to take an adjournment and put their house in order before returning to tender the documents.

    Specifically, Justice Misitura Bolaji-Yusuf said that the whole exercise of the petitioners was  a waste of the court’s time.

    “What we have done today is a waste of time. The poor way you have arranged the documents will cause confusion for both of you and the court.

    “At this stage, it is better for you to go back and rearrange those documents in a sequence so as to help yourselves and the court.”

    Prof. Kalu, however, prayed the court to allow his team tender the documents they had rather than take an adjournment since they had already lost one day.

    The court allowed the petitioners to proceed following the appeal after which the petitioners said they would challenge the election results in 18 out of the 36 states.

    The petitioners proceeded to tender certified true copies of electoral documents obtained from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in six out of the 18 states whose results they are challenging.

    The documents are mainly Forms EC8A, which are election results from polling units.

    The documents were admitted as exhibits and marked appropriately by the Chairman of the Court, Justice Haruna Tsammani.

    INEC, who issued the documents to the petitioners, objected to all the documents being admitted in evidence.

    INEC was represented by Mr Kemi Pinhero, SAN.

    Similarly, counsel to President Bola Tinubu and Vice-President Kashim Shettima who are the second and third respondents and represented by Mr Adebayo Adelodun, SAN, and Mr Afolabi Fashanu respectively, also opposed the admissibility of the electoral documents.

    They, however, said that they would give their reasons for objecting to the admissibility of the documents in their final addresses.

    A list of the tendered and admitted documents include Forms EC8A from 15 local government areas of Rivers, 23 local government areas of Benue, 18 in Cross River, 23 in Niger, 20 in Osun and 16 in Ekiti.

    Justice Tsammani, thereafter, adjourned further hearing in the petition to Friday at the instance of the petitioners.

    Obi and his party are challenging the election of President Bola Tinubu and  Vice-President  Kashim Shettima on the grounds of electoral malpractices during the Feb. 25 presidential election.

  • PEPC steps down Obi’s petition over poor scheduling of documents

    PEPC steps down Obi’s petition over poor scheduling of documents

    The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) for the third time this week, has been forced to step down hearing the petition filed by Mr Peter Obi and the Labour Party due to poor scheduling of documents.

    Obi and his party are before the election petition court challenging the election of President Bola Tinubu and the Vice-President, Mr. Kashim Shettima.

    The Chairman of the court, Justice Haruna Tsammani, at the resumed hearing on Thursday, had to step the petition down.

    This was on account of the poor scheduling of documents the petitioners sought to tender to prove their allegation of electoral malpractices during the Feb. 25 presidential election.

    At Thursday’s proceedings, the court observed that the documents were not properly scheduled as it had ordered counsel to do.

    There was some confusion as a lot of discrepancies were noticed as Mr Emeka Okpko, SAN from the Obi legal team attempted to tender
    documents from the 23 local government areas of Benue.

    All efforts to reconcile the discrepancies and reschedule the documents were futile forcing the judges to rise for about 15 minutes to allow the petitioners to rectify the confusion.

    The court asked Okpoko to rather file a different schedule of documents he had prepared which the court said was easier to understand than the earlier filed schedule.

    The five Justices then retired to their chambers to await the time the legal team would put its house in order.

    All this confusion happened right in the presence of  Obi, his running mate, Mr Datti Baba-Ahmed, the suspended Chairman of the party, Mr. Julius Abure, and other Labour Party members.