TheNewsGuru

Tag: Tribunal

  • Tribunal: Ebonyi PDP alleges attacks on witnesses by APC

    Tribunal: Ebonyi PDP alleges attacks on witnesses by APC

    The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Ebonyi State chapter has alleged that the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), launched an attack on its members who testified as witnesses against the party before the Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Abuja.

    The Caretaker Committee Chairman of PDP in the State, Mr Augustine Nwazunku, alleged that the party’s witnesses who testified before the election Tribunal at Abuja were attacked on return to their respective homes by suspected APC hitmen.

    Nwazunku, made this known in a statement signed and issued to newsmen on Thursday in Abakaliki, Ebonyi State.

    The statement alleged, “Some were brutally attacked by APC hired thugs, with their families, essentially chased out of their homes while business interests of our members’ farm were poisoned with yet to be verified chemical. Over twenty thousand fish fingerlings were physically damaged in some of the episodes of attacks.”

    The Party alleged that APC Chieftains and leaders had been going around communities and local governments to threaten PDP faithful preparing to go to testify as witnesses before the Tribunal.

    “The APC government has threatened to deal with any Ebonyi citizen seen to be hob-nobbing with the members of PDP in Ebonyi State,” the statement added.

    In a reaction, the State Chairman of APC, Mr Stanley Okoro-Emegha, described the allegations as unfounded and challenged the PDP to bring up evidence of the alleged attacks on its members before the public.

    Okoro-Emegha said the APC-led government of Ebonyi State is too busy with governance to be distracted by any person or group and urged the PDP to put their house in order and desist from making wide allegations.

  • 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

  • Tribunal: Ebonyi ALGON threatens lawsuit against PDP chieftain over ₦80 million alleged bribery

    Tribunal: Ebonyi ALGON threatens lawsuit against PDP chieftain over ₦80 million alleged bribery

    The Association of Local governments of Nigeria (ALGON), Ebonyi state chapter, has threatened to institute legal action against a Chieftain of the Peoples Democratic party (PDP),Mr Nwoba Chika over allegation to deduct ₦80,000,000 monthly from the coffers in each of the LG Chairman to influence the ongoing Elections Petition tribunal in Abuja.

    Public Relations officer (PRO) and Chairman of Ikwo Local government Area, Barr Sunday Nwankwo who Addressed newsmen alongside other Chairmen on Tuesday at the ALGON headquarters in Abakiliki, described Nwoba’s allegation as false, malicious, and defamatary.

    According to ALGON,non of the13 Local Government Chairmen had been directed to “forfeit” such amount as alleged by Nwoba.

    ALGON further alleged that there was no iota of truth that the said Eighty Million (N80,000,000) cach will be deducted at source from the June allocation of the various Local Government Areas.

    “ALGON Ebonyi State wishes to expressly and unequivocally state that
    the above statement credited to Nwoba Chika Nwoba in his facebook page exists only in the figment of his imagination as no such directive ever emanated from His Excellency, the Executive Governor of Ebony State, either by himself, his agent or whosoever.

    “The June allocation to the Local Government Areas has not yet fallen due as to even mathematically determine its volume, usuage and application, therefore. No body or Local Goverment council Area is even sure of what returns will come from FAAC at the time of the misleading and fallacious publication.

    “Ebony State would naturally have overlooked this huge joke and concentrated in its business of good governance as the third tier of govemment, but for the sake of the gullible and uninformed public who do not know the notorious and mischievous antecedents of the writer, whose stock in trade is to cast aspersion on persons and government to achieve cheap popularity and put bread on his table.”

    The group said it jointly disassociated itself from the misleading allegation targeted at demeaning the credibility of the bureaucratic process of the state, especially, the Local Government System and call on the imposter to either substantiate his claim with verifiable and empirical evidence or retract same forthwith.

    “We the members of ALGON shall deploy all available means within the ambit of the law to defend its integrity while identifying and protecting the laudable programmes and policies of the state Government.”

     

  • Tribunal: Witness narrates how Sanwo-Olu, wife cast vote with invalid card reader

    Tribunal: Witness narrates how Sanwo-Olu, wife cast vote with invalid card reader

    Mr Dayo Israel, a Labour Party agent at the last Governorship Election in Lagos State, on Monday told Lagos State Election Petition Tribunal  that Gov. Babajide Sanwo-Olu and his wife cast  votes with invalid card readers.

    Israel, LP’s agent for Unit 006, Ward  15, Lagos Island  Local  Government, Lagos State, also said that he was beaten by some thugs alleged to be from All Progressives Congress (APC) during the election.

    Israel testified for LP at the tribunal.

    He was led  in evidence by Dr Olumide Ayeni (SAN), counsel to LP Candidate for the election, Mr Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour, who is also the petitioner.

    “In relation to the petition, what I observed is that when Sanwo-Olu and his wife wanted to do their registration, the card reader showed invalid.

    “However, the governor and his wife were allowed to cast their votes which is against INEC  rules,” the witness said.

    Israel, while being cross-examined by counsel to Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prince Eric Obigor, said that APC supporters who allegedly beat him did not wear uniforms.

    He said that he knew that they were APC supporters from the way they spoke.

    “When the thugs  recognised  me as an LP agent, they said that if people did not vote for APC, they would beat them.

    “I do not know the number of eligible voters in Eyekole Unit. Sanwo-Olu and his wife had a total of two votes,” Israel said.

    The witness told the tribunal while being cross-examined by Dr Muiz Banire (SAN), council to Sanwo-Olu and his deputy,  Dr Obafemi Hamzat, that he was beaten up  by four men while the election was  ongoing.

    “I ran away the first time I was beaten and then disguised to monitor the counting. I  did not report the beating at any police station.

    “I sustained a minor injury but there was a nearby clinic where I was treated.

    “I registered as a polling agent with  INEC though I do not have the identification with me at the moment,” he said.

    According to him,  126  people were accredited,  and APC had 121 votes, LP, 2 and PDP, 1.

    The witness, while being questioned by   APC counsel, Mr Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN), reiterated that he was trained on what to do on the election day and that a total of 126 people were accredited and the total votes cast were 126.

    The tribunal led by Justice Arum Ashom adjourned until July 3 for continuation of hearing.

  • Atiku, PDP close case at Presidential Election Petition Court

    Atiku, PDP close case at Presidential Election Petition Court

    The Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) and its presidential candidate in the Feb. 25 presidential election on Friday in Abuja, closed their case at the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC).

    The petitioners closed their case after calling 27 out of the 100 witnesses they had said they would call to give evidence in support of their joint petition challenging the outcome of the presidential election.

    The witnesses included  expert witnesses such as forensic analysts, star witnesses and subpoenaed witnesses mostly Presiding Officer of the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC).

    The petitioners’ tendered their last batch of documents through their  27th witness, Mr Mike Enahoro-Eba, a legal practitioner.

    The documents which were admitted in evidence included certified true copies of academic and work records of President Bola Tinubu such as a National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) Certificate, a certificate from the Chicago State University and a Mobil Nigeria Oil Company Plc certificate of service.

    Other documents admitted in evidence were a computer generated copy of a  Guinean passport bearing the name Bola Ahmed Tinubu and notarised document of the judgment showing criminal forfeiture of $460,000 along with the certified cover note notorising it.

    Enahoro-Eba was led in evidence by the petitioners lead counsel, Mr Chris Uche, SAN.

    The petitioners also tendered  a certificate of compliance and a witness statement on oath to prove the allegations contained in their petition challenging the outcome of the Feb. 25 presidential election.

    The witness told the court that the NYSC certificate attached to the president’s documents which he submitted to INEC together with his form EC9, which is his nomination form, was issued in the name Tinubu Bola Adekunle.

    He  also told the court that the transcript in aid of admission into the Chicago State University made by South West College in the name of Bola Ahmed Tinubu had female as the gender of the applicant.

    Counsel to all the respondents; the Independent National Electoral Commission,  (INEC), President Bola  Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress, (APC),  all objected to the admissibility of the documents.

    Under cross examination by the lead counsel to INEC, Mr Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, the witness told the court that he was in Abuja during the election and that he voted.

    He further said that the  election was smooth from when he was accredited up to when he voted and left the polling unit.

    The witness also told the court that he instituted a public interest suit against Tinubu at a Magistrate’s Court challenging Tinubu’s qualification to contest the presidential election.

    For his part, counsel to President Tinubu, Mr Wole Olanipekun, SAN,  confronted the witness with a letter of the Chicago State University of June 27, 2022 stating that President Tinubu not only graduated from the University but graduated with honours.

    The witness, however, told the court that he knew nothing about the letter.

    Olanipekun also asked the witness if he had gone through the petitioner’s pleadings before coming to give evidence and he said he didn’t bother to read it because he was not part of the legal team of the petitioners.

    The senior lawyer therefore told the witness that if he had bothered to read the petition, he would have noticed that the judgment he tendered was not part of the petitioners case.

    For his part, counsel to the All Progressives Congress, (APC), Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, asked the witness if there was any certificate given by a police officer with regards to the judgment he tendered, the witness said there was none.

    The witness also confirmed to the court that there was no finger print or signature on the judgment and that the documents were not certified.

    The witness, in answering Fagbemi’s question as to whether he was an APC member, said that he was a member of the Obidient Movement of the Labour Party.

    Having discharged the witness, Uche told the court that that was the end of the case of the petitioners.

    “My lords, pursuant to paragraph 46 (5) of the Electoral Act, 2022, we most humbly apply to close the case of the petitioners.”

    The respondents appealed to the court to allow them open their cases after the Eid-el-Kabir holiday.

    The five-member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani accepted the request and adjourned the case until July 3.

    The petitioners in their joint petition marked: CA/PEPC/05/2023 are praying the court to among other things, withdraw the Certificate of Return issued to the President Bola Tinubu by INEC.

    The petitioners maintained that the declaration of Tinubu as  winner of the presidential election was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.

    They also contended that Tinubu’s election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices, insisting that he was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast during the election.

    Atiku asked the PEPC to declare him winner of the presidential election on the grounds that he secured the second highest number of lawful votes cast during the election.

  • Presidential election petition: Peter Obi closes case

    Presidential election petition: Peter Obi closes case

    Mr Peter Obi and his Labour Party (LP) on Friday closed their petition before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) challenging the election of President Bola Tinubu.

    Obi and LP are complainants in the petition marked CA/PEPC/03/2023, challenging the election which brought  Tinubu to power on May 29.

    Respondents in the petition are the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima and All Progressives Congress (APC).

    The petitioners were given 21 days to prove their case against the respondents before the court.

    They told the court that they would call 50 witnesses to prove their case, but as they were closing on Friday, they called only 13 witnesses.

    Earlier, Counsel to the petitioners, Livy Uzoukwu SAN, informed the court that their 12th witness, Yunusa Tanko, was in court to be cross examined by the respondents.

    Counsel to the respondents are Kemi Pinhero SAN for INEC, Wole Olanipakun SAN for Tinubu and Shettima, while Lateef Fagbemi SAN represented APC.

    The 12th witness (PW12) was Yunusa Tanko, member of LP Situation Room, who testified and some documents were tendered through him.

    Being cross examined by INEC, the witness told the court that the results given to them were mutilated and not readable.

    When asked by Olanipekun how many party agents his party had during the election, he said over 130,000 while there were 176,974 polling units through the federation.

    Tanko was also asked what he wanted the court to do with the 12 states where LP won and what would happen to Atiku Abubakar, who was declared 2nd.

    He said that he was challenging the entire results of the election because after four months of the election, the results are still being downloaded from the IreV.

    When asked by Fagbemi on why he did not provide the number of unlawful votes, he claimed that their expert had already given evidence on the number of disputed votes.

    The respondents tendered through the witness judgments of Federal High Court, with FHC/ABJ/1454/2022,  delivered on Jan. 23, 2023, concerning LP vs INEC.

    Tendered also was a SC/CV/501/2023, Supreme Court judgment delivered on May 26, 2023, between PDP and INEC with three others.

    The petitioners objected to the admissibility of the documents and reserved their reason in their final written addresses.

    The court however admitted and marked the documents as exhibits.

    Peter Yari, PW 13 , an adhoc staff of INEC, also gave his evidence.

    Counsel for the petitioners, Uzoukwu after the testimony of PW13, informed the court that they are closing their case.

    The respondents prayed the court to give them till next week to go home and celebrate the Sallah with their families and come back by July 3 to open their case.

    The five-member panel presided over by Justice Haruna Tsammani adjourned until July 3, for the respondents to open their case.

  • JUST IN: Tribunal receives Chicago University, NYSC certificates in PDP’s case against Tinubu

    JUST IN: Tribunal receives Chicago University, NYSC certificates in PDP’s case against Tinubu

    The Presidential Election Petitions Court has accepted certified copies of President Bola Tinubu’s academic and work records, submitted by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Atiku Abubakar.

    The documents presented as evidence include President Tinubu’s B.Sc certificate from Chicago State University, his NYSC Discharge Certificate, and a certificate of service from Mobil Nigeria Oil Plc.

    During the court proceedings, PDP’s subpoenaed witness, Mike Enahoro Ebah Esq, revealed detail about these documents. He pointed out that Tinubu purportedly obtained them, but surprisingly, they bore the name ‘Bola Adekunle Tinubu’.

    Led by PDP counsel Chris Uche (SAN), the witness also submitted forms EC13 and EC9, which are nomination forms, along with letters addressed to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as supporting attachments.

    However, the admissibility of these documents faced objections from the legal representatives of INEC, counsel to President Tinubu, Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), and the APC, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN).

    Details later

     

  • YPP wants Akwa Ibom election tribunal relocated to Abuja

    YPP wants Akwa Ibom election tribunal relocated to Abuja

    The Young Progressives Party (YPP) has appealed to the Chief Justice of Nigeria to relocate the sitting of the Akwa-Ibom Governorship Petition Tribunal to Abuja.

    Mr Egbeola Wale-Martins, the National Publicity Secretary, YPP, said this in a statement on Thursday in Abuja.

    “Desperate times calls for desperate measures, hence we call on the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Olukayade Ariwoola to as a matter of urgency, move the ongoing Governorship Petition Tribunal in Akwa-Ibom to Abuja.

    “This is in order to put a halt to the desperation of the PDP to cow everyone including the tribunal into submission. It is important that the trbunal continue to maintain neutrality, which is already threatened by the unlawful actions of the PDP.

    “In addition, we call on the Acting Inspector General of Police, Mr Kayode Egbetokun to use the Akwa-Ibom situation as a litmus test and send a strong message to police officers who have made themselves available as willing tools in the hands of the state government.

    “Adequate security protection should also be given to all our key witnesses and relevant YPP stakeholders in Akwa-Ibom,” he said.

    Wale-Martins said that the party was hopeful of winning the case, if given the chance to proof its points at the tribunal.

  • Tribunal: APM closes case against Tinubu, Shettima after one witness

    Tribunal: APM closes case against Tinubu, Shettima after one witness

    The  Allied People’s Movement on Wednesday in Abuja, closed its case at the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC) in its petition  challenging the Feb. 25 election of President Bola Tinubu and Vice-President Kashim Shettima after calling one witness.

    Recall that counsel to the APM, Mr Gideon Idiagbonya had told the court on Monday that he needed just one day to open and close his case since he had only one witness.

    Hearing of the party’s petition had stalled due to its inability to obtain a Supreme Court judgement of May 26. The judgment had dismissed the PDP’s suit which sought to nullify the  president’s  election based on allegations of double nomination of Shettima.

    The petitioner, however, on getting hold of the judgment told the court that there was nothing in the judgment to prevent it from going ahead with the petition.

    Respondents in the case, especially counsel to President Bola Tinubu, Mr Wole Olanipekin, SAN was however, of the view that the judgment had settled the sole issue the petitioner was contending.

    At the resumed hearing on Wednesday, counsel to the petitioner called Ms Aisha Abubakar who was his only witness.

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

    Under cross examination, the witness 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 judgement delivered on May 26.

    The All Progressives Congress, (APC), through its counsel, Mr Wole Olanipekin, SAN, 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 judgement 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.

    She was also made to read the part where the Supreme Court described the case of the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) as a frivolous appeal.

    She also admitted that Kabiru Masari did not contest the presidential election.

    After the witness was discharged from the witness box, counsel to the petitioner told the court that he would be unable to close his case as he had said on Monday.

    The lawyer said this was because INEC had yet to give him some documents he requested from them.

    “My lords, we could have closed our case today but some of the documents we asked for have not been given to us.

    “We have issued a subpoena on INEC and we hope they will avail us the remaining documents.”

    He, was however, reminded that he had said in open court that  he needed just one day to open and close his case and that today was his “one day”.

    After realising that some of the documents he had subpoenaed had been brought to court by an INEC staff, Mrs Joan Arabs, a Deputy Director  of Legal Drafting, he took the hint of the court and closed his case.

    One of the document was the original of the online form submitted by Shettima and another document was the original online form submitted by Lawan Shehu replacing Shettima as senatorial candidate in Borno.

    Mr Kemi Pinhero, counsel to INEC, the first respondent in the petition, also closed his case after tendering the letter that Shettima wrote to his party which was sent to INEC withdrawing his candidature for senatorial election.

    All the respondents; President Tinubu, Shettima, the APC and Kabiru Masari all closed their cases against the APM.

    The Chairman of the Court, Justice Haruna Tsammani ordered the respondents to file their addresses within 10 days.

    The judge also asked the petitioner to file his reply within seven days and the respondents to file their reply on points of law within five days.

    The court adjourned proceedings until July 14 for parties to adopt their final written addresses.

    APM had in its petition marked: CA/PEPC/04/2023, contended that the withdrawal of Kabiru Masari, who was initially nominated as the vice presidential candidate of the APC invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy in view of Section 131(c) and 142 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

    The party argued that there was a  three-week gap between the period that Masari, who is listed as the 5th respondent in the petition, expressed his intention to withdraw, the actual withdrawal of his nomination, and the time Tinubu replaced him with Shettima.

    It further argued that Tinubu’s candidature had elapsed as at the time he nominated Shettima as Masari’s replacement.

    The party  prayed the court to declare that Shettima was not qualified to contest as the vice presidential candidate of the APC as at Feb. 25 when the election was conducted by INEC.

    This, according to the petitioner was on the grounds of having violated the provisions the of Section 35 of the Electoral Act, 2022.

    The petitioner therefore asked the court for an order nullifying and voiding all the votes scored by Tinubu in the presidential election in view of his non-qualification as a candidate of the APC.

    Meanwhile, hearing in the petition of the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) and Alhaji Abubakar Atiku was adjourned until Thursday because hearing in the petition of the APM had encroached into their time.

    The court had adjourned hearing of the petition of the PDP until Wednesday at 10am but hearing of the petition of the APM which started at about 9.30am went on until about 12.30 pm on Wednesday.

    Atiku and the PDP were supposed to have closed their case on Thursday but because their petitioner could not be heard on Wednesday, Justice Tsammani said that they could take until Friday to conclude their case.

  • Tribunal: INEC opens up on documents requested by Peter Obi

    Tribunal: INEC opens up on documents requested by Peter Obi

    Some documents requested by the presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP) at the 2023 election, Mr Peter Obi to be presented as exhibits at the Presidential Election Tribunal are non-existent.

    INEC made the declaration before the court sitting in Abuja on Tuesday.

    Obi and the Labour Party (LP) are challenging the Feb. 25 election of President Bola Tinubu before the court in a petition marked CA/PEPC/03/2023.

    Respondents in the petition are INEC, President Tinubu, Vice-President Kashim Shettima and their All Progressives Congress (APC).

    Giving evidence before the court, Mr Lawrence Bayode, Deputy Director, ICT at INEC told the court that out of the five documents Obi asked for; two were non-existent, while one was work in progress.

    One of Obi’s witnesses, Ms Loretta Ogah, an ICT cloud engineer, said she contested election into the House of Representatives on the platform of Labour Party in Cross River, but lost the election.

    Ogah was cross-examined by Mr Wole Olanipakun (SAN), counsel for Tinubu and Shettima.

    She told the court that she sued INEC after her loss because the electoral umpire did not list her name on its portal as a result of network failure.

    Also cross-examined by Mr Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), counsel for APC, Ogah told the court that glitches did not occur on INEC portal on Feb. 25.

    She said she did not know INEC’s password protocol as she was not INEC’s employee.

    The court, presided over by Justice Haruna Tsammani, adjourned further hearing to Wednesday.