Category: Politics Lite

A prosecution witness (PW27), in the petition instituted by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its Presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, on Friday revealed that a transcript used in admission into Chicago State University made by South West College in the name of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, was identified as a female gender.

Counsel to Atiku, Chief Chris Uche SAN tendered the document, alongside other documents which were admitted as exhibits through their Star witness, Mr. Mike Enahoro-Eba.

Led in evidence-in-chief, the witness, who is an activist and a public interest lawyer also presented a certified true copy of a certificate supposedly issued to Tinubu by the Chicago State University, a certificate of service by the National Youth Services Corps (NYSC) issued in the name of Tinubu Bola Adekunle, Party membership card and certificate of service from Mobile Oil Nigeria Plc.

Atiku and his party also tendered a judgement of the USA court for criminal forfeiture of asset of Tinubu as well as a print out of the Guinea passport belonging to Tinubu.

Also tendered were, a certificate of compliance, a witness statement on oath, along with other documents to prove the allegations contained in their petition challenging the declaration of Tinubu as the winner of the February 25 presidential election.

Under cross examination by the lead counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), the witness, who said the election went on smoothly at the polling unit where he voted in Abuja said, he filed a suit against Tinubu at a Magistrate Court as human rights and public interest lawyer.

Earlier, the petitioners tendered certified true copies of Form EC8As, being results of the presidential election from polling units from six states of the Federation.

A breakdown of the documents are, Form EC8As from 25 Local Government Areas (LGAs) of Delta state, Forms EC8As from 13 LGAs of Ebonyi state, Form EC8As from 18 LGAs of Edo, from 17 LGAs of Enugu, from 27 LGAs of Imo state and Form EC8As from 21 LGAs of Kogi state.

The Allied Peoples’ 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.

The 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.

The hearing of the party’s petition had stalled due to its inability to obtain a Supreme Court judgment on 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.

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

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

The Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) and its Presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, will Thursday, June 22, close their case in their joint petition challenging the declaration of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the winner of the February 25 presidential election.

According to the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) pre-hearing report, the Petitioners were supposed to close their case on Tuesday, 21 June.

However, when the matter was called up, the lead counsel to Atiku, Chief Chris Uche (SAN) informed Justice Haruna Tsamani led the panel that they lost two days out of the days allotted to them.

The petitioners, who said that they would call 100 witnesses, but have called only 25 witnesses so far, prayed the court the two days be returned back to them.

Speaking shortly after proceeding, petitioners said, they might call additional five witnesses to have a round figure of having called 30 witnesses.

Uche said that some of the documents to be tendered in the remaining two days would take the place of the remaining 70 witnesses.

“We are closing our case on Thursday, it was supposed to end today (Tuesday) but because we lost two days, one of which was the June 12 public holiday, the court graciously extended our time by two days.”

Earlier in the proceedings, the petitioners lamented the difficulties encountered in getting Certified True Copies (CTC) of documents out of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in aid of their joint petition challenging Tinubu’s election.

At the resumed hearing of the petition, Counsel to Atiku and his party told the court that, getting materials from INEC is like getting weapons from opponents. 

He told the Court that getting documents from INEC is very difficult, but however commended the legal team of the electoral body, headed by Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN) for their assistance in getting some of the documents from INEC.

Justice Haruna Tsammani adjourned till Wednesday, June 21 for the continuation of the hearing in the petition.

The Allied People’s Movement (APM), has shut down all attempts by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) to truncate its petition against them. 

Tinubu, through his lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN had sought to use a Supreme Court judgment delivered on May 26, 2023 to terminate the APM’S petition but the request was turned down.

They premised on the ground that the issue raised in the petition of the APM had been resolved by the Supreme Court in the judgment in a suit filed by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP).

Consequent to the above, Olanipekun prayed the Court to rely on the judgment of the her court to halt hearing into the APM’S petition.

He submitted that the APM’S petition is predicted on internal affairs of the APC and that the Supreme Court’s latest judgment had taken life out of the petition.

The Presiding Justice of the Court, Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani however disagreed with Tinubu and held that the party cannot be shut out in the face of fair hearing.

Justice Tsammani asked Tinubu to keep his objections against hearing of the petition to the final address stage of the Court’s proceedings.

Similar objections raised by APC through its counsel, Charles Edosomwen SAN  against the petition on the same ground was turned down by PEPC for the same reason.

Earlier, the APM through its lawyer, Mr Gideon Ijiagbonya had informed the Court of receipt of the Supreme Court judgment being sought to be used to terminate its petition.

The lawyer said that upon perusal of the judgment by the Supreme Court, he and his legal team came to the conclusion that there is life in petition and applied for its hearing.

He however sought for adjournment till June 26 to enable him obtain a vital document from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to establish his case.

Justice Tsammani in a brief ruling rejected a week long adjournment and fixed Wednesday June 21 for hearing of the petition.

Tinubu had early this month told the Court that the petition instituted against him and his Vice, Kashim Shetima by the APM died at the Supreme Court on May 26, 2023.

The President said that the petition challenging his qualifications for the election on ground of “place holder’ by Kabir Masari was resolved by the Apex  Court in a judgment in a suit instituted by PDP on similar ground.

Tinubu through his lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN disclosed the the PDP’S case marked SC/CV/501/2023 had resolved the grievances brought before the Court by the Allied People’s Movement.

The Supreme Court had in the judgment held that PDP or any other parties, have no right to poke nose into how other parties conducted their primary elections and nominated their candidates.

Olanipekun had argued that the APM’S petition was similar to the PDP’S case taken to Supreme Court and dismissed on the grounds that PDP has no business interfering with internal affairs of other parties.

Three subpoenaed witnesses of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and the Peoples’ Democratic Party PDP on Monday informed the court that they only had problems uploading presidential election results.

The witnesses, who were presiding officers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) told the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) that the refusal of Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) to transmit the presidential election results on Election Day frustrated their jobs.

They however, submitted that the results of the Senate and the House of Representatives were transmitted unhindered and that the problems of technical hitches arose at the point of transmitting only the presidential poll results.

While lead in evidence in chief, by the counsel to Atiku, Eyitayo Jegede SAN, the witnesses admitted that the election process went well until the period the BVAS machines refused to work.

The three witnesses are Janet Nuhu Turaki, Christopher Bulus Ardo and Victoria Sani, served as INEC’S Presiding Officers at Yobe, Bauchi and Katsina States respectfully.

In her testimony, prosecution witness 23(PW23), Janet Turaki said that the accreditation of voters was successful but that the process became frustrating at the point of uploading of the election results.

She emphasized that while results of the National Assembly election sailed smoothly, that of the presidential poll failed and refused to work throughout the day.

The witness however informed the Court that the collated results in the forms EC8A were signed by the party agents and herself as INEC’S Presiding Officer.

In his own evidence, Christopher Bulus Ardo, PW24 told the Court that he felt unfulfilled in his assignment with INEC on the election because he could not transmit the presidential election results as required by law.

In her own, Victoria Sani PW25, said she could not remember the candidate that won the presidential poll in Katsina state but insisted that all did not end well due to inability to transmit the presidential aspect of the February 25 election.

Meanwhile, the Presiding Justice of the Court, Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani has fixed June 20 for continuation of hearing in the petition.

The Allied Peoples Movement, (APM) has told the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC) that it will open and close its case in one day with just one witness to call.

The hearing in the petition filed by the APM to challenge the outcome of the 2023 presidential election has stalled due to the petitioner’s inability to get hold of a Supreme Court judgment delivered on May 26 on a related matter.

The judgement of the Supreme Court affirmed President Bola Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the Feb. 25 presidential election.

When the petitioner was billed to open its case, counsel to President Tinubu drew the attention of the court to the fact that the main issue the APM raised in its petition, was already decided by the apex court.

At the resumed hearing of the petition on Monday in Abuja, counsel to the petitioner,

Mr Gideon Idiagbonya told the court that the petitioner had only one witness to call.

“My lords, we intended opening our case today but in the cause of having a pre-trial conference with our sole witness, we realised that certain documents we intend to tender are not in the file handed over to us by the previous counsel.

“In view of this, we ask for another date to enable us open and close our case in one day since we have just one witness,” he said.

The counsel told the court that the petitioner had perused the judgment of the Supreme Court and was of the opinion that his client could still proceed with the petition.

Responding, counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), Mr Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN said he had no objection to the application for an adjournment.

For his part, Olanipekin told the court that he had also read the judgment and he insisted that the judgment had settled the issues raised by the petitioner.

Olanipekin, however, did not oppose the application for an adjournment.

Similarly, counsel to the All Progressives Congress, (APC) Mr Charles Edosanwan, SAN, and Mr G.M Isho, counsel to the 5th respondent, Mr Kabiru Masari did not oppose the application for an adjournment.

The Chairman of the court, Justice Haruna Tsammani, adjourned hearing in the petition until June 21 for the petitioner to open and close its case as counsel had told the court.

NAN reports that the judgment in question was delivered on May 26 by the apex court and it dismissed the Peoples’ Democratic Party’s (PDP) suit which sought to nullify President Tinubu’s election based on allegations of double nomination against his running mate, now Vice-President Kashim Shettima.

The 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.

According to the petitioner, as at the time Tinubu announced Shettima as the vice presidential candidate, he was no longer in a position, constitutionally, to nominate a running mate.

This, according to the APM was since he, (Tinubu) had ceased to be a presidential candidate of the APC having regard to the provisions of Section 142 of the 1999 Constitution.

The petitioner further argued that Masari’s initial nomination activated the joint ticket principle enshrined in the constitution, stressing that his subsequent withdrawal invalidated the said joint ticket.

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

This, according to the petitioner was on the grounds of having violated the provisions 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.

The Labour Party (LP) and it’s Presidential Candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, Thursday, told the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) that he discovered a total of 18,088 blurred result sheets uploaded to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Result Viewing (IReV) portal. 

The fourth Petition witness, Eric Uwadiegwu Ofoedu, a Professor of Mathematics at the Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Anambra State, told the court that he carried out an investigation and data analysis of the 2023 Presidential Election results on the IReV portal. 

Led in evidence-in-chief by Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), Ofoedu told the court that he conducted an analysis of results from Rivers and Benue states respectively and a report on his findings. 

Reacting, Counsel for INEC, Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN) told the court that he was served the statement in court and he is handicap on how to go about the proceedings. 

He asked the Petitioners to step down the witness and grant them time to look at the documents filed and prepare for Cross-examination. 

In the same, Tinubu and Shetimma, through thier Counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) and Lateef Fagbemi aligned themselves with the submissions of Mahmood (SAN) but however suggested that the witness should adopt his evidence, while they cross-examine him later. 

In his responds, Dr. Ikpeazu (SAN) apologized for serving the respondents late but told the court that they just obtained the Subpoena yesterday. 

He requested that the witness be allowed to adopt his evidence in chief while the court determines whether or not Cross-examination will be done later. 

The Justice Haruna Tsammani-led panel granted the request by the LP and deferred Cross-examination till tomorrow. 

Ikpeazu informed the court about a letter of request written to the witness by the LP, on February 20, asking him to carryout data analysis for the presidential election, as well as the subpoena served on the witness. 

The Senior Lawyer tendered all the documents as evidence in the petition before the court. 

Counsels for INEC and Tinubu/Shetimma objected to the admissibility of the letter but did not object to the Subpoena, however, counsel for the APC objected to the Subpoena but not the letter. 

Justice Tsammani admitted all the documents tendered by the LP as exhibits in the petition. 

The LP then called their second witness, Lummie Edeveie, a staff Arise News TV to present evidence before the court. 

Led in Evidence by Patrick Ikweto (SAN), Edeveie presented a flash drive containing a video before the court. 

Mr. Ikweto tendered the flash before the court and applied that it be played in court. 

Though the respondents objected to the admissibility of the flash drive as evidence, they did not object to it being played in court. 

The application was granted by the court and the video was played on screen for everyone to watch. 

The video contained the speech by the INEC Chairman, Prof Mahmood Yakubu at the Chatham House where he spoke about the elections, giving assurances on the potency of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System  and the IReV portals ahead of the general elections. 

Justice Tsammani after admitting the flash as evidence adjourned till tomorrow, June 16 for further hearing.