My Blog

Category: Politics Lite

  • Tribunal: Atiku tenders statisticians’ reports against Tinubu

    The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) on Wednesday admitted as exhibits, three sets of reports prepared by a group of Statisticians on the electoral forms used during the last presidential election.

    Atiku’s Subpoened witness, PW21, a renowned Statistician, Samuel Oduntan made these reports available during his evidence-in-chief led by counsel to Atiku, Eyitayo Jegede SAN.

    Inspite of objections by the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC, Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress APC against the testimony of the witness, the Presiding Justice of the Court, Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani admitted the three reports as exhibits.

    At Wednesday’s proceedings, former NBA President, Abubakar Mahmud SAN, Wole Olanipekun SAN and Lateef Fagbemi SAN conducted the case of INEC, Tinubu and APC respectfully.

    Besides opposing the admission of the documents, the three respondents also kicked against the bid to consider the reports as being read in the open court.

    Meanwhile, Justice Tsammani has fixed June 15 for further hearing of the petition especially the cross examination of the witness

  • INEC Chairman evading our subpoena, Obi tells Tribunal

    The Labour Party, LP and it’s presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, on Wednesday revealed that their attempt to serve the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Chairman, Prof Yakubu Mahmoud with a subpoena has been abortive.

    The Petitioners, through their Counsel, Livy Uzoukwu SAN, drew the attention of the court to the subpoena which was to furnish them with 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.

    “We have drawn the attention of Abubakar Mahmoud SAN on the failed attempt to subpoena INEC and the office of the INEC to produce certain documents despite efforts of the bailiff of the court.

    “He asked for a copy of the subpoena which I couldn’t produce at that time, but he suggested I give to any member of the team in court .

    “I am confident we will do the needful and we will continue tomorrow.

    Responding, Counsel to INEC, Kemi Pinhero, SAN, told the court that the petitioner’s 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,” she said.

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

    “It has become a habit, whenever they want an adjournment, they will look for someone to whip. I have no privy that he had any discussion with AB Mahmoud.

    “We have no ideal of subpoena served and the refusal. PDP served us, we received and file our reply.

    “Everytime the matter came up, they keep saying INEC is refusing a document. 

    “If they want an adjournment, they should ask for it and we will not be objecting. The reason on not accepting or refusing service is absolutely not correct. It is very uncharitable,” INEC defended.

    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 (Thursday) for further hearing of the petition.

  • Tribunal: Mahmood to testify for Atiku 

    All things being equal, the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Yakubu Mahmood, will on Thursday June 15, appear before the Presidential Election Petition Court ( PEPC) to give evidence in a petition by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar challenging the declaration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu as President.

    Mahmood has already been subpoenaed by Atiku’s legal team led by Chief Chris Uche, SAN.

    At Tuesday’s proceedings, Uche announced to the Court that the INEC chairman will, during his appearance testify on the conduct of the disputed Presidential election and also tender some sensitive documents in aid of the Presidential candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP).

    Uche however, did not disclose the nature of documents the INEC chief would be required to tender.

    The senior lawyer told Justice Haruna Tsammani led panel that he decided to make the announcement in a bid to bring Mahmood before the court on Thursday so that the respondents, especially Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC), would not be caught unawares.

    At the proceedings, Atiku called his first star witness, Dr Alex Adum Ter, a legal practitioner and former Attorney General of Benue State, who in his testimony, alleged that the presidential election was marred with a lot of irregularities and non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2022.

    The witness, who was the National Coordinator, Situation Room for PDP on the February 25 presidential election had tendered three different video clips featuring Mahmood, INEC’s Commissioner in charge of Voter Education, Mr Festus Okoye, who in their broadcast assured Nigerians that presidential election results would be electronically transmitted to make the election credible and transparent.

    The third video involving an European Union Election Observer Mission was admitted as exhibits by the court, alongside Guidelines for Election Officers 2022 and Manual for Election Guidelines 2023.

    Although, Tinubu and APC objected vehemently against the admissibility of the documents, Justice Tsammani admitted them after which the video clips were played in the open court.

    The witness also tendered screen shots of the IReV portal.

    Under cross examination by INEC’s lawyer, Mr Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, the witness admitted that he was not at the National Collation Centre but was at the PDP situation room in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

    He also admitted not being an ICT expert but that he based his report from information obtained from agents of the PDP at the collation centres.

    The witness faulted INEC for not transmitting presidential election results electronically, adding that calculation errors led the electoral body into grave errors .

    Also cross examined by Chief Akin Olujimi SAN, who represented President Tinubu, the witness said that he came to the conclusion that the presidential election was invalid by reason of corrupt electoral practices as related to him by PDP agents.

    Meanwhile, further hearing in the petition has been shifted to June 14.

  • Tribunal: Obi tenders 188 evidences against Tinubu

    The Presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Mr Peter Gregory Obi tendered additional 188 exhibits to substantiate allegations of malpractices in the conduct of the February 25 presidential election.

    The exhibits, mainly results sheets and reports used by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) during the election were tendered at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) and admitted as exhibits to be used to determine the legality or otherwise of Tinubu’s return as the President.

    Obi, through Mr Peter Afoba, SAN tendered forms EC40GPU, EC40G1 and reports prepared by the electoral body after the election.

    Forms EC40GPU are INEC forms used for entering complaints from electoral officials.

    The breakdown showed that 45 EC40GPU forms were tendered in 10 Local Government Areas of Niger State, 23 in seven Local Government Areas of Osun, 17 in three Local Government Areas of Edo State, and 52 EC40GPU forms in five Local Government Areas of Sokoto were tendered.

    Obi also tendered 15 forms EC40G in 8 Local Government Areas of Osun State, 12 forms EC40G1 in 12 Local Government Areas of Edo, 15 forms EC40G in four Local Government Areas of Sokoto and 9 forms EC40G1 in two Local Government Areas of Sokoto.

    Besides, the Labour Party’s presidential candidate also tendered 5 Reports on the conduct of the election in Niger State and 8 in Edo to back up his allegations of malpractices during the conduct of the election.

    Notwithstanding the objections to the admissibility of the evidence from the Respondents, Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani admitted them as exhibits.

    Also, Obi tendered INEC Results Viewing (IRev) reports in 21 Local Government Areas of Adamawa State, 20 in Ogun State, 16 in Ekiti State, 19 in Rivers State, and 25 Akwa Ibom State.

    Meanwhile, the Court has shifted further hearing in the petition to June 14.

  • Tribunal: Atiku calls 18th witness to prove fraud in presidential election

    Presidential candidate of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar has called two additional witnesses to further prove his allegation of malpractice at the Feb. 25 election.

    The two make a total of 18 witnesses he has so far called out of 100 witnesses planned for the exercise.

    Abubakar and his party filed their petitions against the election of President Bola Tinubu and his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and INEC at the Presidential Election Petition Court sitting in Abuja.

    They are challenging the outcome of the election on the ground that INEC, the electoral umpire, did not conduct the election in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022.

    At the resumed hearing on Saturday, one of Abubakar’s new witnesses, Ms Alheri Ayuba, said she was unhappy at her inability to upload results from her polling unit unto INEC’s Result Viewing Portal.

    “There was a form that I filled at the ward centre where I stated that I was not happy at my inability to transmit the result.

    “I could not log into the INEC portal. If I had logged into the system and posted the result perhaps it could have “pending’’ status and when network is restored, it would upload,’’ she said.

    The witness also told the court that she was not induced or influenced by any politician before or during the election.

    The second witness, Ms Sadiya Haruna, told the court that the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System machine she used malfunctioned.

    Haruna told the court that the result she entered manually at her polling unit was what she took to the ward collation officer and that party agents assigned to the unit monitored the entire process.

    She said she took a photo shot of the result as collated manually on the result sheet with the BVAS machine, but that she couldn’t ascertain whether it was retained in the machine or not.

    Earlier, INEC’s counsel, Mr Kemi Pinhero (SAN) and Mr Akin Olujimi (SAN) counsel for President Bola Tinubu and Vice-President Kashim Shettima, objected to the admission of the witnesses’ statements in evidence.

    Mr Abiodun Fashanu (SAN), counsel for APC aligned with their objection.

    The counsel submitted that their reason for objecting to the admission of the witnesses’ statements on oath would be advanced at the stage of final addresses.

    They, however, did not oppose the invitation of the witnesses to testify before the court as well as the presentation of their letters of employment as Presiding Officers for the election by INEC.

    Abubakar’s counsel, Mr Chris Uche (SAN) who led both witnesses in evidence prayed the court to discountenance objections by the respondents and admit the witnesses’ testimonies.

    Presiding Justice Haruna Tsammani reserved ruling on the objections until the final judgment.

    Justice Tsammani also adjourned further hearing in the petition till June 13.

  • Tribunal dismisses LP, Obi’s request to question INEC on technology deployed

    Tribunal dismisses LP, Obi’s request to question INEC on technology deployed

    The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) on Saturday dismissed the application filed by the Labour Party and Mr. Peter Obi seeking an order to question INEC on the technology it deployed for the conduct of the general elections.

    Obi and LP are petitioners in the petition marked CA/PEPC/03/2023 challenging the election which brought President Bola Tinubu into power.

    Respondents are the INEC, President Bola Tinubu, and Vice President Kashim Shettima, and All Progressives Congress (APC).

    Ruling on the application, the five-member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani held that it lacked the jurisdiction to grant the request as it was brought outside the pre-hearing session and therefore incompetent.

    “It is an afterthought on the grounds that the pre-hearing period to file such an application elapsed on May 22.

    “I have not disputed the fact that they did not call the attention of the court during the pre-hearing session.”

    “It is for the applicant to take a step towards the hearing of his motion on notice. The court cannot do that for him.

    “The petitioners’ counsel are very conversant with the provisions of the law and did not ask for an extension of time.

    ”They rather seek to employ the right to fair hearing as a magic wand to escape the consequence of their failure to comply with the law and blame the court for its inaction” the court held.

    The court also held that the applicants failed to disclose any extreme circumstance that stopped them from filing within the statutory time.

    In a unanimous decision, the court stated that motions cannot be heard at the hearing session and as such can be deemed abandoned.

    ”Their application is incompetent and the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it and accordingly, the application is struck out,” It held.

    The petitioners, among other reasons for disputing the outcome of the elections, are accusing the electoral umpire of non-compliance with the Electoral Act.

    Their concerns also included failure to transmit the results of the presidential election in real-time on the INEC results viewing portal as assured.

    In their effort to support the grounds of their petition, the petitioners had asked the court to permit them to question INEC.

    On the technology deployed to conduct the election including the quality of the ICT experts who oversaw the conduct of the election.

    In two applications, the petitioners through their lawyer, Patrick Ikweto, SAN, urged the court to order INEC to supply the names and other details of its ICT professionals that deployed electronic devices for the conduct of the election.

    Specifically, the petitioners maintained that given INEC’s reply to their petition, it should be compelled to answer 12 questions posed to them.

    They added the date the electoral body conducted functionality tests on the system it deployed for the elections, as well as the names and details of those that conducted the test.

    They further required INEC to answer the following questions: “Who created/deployed the four (4) Applications Patches/Updates to fix the HTTP 500 error that prevented the e-transmission of the results of the Presidential election on 25th February 2023?

    “What was the exact time of the occurrence of the technical glitch which prevented the e-transmission of the result of the Presidential election on 25th February 2023?

    “What time were the technological glitches fixed and or repaired?

    “What percentage of the result of the Presidential election was uploaded on the I-Rev on Feb. 25?

    “What percentage of the result of the Presidential election was uploaded on the I-Rev at the time of the declaration of the Result of the Presidential election on March 1?”

  • We were told not to give results to agents who refused to sign –  INEC Staff  

    A staff of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Abedemi Joseph on Friday told the  Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, that they were instructed by their employer not to give copies of election results to political parties’ agents who declined to sign the results. 

    The Subpoenaed witness of PDP presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar revealed this in court.

    Led in evidence-in-chief by the petitioners’ lead counsel, Chris Uche, SAN, Joseph prayed the court to adopt her witness statement on oath as her evidence in the petition against the victory of Tinubu.

    Joseph, who was a presiding officer in Niger State during the February 25 presidential elections, told the court that she was satisfied with the process as instructed.

    She however said  that they had instructions not to give out results of the election to party agents who did not sign the result sheet.

    Also testifying, a presiding agent in Edo State during the election, told the court that she tried in vain to  upload the presidential election results to the INEC server.

    While another Subpoenaed witness from Kogi State, Grace Ajagbonna also affirmed the peaceful conduct of the election, she said she was not happy that she could not upload the presidential election results as instructed.

    Ajagbonna, responding to INEC counsel as to whether she was happy with the conduct of the election and her work as presiding officer, said, “I was not happy that I was unable to transmit the results to the server.”

    However, INEC, represented by Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN;  APC, represented by Lateef Fagbemi, SAN and other respondents objected to the use of statements made on oath by the subpoenaed  witnesses to be tendered at the Tribunal in aid of Atiku’s petition.

    Counsel to Atiku, Chris Uche SAN, urged the court to discountance their objections and grant their request. 

    The five-man panel headed by Justice, Haruna Tsammani  reserved ruling on the applications. 

    Meanwhile, the Court has adjourned further hearing to June 10.

  • BVAS failed to transmit results, INEC ad-hoc staff tell Tribunal

    Two subpoenaed witnesses of the People’s Democratic Party PDP and its Presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, have admitted that the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) failed to transmit the results of the election after collation had been done.

    The witnesses, Friday Egwuma, and Grace Timothy, respectively said this while testifying on Thursday at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) sitting in Abuja.

    The subpoenaed witnesses, both ad-hoc staff of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), said that the BVAS machine allocated to them developed a system error immediately results of the Senate and House of Representatives aspect of the polls were freely transmitted.

    Testifying before the court, the PW11 and PW12 explained that they had to resort to other means of getting the results through when it became clear that the BVAS machines would not help them.

    Led in evidence by Atiku’s lead counsel Chief Chris Uche SAN, Egwuma, an ex-Corp member, said he was a Presiding Officer in a polling unit in Abia State while Grace Timothy, also an ex-Corp member, performed her duty in Plateau State.

    Under cross-examination by counsel to INEC, Mr. Abubakar Mahmud SAN, Egwuma explained he resorted to an offline system in place of the BVAS machines.

    In the same vein, Grace Timothy told the court that the greatest challenge she experienced during the election was the uploading of the presidential election results into the I- rev portal.

    The witnesses were also cross-examined by Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN who stood for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Prince Lateef Fagbemi SAN who represented the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    Hearing on the matter continues tomorrow, June 9. 

  • Tribunal: INEC, Tinubu, APC oppose Atiku’s subpoena statement adoption

    Respondents in the petition filed by the Peoples’ Democratic Party PDP and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar on Thursday kicked against the application to adopt the statement on oath of the Petitioners’ subpoenaed witness as evidence.

    However, after listening to the argument of the parties, Justice Haruna Tsamani- led panel reserved ruling at a later date.

    At the resumed proceeding, the lead Counsel to the Petitioners, Chief Chris Uche, SAN called up his first Subpoenaed witness, Friday Egwuma.

    The witness, who lives in Kubwa, FCT, was an ex-Corp member and an INEC Ad-hoc staff during the 2023 Presidential election.

    Sequel to recognizing his statement on oath, the Witness applied for his statement to be adopted as his evidence in the petition.

    However, Counsel to President Ahmed Bola Tinubu and Shettima, Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN, objected to the adoption of the statement as evidence in the matter.

    Olanipekun argued that the statement on oath filed on June 6th was filed out of time. He maintained that the statement ought to have been front-loaded while filing the petition. He prayed the court to reject the application.

    On his part, the council to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Abubakar Mahmoud SAN, aligned himself with Olanipeku’s submissions. He posited that counsel to the Petitioners should have subpoenaed the witness under the provisions of Order 20, Rule 15 of the Federal High Court. He urged the court to uphold the objections.

    The All Progressive Congress (APC), through its counsel, Prince Lateef Fagbemi SAN, agreeing with the objections raised, maintained that the statement ought to have been front-loaded. 

    On the alternative, Fagbemi said that Petitioners should have filed an application for an extension of time to enable them to file formerly. He, therefore, urged the court to sustain the objections.

    Reacting, Chris Uche, told the court that the Respondents’ reactions were either out of utter misconception or a move designed to delay the proceeding.

    Premising on the provisions of Order 20 Rule 15 and 16 of the FHC rule of 2019, he said;

    “All the authorities cited by the Respondents are all in favor of our position that a written statement on oath cannot be front-loaded in advance when the statement is been filed even before the subpoena is issued or otherwise.

    “This is because the subpoenas are distinguished by law. They are being compelled to attend and thereby, do not fall into the category of additional witnesses.

    “It will amount to the bridge of fair hearing not to allow the subpoena witness to testify,” he submitted.

    Meanwhile, the court has reserved ruling on the application.

  • PDP dissolves Ebonyi, Ekiti States’ executives

    The National Working Committee (NWC) of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) has dissolved the party’s Ebonyi and Ekiti States’ executive committees with immediate effect.

    The PDP National Publicity Secretary, Mr. Debo Ologunagba said this in a statement in Abuja.

    Ologunagba said that the NWC approved the dissolution of the two states’ executive after extensive deliberations and consultations.

    He said the decision of the NWC was pursuant to Sections 29(2)(b) and 31(2)€ of the Constitution of the PDP (as amended in 2017).

    “The PDP charges all leaders, critical stakeholders, and teeming members of our Party in Ebonyi and Ekiti States respectively to remain united and focused on the task ahead,” Ologunagba said.