The move by the former Vice President and candidate of the Peoples’ Democratic Party PDP, Abubakar Atiku to bring subpoenaed witnesses into the hearing of his petition on Wednesday, to tender some sensitive documents was vehemently opposed by the Respondents.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), President Bola Tinubu, and the All Progressives Congress (APC) through their counsel respectively opposed the calling of the subpoenas to testify against their clients.
At the proceedings, lead counsel to the PDP, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, Atiku said he had four witnesses for the day. One is already front-loaded while three are Subpoenaed. One of the subpoenaed witnesses is an INEC Adhoc staff in the 2023 Presidential election.
Shortly after the end of the cross-examination of the witness, Hon. Ndubuisi Nwobu from Anambra State, Uche informed the court that the petitioners have three subpoenaed witnesses and went to call the first one, an Adhoc staff of INEC.
However, immediately the witness entered the witness box and barely before he could take his oath, counsel to INEC, Mr Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, rose in objection to the hearing of the evidence of the witness.
He informed the court that he was only served this morning with the statement of the witness and as such would have to study the statement in order to do a thorough cross-examination.
Tinubu’s lawyer, Chief Akin Olujimi, SAN, and APC’s lawyer, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, aligned with INEC, adding that they were only served barely 20 minutes ago with the statement and had not seen what it contains.
Reacting, Uche maintained they are not supposed to front-load subpoenas statements to the respondents, adding that there was nothing strange in the statement of the witness to warrant an adjournment.
At the juncture, Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani, proposed standing down the trial for 30 minutes to enable respondents look at the documents and thereby cross examination the first subpoenaed witness.
Meanwhile, the electoral body insisted that the witness should not be allow to testify because the witness “is said to be an Adhoc staff of the Commission” and as such he would have to go and look at INEC’s records to enable him confirm the status of the witness and prepare adequately.
Consequently, Uche urged the court to adjourn till tomorrow for the calling of the three subpoenaed witnesses.
The hearing into the petition continues on June 8.
