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.
