*
The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) has dismissed two applications by the presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP) in the 2023 general election, Mr. Peter Obi, seeking to interrogate the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) over the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) experts used for the conduct of the February 25, 2023, presidential election.
This is as the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, in Saturday called two additional witnesses to further prove his allegation of malpractices during the election.
A five-member panel of the PEPC in a unanimous decision held that the two applications were incompetent and lacking in merit and accordingly dismissed them.
The five-member panel had on Thursday reserved ruling after counsel to parties argued for and against the granting of the applications.
Obi and the LP had through their lawyer, Mr. Patrick Ikweto (SAN), at Thursday’s proceedings, moved two pending applications, which specifically sought to know the quality of the ICT experts deployed by INEC for the presidential poll.
Delivering the ruling in the two applications yesterday, the Chairman of the panel, Justice Haruna Tsammani held that the petitioners failed to establish “the existence of an extreme circumstance” for the granting of such applications.
According to the court, applications relating to electoral matters, including interrogatories must be filed and heard during the pre-hearing session, adding that any application which is brought after the end of pre-hearing must show extreme circumstances why the court should hear it.
Justice Tsammani held that the claim of the petitioners that the application was filed on May 22, the last day of pre-hearing could not be sustained because they failed to counter the submission of counsel to the All Progressives Congress (APC), Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), that the application was filed at the close of pre-hearing and not served on some of the respondents.
The panel further noted that even if the petitioners had filed on May 22, they ought to have drawn the attention of the court to the motion of notice, stating that not doing so was an indication that they may have abandoned the motion.
While stating that the petitioners did not challenge the report of the panel that the pre-hearing session ended on May 22, “nor draw the attention of the court to the pending applications,” Justice Tsammani held that, “it is the duty of a party who files a motion to indicate its intention to move it…a process not moved is deemed not to have been filed.”
The panel further stated that it was wrong for the petitioners to blame the respondents or the court for a motion that was not filed or moved.
“The application is incompetent and accordingly dismissed”, Justice Tsammani held.
Obi and LP had in their motion prayed the court for an order compelling INEC to supply them with the names and profiles of the ICT experts that participated in one way or another in the February 25 presidential election.
Besides, Obi and his party raised 12 questions to be forwarded to INEC for answers.
It is the position of the petitioners that INEC did not only breach its own regulations and guidelines for the conduct of the presidential election but manipulated the process so that the outcome provides specific desired results.
It was further stated in their submission that the request, if granted will assist them in establishing their petition challenging the declaration of Bola Tinubu as President.
The two applications – the first seeking leave of court to bring the application and the second the main application was first filed on May 22 and replaced with another dated June 2.
However, when Ikweto attempted to move the applications on June 5, the respondents objected because it was not ripe for a hearing.
When it was moved on June 8, the respondents however opposed the granting of the request because it was belated and the court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the applications.
According to INEC’s lawyer, Mr. Kemi Pinhero (SAN), the applications were not only incompetent but amounted to a waste of the precious time of the PREPEC.
He pointed out that the applications lacked merit because they were not brought within the time allowed by law.
He argued that such applications ought to have been brought and argued during the pre-hearing session of the PREPEC.
Similarly, Tinubu and APC represented by Chief Akin Olujimi (SAN) and Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), respectively, in their submissions also opposed the granting of the two applications.
After listening to the arguments of counsel representing parties, the Presiding Justice, Tsammani reserved the ruling for a later date, which was yesterday.
Atiku Calls 18 of 100 Witnesses to Prove Fraud at Presidential Election
Meanwhile the presidential candidate of PDP, Atiku yesterday called two additional witnesses to further prove his allegation of malpractice at the February 25 election.
The two make a total of 18 witnesses he has so far called out of 100 witnesses planned for the exercise.
Atiku 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 court.
They are challenging the outcome of the election on the ground that INEC, the electoral umpire, did not conduct the election following the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022.
At the resumed hearing on Saturday, one of Atiku’s new witnesses, Ms. Alheri Ayuba, said she was unhappy at her inability to upload results from her polling unit to 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 the 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.
The counsel for APC, Mr. Abiodun Fashanu (SAN), 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.
Alex Enumah in Abuja
Follow us on:
