Presidential Election Petition Court: Week in Review

The Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC) which was inaugurated on March 8 entered week five on June 5.

There have been some very interesting moments from the day of the inauguration till date.

The proceedings of the court have kept Nigerians and international community glued to their television screens, phone screens, laptops and other electronic gadgets to follow proceedings of the court.

It is arguable that the name Justice Haruna Tsammani, the Chairman of the Court, has topped most online search engines such as Google, YouTube and so on since the court’s inaugural sitting on March 8.

For the week under review, the major highlights were testimonies from witnesses of Alhaji Abubakar Atiku and the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) and a ruling on a request to question the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC).

Another highlight was the playing of video evidence tendered in court through Mr Peter Obi and the Labour Party’s witness and its candidate in the disputed election.

Mr Abiye Sekibo, a witness of the PDP and Atiku told the court that “agents” of All Progressives Congress, (APC) truncated the uploading of results to the INEC server in Rivers.

Sekibo, a former Transportation Minister said he was PDP’s coordinator for the Feb. 25 Presidential Election in Rivers.

He said officials of INEC were prevented by the agents from using the Bimodal Voters Accreditation System (BVAS) machines to upload collated results from polling units across the state.

“The agents of the 2nd and 3rd respondents ensured that INEC presiding officers did not upload results of the presidential election, INEC couldn’t upload results across the entire Rivers ,” he said.

Led in his evidence by Atiku’s lawyer, Mr Eyitayo Jegede, SAN, Sekibo further alleged that the agents unleashed violence on voters and residents around polling units in the state.

When asked if he knew the names of the agents who allegedly perpetrated the violence at the polls the witness said he didn’t know.

When asked how he was able to trace the identity of the agents to be those of the APC, Sekibo said he deduced the agents’ identities from their violent actions.

Atiku and the PDP also called former members of the National Youth Service Corps, (NYSC) Ms Alheri Ayuba and Sadiya Haruna .

The witnesses told the court that they were employed by INEC as ad hoc staff and served as presiding officers in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

They were led in evidence by Mr Chris Uche, SAN and asked that the court adopts their witness statements on oath as their evidence in the petition.

Counsel to all the respondents objected to the admissibility of the documents and said they would give their reasons in their final addresses.

The two witnesses who served as presiding officers told the court that they performed their duties during the election strictly in compliance with INEC guidelines.

They said after the counting of votes at their respective polling units, the BVAS machines failed to upload results in real time.

During cross-examination, both witnesses were asked if they were influenced or induced by anyone to do something wrong during the election and they both said “no”.

On the part of Obi and the Labour Party, it will be recalled that they had filed a motion praying the court to grant them permission to interrogate INEC and its chairman.

They had sought permission to ask specific questions relating to the commission’s preparations and conduct of the 2023 presidential elections and as it related to its use of ICT experts.

Giving its ruling on June 10, the PEPC refused the request on the grounds that the request seemed like an afterthought.

The questions, known in legal parlance as interrogatories were in relation to the commission’s preparations and conduct of the 2023 presidential election.

The motion, as filed and argued by Mr Patrick Ikweto, SAN was objected to by all the respondents: INEC, President Bola Tinubu,Vice-President Kashim Shetima and the APC.

The respondents based their objections on the grounds that such motions could only be entertained at the pre-hearing stage, which had since elapsed.

Attempts by Ikweto to convince the court that the motion was filed on May 22 before the close of the pre-hearing session was not successful.

In resolving the matter, the Chairman of the Court, Justice Haruna Tsammani held that the motion was as good as abandoned.

He said that Obi and the Labour Party did not draw the attention of the court to the motion and there was no way the court could have known of the existence of such a motion.

According to Justice Tsammani, simply filing a motion is not enough as it is the responsibility of the applicant to move or request to move his application since the court cannot on its own, hear an application.

The five-man panel of the court also held that the petitioners did not disclose the extreme circumstance that would warrant the court to grant them leave for hearing of a motion outside the pre-hearing session.

Following their failure to secure permission to question INEC and its chairman, Obi and the Labour Party proceeded to call its next witness, Mr Lucky Obewo of Channels Television.

Through Obewo, the petitioners tendered two video clips in evidence.

When the first video clip was played in court, the INEC chairman Prof. Mahmoud Yakubu was heard saying ‘’there is no going back on the deployment of BVAS for voter accreditation’’ and ‘’no going back on transmission of results to IREV in real time on election day”.

In the second video, INEC’s National Commissioner, Mr Festus Okoye was heard explaining the role of the BVAS to accredit voters, scan results and upload same to the result viewing portal IREV.

He also said in the video that where there was a dispute, one could always go back to the electronically transmitted result.

The petitioners also tendered Form EC40G for eight local government areas in Benue and the court admitted them in evidence as exhibits.

Counsel to all the respondents objected to the admissibility of the documents and said they would advance their reasons during the final address.

It is also worthy of note that the court has fixed June 19 to begin hearing the petition of the Allied Peoples Movement, (APM).

Hearing in the petition was put on hold to enable the petitioner obtain a Supreme Court judgment which had allegedly settled the sole issue in the petition.

However, at the resumed hearing on June 9, counsel to the petitioner, Mr Yakubu Maikasuwa, SAN told the court that he had yet to obtain a certified true copy of the judgment from the apex court.

Supreme reports that so far, Atiku and the PDP have called 18 witnesses out of the 100 they have lined up while Obi and the Labour Party have called two witnesses out of the 50 they have lined up.

By Wandoo Sombo