Two ad-hoc Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) officials for the February 25 presidential election said yesterday that the exercise went without hitches where they served.
The duo – Friday Omachonu Egwumah and Grace Timothy- said they served as polling unit Presiding Officers (POs) in two states.
They were subpoenaed witnesses by the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP) and its candidate, Atiku Abubakar, who are seeking the nullification of the election of Asiwaju Bola Tinubu as president.
Egwumah, a former National Youth Service Corps(NYSC) member, who served at Unit 017, Ward 03, Aba North Local Government Area in Abia State, testified as the petitioners’ 12th witness (PW12). Timothy, also an ex-NYSC member served in Bauchi. He was PW13.
They gave similar evidence, insisting that the conduct of the presidential election complied with the relevant rules, guidelines and laws in their activities, including delivering the original signed copies of the collated polling unit results (Forms EC8A) to their various Ward Registration Area Collation Centres.
While being cross-examined by INEC Lawyer, Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), Egwumah said he could not immediately upload the results of the presidential election but that he succeeded in transmitting those of the National Assembly elections.
Egwumah said it was also possible to transmit results through offline mode, where pictures were taken of the results sheet with the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) automatically transmitted by itself anywhere one encounters network challenges.
The witness said he took the copy of the presidential election result sheet along with the other results to the ward collation centre as required.
“I was very happy with the conduct of the election. I was happy the exercise went well where I served,” he said.
Egwumah, who was also, cross-examined by Tinubu’s Lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), said: “I did a very good job on that day. I did not breach any law or regulations while performing my duties.
”Part of my activities, as a PO, was to announce the results of the polling unit. Labour Party won in the polling unit where I served.”
Under cross-examination by the lawyer to the All Progressives Congress (APC), Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), Egwumah said he acted all through the election, according to the training he got from INEC.
He stated that when he got to the ward collation centre to submit the results from his polling unit, he met the ward collation officer, agents of the various political parties and security operatives.
Timothy, while being cross-examined by Mahmoud said: “I conducted my affairs at the polling unit as I was trained. I carried out the accreditation of voters with the BVAS device which went smoothly.
”Voting went well in my polling unit. I completed Form EC8A myself and signed it before delivering it to the ward collation centre. It was the results recorded at the polling unit that I submitted at the ward collation centre.”
Earlier, Mahmoud, Olanipekun and Fagbemi objected to the adoption of the written statements made by the subpoenaed witnesses, which were filed on June 6.
Olanipekun, who was the first to raise an objection, argued that the petitioners acted in violation of the provision of paragraph 4(5) of the first schedule to the Electoral Act 2022 by not filing the witness statements along with their petition as required.
He cited three earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal, arguing that it was wrong for the petitioners to file witness statements outside the period allowed by law.
Olanipekun added that the provision made no distinction between a willing witness and a subpoenaed one. He stated that it was only the court that could invite a witness on its own outside the time provided by law for parties to do so.
He urged the court to reject the statements, numbering five.
Mahmoud, who also cited additional decisions of the Court of Appeal on the issue, said the correct position of the law is as stated by Olanipekun, adding: “The provision of the Electoral Act requires that all depositions be front-loaded.”
But Atiku’s Lawyer, Chris Uche(SAN), offered a counter-argument and urged the court to allow the statement. He contended that it would violate the petitioners’ right to a fair hearing if the witnesses, who could easily be cross-examined by the respondent’s lawyers, were denied the opportunity to testify.
Citing some previous decisions of the Court of Appeal, Uche argued that the requirement of front-loading applies only to willing witnesses and not subpoenaed ones.
He consequently urged the court to discountenance the objection raised by Mahmoud, Olanipekun and Fagbemi.
The court rose briefly to consider the arguments. When the court returned, it announced that it has elected to reserve its ruling until the day of judgment.
Further hearing in the case resumes today.
However, lawyers to LP and its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, continued the presentation of their case by calling a witness, Anthony Chinwo, who described himself as a software engineer and architect.
Led in evidence by one of the lawyers, Patrick Ikwueto (SAN), Chinwo said he did not vote during the election. In his written statement, he stated among others in paragraph 16 that the results of the election and other relevant data were uploaded.
Under cross-examination by Lawyer Tinubu, Yusuf Ali (SAN), Chinwo said he stood by his assertion that the results were uploaded but not in real-time.
The witness also confirmed his assertion in his statement that it was only INEC that can determine the mode of transmission of results of any election it conducted.
Chinwo said he was not in a position to say the number of software deployed by INEC in the conduct of the general elections.
Under cross-examination by Mahmoud, Chinwo said he did not okay any role during the last election and that he has not developed any software that has been used to conduct any election either in Nigeria or abroad.
He said that the Amazon Web Services (AWS) used by INEC during the election was the safest provider of cloud computer services globally.
While being cross-examined by Fagbemi, the witness admitted that he omitted to describe himself as an Architect in his written statement and that he also failed to provide his profile, including his qualification and the schools he attended.
At the conclusion of Chinwo’s testimony, Ikwueto argued two motions, in which clients are seeking the court’s permission to serve some questionnaires (interrogatories) on INEC outside the pre-hearing session.
Ikwueto said the questionnaires, which contain about 12 questions, deal substantially with the cardinal issues in their petition, which is mainly on non-compliance.
INEC lawyer, Pinheiro, Akin Olujinmi for Tinubu and Vice- President, Kashim Shettma, and Olanrewaju Akinsola for the APC, opposed the motions by the petitioners and prayed the court to dismiss them.
Trouble, however, crept in when at the point of tendering more documents the court discovered that the Forms EC40G (summary of registered voters in polling units where elections were cancelled or did not hold) which the petitioners’s lawyer, Paul Ananaba (SAN), tendered were not properly arranged.
Angered by the development, the Presiding Justice, Justice Haruna Tsammani, wondered why the petitioners’ legal team could not do a tidy job despite their number.
”You have the names of over 100 lawyers in your team. Yet, every time, you keep making mistakes,” Tsammani noted.
Another member of the court’s five-member panel, Justice Stephen Adah, noted that the manner the petitioners arranged their documents was confusing.
The Justices made efforts to salvage the situation by suggesting how the documents could be better arranged.
But, on realising that the development was unduly delaying proceedings, Tsammani ordered the petitioners to go home and put their house in order.
He said: “Go and arrange yourselves and come back tomorrow. We cannot afford to continue to waste time.”
The Presiding Justice then adjourned further proceedings till today.
