The All Progressives Congress (APC) and its candidate in the last governorship election in Kogi State, Governor Usman Ododo are to open their defence on April 15 in the dispute over the outcome of the election held on November 11, 2023.
The Social Democratic Party (SDP) and its candidate in the election, Murtala Yakubu Ajaka are challenging Ododo’s victory before the state Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, sitting in Abuja.
On Friday, the petitioners – SDP and Ajaka – closed their case, following which three-member tribunal,, headed by Justice Ado Birnin-Kudu, adjourned till April 15 for the respondents to commence their defence.
The petition by the SDP and Ajaka has the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Ododo and APC listed as first, second and third respondents.
At the commencement of proceedings on Friday, lawyers to the respondents opposed the move by the petituoners’ lawyer, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) to call a Digital Forensic Expert, Edidiong Udoh as his witness.
Kanu Agabi (SAN) for INEC, Alex Iziyon (SAN) for Ododo and Emmanuel Ukala (SAN) for the APC argued that the petitioners did not list Ufoh among its witness as required by law.
They added that Udoh’s witness statement on oath was not front-loaded alongside the petition, as required.
The respondents’ lawyers equally argued that the petitioners served the reports of the witness’ analysis on them 20 minutes before the commencement of the proceedings.
Okutepa however insisted that the forensic expert was listed on Page 56 of the petition as item 10, adding that his statement was also front-loaded.
He agreed that the report was served on the respondents a few minutes to the proceedings.
Okutepa subsequently urged the tribunal to allow him lead Udoh in evidence and stand down the matter for 30 minutes for the respondents to study the report.
When he was eventually allowed to testify, Udoh sought the tribunal’s permission to effect some corrections in his statement, which the tribunal allowed, but asked the respondents to raise their objection at the point of final address.
The witness said: “The particular words that I used were not proper. I said, ‘There was some very suspicious software.’ I apply to change it to ‘there was no suspicious software used,’” he prayed.
Agabi, Iziyon and Ukala disagreed with Udoh’s oral application.
Agabi said: “If this kind of amendment is permissible, then there is no kind of amendment that cannot be permissible,” Agabi said.
The judge asked them to reserve their objections for their final written addresses.
Iziyon and Ukala, who aligned with Agabi’s submission, agreed to raise the objection at the appropriate time.
While giving evidence, Udoh said he had 12 certificates in support of his qualifications.
And when Okutepa sought to tender the certificates of the witness as exhibits, the respondents’ lawyers objected.
They queried why the counsel only sought to tender photocopies of the certificates without supporting the documents with the originals.
The witness responded that he forgot to come with the original certificates.
“The originals were mistakenly left in my office in Port Harcourt but I have them,” Udoh said.
Although the tribunal refused to admit the photocopies, the petitioners’ lawyer pleaded, insisting that the certificates were personal documents and that they could be admitted.
Justice Birnin-Kudu admitted the documents and urged the counsel for the respondents to reserve their objections till the final address.
On cross-examination, the witness was asked if he was the only one that worked on the report, and he said eight other experts worked on it with him.
His attention was drawn to the fact that he did not signify the names of these experts in the report and that their signatures were not also included.
Udoh responded that his name and signature were on the report because he was the team leader.
“Eight of us conducted the analysis. As digital forensic experts, our qualifications are identical.
“I signed the report as the team lead. The reason I did not include their name is because I was the team lead,” he said.
The witness was also asked if he knew the meaning of BVAS Machine and what it contained. He said they were supposed to contain information on accredited voters and registered voters and any other information.
The Respondents’ counsel asked if such information included Form EC8A and he said yes, it might include it.
The respondents’ lawyer then asked if all the snap shots of BVAS Machine that were included in his report contained Form EC8A.
Udoh said the snap shots were only for accredited voters and registered voters.
The INEC guideline provides what BVAS should contain and Form EC8A is one of it.
When asked if he examined the ballot papers and if his findings on the ballot papers were contained in his report, he said no.
He, however, confirmed that INEC gave him the voters register but that he could not remember the number given to him.
A major discrepancy observed during the hearing was that figures reflected in the witness’ report conflicted with the figures contained in SDP’s petition.
But he said he did not depend on the petition to write his report.
The witness, who was said to have used a word, dactylography, in his report was asked if he knew the meaning, he said yes, that he was an expert in finger print.
His attention was then brought to his CV, as tendered, which did not mention that.
When asked if he knew that there was a certificate for experts in dactylography, he said he didn’t know.
