- INEC explains objection to election materials’ admissibility at tribunal
- Obi tenders more results from six states
- Delay in Supreme Court stalls hearing in APM’s petition against Tinubu, Shettma, others
Three witnesses for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its presidential candidate in the last election, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, yesterday told the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) that they observed manipulation of the election in some areas.
Sani Idris Kutigi, Nicholas Msheliza and Silas Joseph Onu – who claimed to be PDP’s state collation agents (SCA) however said they did not witness every act of alleged manipulation.
They said they received reports of manipulation from other PDP agents.
Under cross-examination by counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), Kutigi, who was PDP’s SCA in Niger State, admitted that the election was held as required, stating all the various stages.
Kutigi, under cross-examination by counsel to President Bola Tinubu, Akin Olujinmi (SAN), also said his party had agents in all the 4,947 polling units in the state and performed their duties very well.
The witness, who in paragraph 11 of his written statement claimed that INEC did not transmit actual results of the election to the INEC Results Viewing (IReV) portal, however admitted that he failed to include, in his statement, what he believed to be the actual results that were not transmitted to IReV by INEC officials.
Under cross-examination by lawyer to the All Progressives Congress (APC), Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), Kutigi said although he faulted the scores recorded by INEC after the election, he failed to include in his statement what he believed were the actual scores of the parties.
Kutigi said besides the figures announced by INEC, which were reflected in his statement before the court, he did not provide any alternative figures.
Msheliza, while being cross-examined by Pinheiro, claimed that although the election went peacefully at the polling unit level, the manipulation took place at the collation centres.
The witness, who said he acted as PDP’s SCA in Borno State, said: “The real election was held at the polling unit level, but the real disaster happened at the ward collation centres where results from the polling units were changed.”
Msheliza, who said his party’s agents performed their duties excellently well where they were allowed, claimed that election results were not transmitted electronically as required.
He said Borno State had 5,017 polling units but he did not visit all of them to witness what transpired during the election.
Under cross-examination by Olujinmi, the witness said he failed to indicate, in his written statement before the court, the actual places where his party’s agents were not allowed to perform their responsibilities.
When asked if he reflected in his statement the collation centres where the alleged manipulation took place, the witness said he did not.
While being cross examined by Fagbemi, Msheliza said he got reports about what transpired at the polling units from his party’s agents.
Onu, who claimed to be a lawyer and politician, said he acted as PDP’s SCA in Ebonyi State.
He claimed that electoral malpractices took place all over the state, but that he was unable to visit all the 2,964 polling units in Ebonyi to personally witness the incidents.
Under cross-examination by Olujinmi, Onu said he visited many polling units during the election but could not state the actual number of those he visited when asked to do so.
The witness said there was no specific time within which INEC was required to transmit results to either the Collation Centres or its IReV.
Under cross-examination by Fagbemi, Onu said he got reports about happenings at the various polling units directly from his party’s agents and not from Ward and Local Government agents of his party.
Onu, who claimed to have worked as PDP’s SCA, was however confronted by Fagbemi with a portion of his statement where he described himself as PDP’s State Collation Officer (SCO), a title reserved solely for INEC officials.
At the conclusion of Onu’s testimony, lawyer to the petitioners, Chris Uche (SAN) urged the court to adjourn till Monday, following which Justice Haruna Tsammani, the court’s Presiding Justice, adjourned till 9am on June 5 at 9am.
Earlier at the hearing of the petition by the Labour Party (LP) and Peter Obi, Pinheiro explained why INEC was objecting to the admissibility of election materials tendered by the petitioner before the court.
Pinheiro said although the documents were certified by INEC, it had to raise objection where such documents were neither pleaded nor issues joined on them by parties.
Pinheiro made the clarification while objecting to the admissibility of CTCs of election result sheets tendered before the court by lawyers to the Labour Party (LP) and its presidential candidate, Peter Obi.
He said: “We are objecting to the admissibility of the documents sought to be tendered by the petitioners as argued in our motion heard on the 20th of May.
“This is because issues were not joined in respect of these Local Government Areas (to which the results relate). All these Local Government Areas are strange to the petitioners.”
Pinheiro promised to provide elaborate reasons for INEC’s objection at the point of filing its final written address.
Lawyers to other respondents in the petition – Yusuf Ali (SAN) for Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettma, and Professor Dakas Dakas for the All Progressives Congress (APC) also objected to the admissibility of the electoral documents – Forms EC8A – tendered by the petitioners at yesterday’s hearing.
Ali and Dakas promise to provide reasons for their objection while filing their final written addresses.
The court admitted all the documents as exhibits.
The result sheets from six states were tendered for the petitioners by a member of their legal team, Peter Afuba (SAN).
The six states are Adamawa, Bayelsa, Oyo, Edo, Lagos and Akwa Ibom.
This brings to 12 the number of states in respect of which the petitioners have so far tendered CTCs of Forms EC8A, having tendered for six states on Thursday.
Those tendered on Friday were in respect of 21 LGAs in Adamawa; eight LGAs in Bayelsa; 31 in Oyo State; 18 LGAs in Edo; 20 LGAs in Lagos and 31 in Akwa Ibom.
After tendering the documents for Akwa Ibom State, the leader of the petitioners’ legal team, Livy Uzoukwu (SAN), applied for an adjournment on the grounds that they had exhausted what they brought for the day.
Following agreement by parties, the court adjourned further hearing in the petition till Monday at 2pm.
Meanwhile, the delay in Supreme Court’s release of its May 26 judgment on the case by the PDP stalled yesterday’s scheduled hearing in the petition filed by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM).
The Supreme Court had, in the judgment, dismissed the case by the PDP in which the party sought to void the joint ticket of Tinubu and Shettma as presidential and vice presidential candidates of the APC in the last election.
The PDP had, in its case claimed that Shettima violated the Electoral Act by allowing himself to be nominated twice for two different offices – Borno Central Senatorial District and Vice President.
Upon being informed about the Supreme Court judgment on May 30, the PEPC adjourned hearing in the petition by the APM, which raised the same issue as in the PDP case, till Friday.
Parties were to report today on the status of the petition in view of the judgment, which dealt with the same issue of alleged double nomination of Shettma.
At the mention of the petition yesterday, the petitioner’s new lawyer, Yakubu Maikasua (SAN), told the court that his client was yet to access a certified true copy (CTC) of the judgment to enable it take a position on its effect on the status of their petition.
Lawyers to other parties, including Fagbemi for the APC, also confirmed the development, following which Maikasua applied that the case be further adjourned till next Friday.
Without any objection from the respondents’ lawyers, Justice Tsammani, the court’s Presiding Justice, adjourned till June 9 for hearing in the petition.