PDP, LP present witnesses, evidence, as PEPT adjourns till Wednesday

Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (PEPT), Tuesday, May 30, resumed sitting at the Court of Appeal headquarters in Abuja.

The resumed sitting followed a near one week break after the pre-trial hearing, as actual trial is expected to kick-off from Tuesday to August, this year.

Presided over by the PEPT Chairman, Justice Haruna Tsammani, the schedule for the PEPT as agreed by all parties at the close of pre-hearing, features a timeline that include; trial commencement from May 30 for all three petitioners to last three weeks.

Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, had opened proceedings after the Allied People’s Movement (APM)N had asked for an adjournment following the delay by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to provide them with true copies of documents requested.

The PDP legal team submitted crucial documents during the commencement of their petition at the PEPT, including evidence such as copies of result sheets, printouts of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), and a comprehensive record of the number of Permanent Voter Cards (PVC) collected across all 36 States and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) for the previous presidential election.

Eyitayo Jegede (SAN), the lawyer representing the petitioners, presented the documents from the bar, which were subsequently admitted as evidence.

However, objections were raised by the respondents’ legal team concerning certain aspects of the submitted documents.

Notably, the petitioners did not call any witnesses during this initial stage of the proceedings.

Meanwhile, in its own presentation  which followed afterwards, the Labour Party and its Presidential candidate, Peter Obi opted to commence its case with the constitutional issue of the drug dealing and money laundering charge by a United States court and the consequent forfeiture of $460, 000 to the American government by the now President, Bola Tinubu.

LP lawyers called up a witness, identified as Barrister Lawrence Uchechukwu Nnana Nwakaeti (LUNN), a former U.S resident now based in Anambra State, who subsequently tendered a certified true copy of the U.S court judgment before the PEPT, which was then admitted as exhibit.

Under cross examination, the witness by the respondents counsels (representing INEC) and APC/Tinubu), the witness insisted that the ‘the judgment speaks for itself.’

The dialogue (W-Witness, LP-Labour Party):

LP: I apply that the witness be recalled to the witness box. Witness is listed as Number 7 LUNN in our petition

Court: Is he a star witness?

LP: No he’s a moon witness (joke). He’s an ordinary witness

W: My name is LUNN (Abbreviated for Confidentiality)

LP: Where do you live?

W: Ihiala Anambra state

LP: On 20th of March 2023 you deposed to a witness statement to this honourable court. Please  identify it.

W: I can identify my deposition

LP: What do you want to do with it.

W: Before I continue I wish to ask to apply to amend at paragraph 10. I mistakenly inserted 14th July (not February) 2022.

LP: My Lords I hope you effect this corrections before we progress. I so apply

Court: Any objections?

Respondents: No objections

Court: In the absence of any opposition it is hereby amended.

W: I switch to adopt same as my evidence

LP: In Para 17 of witness disposition you referred to the proceedings of the US district courts. Are these the documents you referred to then?

W: Yes they are

LP: I apply to tender that document which has been listed at number 5, pages 2 to the last of exhibit BA. Witness referred to it in paragraph 17 of his deposition.

Court: Objections?

INEC: No objection

T/S: Yes. I will put it the objection with arguments in our final Address

APC: I am objecting but I’ll do so in my final address.

Court: Admitted and marked as exhibit

T/s: His time is up.

LP: In the interest of Justice, I just want the witness to just identify the do I’m and link it to his witness depositions

Please look at paragraph 7-11 of exh BA1 to BA4, are they the documents you referred to in your deposition?

W: Yes

LP: Thank you my Lord. I surrender him to cross examination

INEC: Witness, confirm to the court that you are a registered voter

W: I have my PVC and I voted on the 25th day of February, 2023

INEC: What’s your polling unit

W: Located in front of my house. Umuezala Village Square. That’s my polling unit

INEC: Will I be correct to say that you played no other role in the election

INEC:

W: year of call is 13th October, 2000

INEC: Confirm to the court the books you have published on Electoral Law.

LP: I oppose as he didn’t mention that in his deposition

W: I’m a legal practitioner, not an author.

INEc: Confirm to the court if you have ever appeared to the CA or Supreme Court as an Amigus on any constitutional matter

W: No

INEC: please confirm that your statements in Para 4, 15, 16 & 17 of your deposition are the legal opinion you have formed on the exhibit you have identified.

W: They are not my legal opinion but matters of pure law

INEC: You said you’re from Amoca Community. Confirm to the court that there was crises

LP: I object because there is nothing related to this in his deposition. The sky is not the limit for cross examination.

Court: INEC what are you driving at?

INEC: I want to establish that he is a serial at causing crises. It is relevant for injuring his credibility in this election. He caused the crisis such that they have two presidents in the elections

T/S: Good Day my Learned friend. Did you prepare the statement and reached the conclusion or it was prepared for you?

W: I vetted it myself and I did not draw conclusion but I stated facts

T/S: been to US? When and where?

W: Been Once in 2003, in Michigan.

T/S: In para: 17 & 18 you stated emphatically that the 2nd respondent was fined 460k dollars in the US. Do you still stand by it?

W: Yes I do

T/S: I suggest to you that you have never read through exhibit P5 series

W: I read through the entire document

T/S: Will it surprised that it was never indicated that in this document you tendered that no word, paragraph, line and sentence referred to him being fined?

W: I will be surprised because he was fined & the document speaks for itself.

T/S: We argue that this documents are not registered in Nigeria. Are they?

W: No but allow me to explain

T/S: No certificate from either the consul of United States you PDP know that?

The court thereafter scheduled the continuation of the hearing in the petition by the PDP/Atiku for Wednesday at 2 pm, while proceedings in the separate petition by Obi and the LP are set to resume at 9am on the same Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the Tribunal also adjourned the hearing of the petition of the APM till Wednesday, against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), APC, and others to June 2.

The adjournment is to give the petitioner time to acquire a certified true copy of the Supreme Court Judgment, delivered May 26, 2023, which laid to rest the controversies around the double nomination of Kashim Shettima.

APM’s petition has one item contained in it, which is challenging the legality of APC’s place holder system which allowed Shettima to move to assume the position of Vice Presidential candidate of the ruling party, as it sought the disqualification of the latter.