Respondents’ delay tactics stall LP, Obi video evidence presentation at PEPT

Arguments, said to be delay tactics deployed by respondents delayed the presentation of video evidence by subpoenaed witnesses called by the Labour party/Peter Obi legal team at Friday’s proceedings of the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (PEPT) in Abuja, Friday.

The delay forced the court to adjourn till Saturday, as time allocated to the petitioners (LP and Obi) had already elapsed.

LP legal team’s arguments were led by Mr. JS Okutepa SAN, even as the party’s lead counsel, Dr Livy Uzoukwu led the lawyers into the courtroom for the day’s proceedings.

Labour Party called up a subpoenaed witness, Lucky Isawode, a software engineer who works at Channels Television as Senior Editor and another staff, a Reporter with the media organisation to back evidence in a video capturing a top Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) official, indentified as National Commissioner, Barrister Festus Okoye as guest on the media platform just before the 2023 elections.

Although there was no objection raised by the respondents of their testimony, however, an attempt to get them to testify through a presentation via video evidence on a large screen brought into the court by the LP legal team was promptly objected to by respondents’ counsels.

The arguments and counter-arguments dragged for several minutes forcing the PEPT Justices to adjourn, but not without admitting the documents as exhibits before the court.

Two video documents were tendered by the LP team but while respondents did not object to the second video, the first which captured INEC Commissioner, Festus Okoye’s presentation while featuring as guest on the Channels TV, was objected to by all respondents.

While the respondents argued that the petitioners should have served them the notice before the court date, the petitioner’s counsels cited previous cases in court where that procedure was not necessary, especially against the backdrop of the fact that the respondents have duly been served with the court processes indicating the presence of such videos to be tendered as evidence.

APC, Tinubu and Shettima lawyers objected to the video presented by Channels TV to be played.

APC: We need to be served first before you play the video. This is an ambush

SAN Okutepa (LP counsel): There’s no law that states such. My lord, we can move on and see what the witness wants us to see.

The court subsequently admitted all the videos but insisted that respondents be served first.

The videos were eventually not played in the courtroom. As the LP team say the videos will be played on the resumption date of proceedings, Saturday, June 10.

Legal experts reacting to what transpired at the PEPT, Friday, described the respondents’ arguments as ‘delay tactics’ intended to stall proceedings knowing that there was time allotted to presentations by petitioners in court, according to timeline scheduled and agreed by all parties.

Meanwhile, earlier Friday, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) during the morning session, had called up three witnesses, who served as INEC ad-hoc officers during the presidential election testified as subpoenaed witnesses for the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar.

More ad-hoc presiding officers on Friday told the court that the February 25 election results were not transmitted from the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) at polling units to the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV).

Three witnesses, who served as (INEC ad-hoc officers during the election testified as subpoenaed witnesses for the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar.

One of the witnesses, Grace Ajagbona, a resident of Egbe in Yagba West Local Government Area of Kogi State and an ex-National Youth Service Corps member, told the tribunal that they were able to upload results of the Senate and House of Representatives elections but they did not transmit results of the presidential election which held simultaneously.

Ajagbona told the court that she was not happy that she could not upload the polling unit results of the presidential election as provided in the Electoral Act, 2022 and the training manual.

Daily Trust reports that when counsel to President Bola Tinubu, who is the presidential candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), asked Ajagbona if she entered the name of her training officer in her statement, she answered no.

In the same vein, another witness, Abidemi Joseph, who served in Niger State during the election told the court that the presidential election results could not be transmitted by the BVAS from polling units.

Similarly, the third witness, Edosa Obosa, a corps member who served in Edo State as a presiding officer said she tried to upload the scanned results of the presidential election using the BVAS machine but it failed.

Under cross examination by lawyers to INEC, Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN); Bola Tinubu, Akin Olujimi (SAN); and the APC, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) all the three witnesses admitted that they manually submitted the original result sheets signed by party agents to the ward collation centres.

It would be recalled that Thursday’s proceedings had the two major petitioners, the PDPand candidate, Atiku Abubakar, as well as the LP and its flagbearer in the February 25, 2023 election, take turns to call witnesses to the box, in accordance with the timeline drawn by all parties at the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (LEPT) in Abuja.

While LP counsels were led into the courtroom by Dr Livy Uzoukwu SAN, the proceedings were conducted by Mr P. Ikwueto SAN.

LP intended calling up two witnesses, but only one, a computer software engineer, gave evidence due to shortage of time.

Meanwhile, arguments over refusal and delay by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to provide documents it had agreed before the court to give to the petitioners dominated proceedings as both the PDP earlier, and the LP argued over applications and counter-applications filed by counsels.

Documents including INEC EC40G from four local government areas in Bayelsa State were also tendered by the LP team.

All tendered documents though objected to by respondents were, however, admitted by the court, as exhibits.

LP/Obi’s sole witness, a software engineer, identified as Anthony Chinwo, in his testimony, asked the court to adopt his statement on oath.

In his statement on oath before the court, he said from his knowledge of software engineering and computer operations, “the information or data generated/inputted in the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System whether operating online or offline were transmitted to the INEC servers, including the virtual server hosted on the Amazon Web Services, AWS, Cloud Platform.”

He also deposed in his statement on oath that the AWS is the world’s most comprehensive platform which enables large enterprises and government agencies to “effectively and in real-time manage data”, thereby disputing the statement by INEC about technical glitches during the presidential election.

Under cross-examination, INEC lawyer, A.B Mahmoud SAN asked him if he was familiar with any of the applications on the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines, to which he replied in the negative, noting, however, that he was familiar with the backend server and INEC Results Viewing Portal, IRev.

Also under cross examination by the Tinubu and Kashim Shettima’s lawyer, Yusuf Ali SAN, when asked the witness if he was still standing by his statement on oath, the witness replied: “They are seventeen paragraphs and I stand by them,” the witness replied.

When pressed further by Ali, the witness agreed that while the election is disputed, it is only INEC that prescribes the procedures for conduct of election in Nigeria.

Earlier, counsel to Tinubu, Shettima and APC had claimed that one of the two witnesses called by the PDP, was an imposter.

According to the legal team of Bola Tinubu and the APC, one of the witnesses that was presented by the PDP said that his name is Egumah Omachonu who acted as a presiding officer at a polling unit during the presidential election. However, the legal team of Tinubu and APC told the tribunal that one Faga Kehen was the presiding officer in the polling unit Egumah claimed that he worked during the election.

Both witnesses Egumah and Grace Timothy told the court that they served as Presiding Officers in Abia and Bauchi, respectively, during the general elections. The two witnesses told the tribunal that after the election, they tried to upload the results for the presidential election but it did not go through. However, they told the court that the results for the senate election uploaded to the portal without any issues.

After APC and Bola Tinubu’s lawyers claimed that Egumah Friday was an impostor, however, they did not object to Grace Timothy’s testimony.

The court ruled to adjourn till Friday, June 9 for further proceedings.