PEPC: Attention Shifts to Judiciary

With the Independent National Electoral Commission, President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress closing their defence last week at the Presidential Election Petitions Court, attention will now shift to the five-man panel to do justice to the case, writes Wale Igbintade

Ater calling only one witness, President Bola Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima and the All Progressives Congress (APC) last Wednesday concluded their defence in the petition filed by Peter Obi and his party, Labour Party (LP) at the Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC).

Lawyer to Tinubu and Shettima, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) announced the closure of his clients’ case after their sole witness, Senate Majority Leader, Senator Michael Opeyemi Bamidele concluded his testimony. –

Olanipekun also tendered 18 sets of documents, including LP’s membership register for Anambra State, which Bamidele claimed did not contain Obi’s name, the implication of which, he averred, was that he was not a member of the party when he contested the last presidential election.

Tinubu and Shettima argued that not being a member of the party as at the time of the last presidential election, was enough to disqualify Obi and insisted that he ought not to have contested the last election on the platform of the LP.

Olanipekun tendered the document along with LP’s letter, dated April 25, 2022 forwarding the membership register to the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The documents were tendered along with other documents at the commencement of the defence of Tinubu and Shettma in the petition by Obi and the LP before the PEPC. –

Some of the documents tendered before the five-member panel of the court chaired by Justice Haruna Tsammani, were Tinubu’s academic records from the Chicago State University in the United States, certified true copies of correspondences between the Nigeria Police Force and the US Embassy in Nigeria concerning alleged criminal records of the president in the US over drug trafficking.

The US consulate had written to the then Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun, now deceased, clearing Tinubu of any criminal conviction or arrest in the US. The letter was dated February 4, 2003.

Most of the documents tendered in the Obi’s case were earlier admitted in evidence at the opening of Tinubu’s  defence in Atiku Abubakar’s petition also contesting the outcome of the presidential poll.

Atiku, of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), who came second in the race, also challenged Tinubu’s victory on similar grounds as Obi’s.

Other vital documents also tendered included: Data page of Tinubu’s Nigerian passports issued on February 2, 2011 and November 20, 2019; visa to the US issued on February 4, 2011 and acknowledgement copy of Kashim Shettima’s notice of voluntary withdrawal of candidacy from Borno Central Senatorial District election dated February 6, 2023.

Though Obi’s lawyer, Livy Uzoukwu SAN, objected to the admissibility of the documents the court admitted them and marked them as Exhibits RA17 and RA18, after INEC and the APC consented to the court’s admissibility of the documents.

On his part, APC counsel, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), said upon assessing the state of the case, his client is satisfied that it had sufficiently made its case and need not call any witness. He subsequently announced the closure of his client’s case.

On its part, INEC closed its defence by calling one witness, Lawrence Bayode, a Director in the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Department of the Commission. This was after the other witnesses refused to show up in court on the first day. The commission also tendered some documents, which were admitted and marked as exhibits.

During cross-examination, Bayode said the blurred documents downloaded from the IReV did not affect the polling unit results recorded in forms EC8As. He said photographic copies of forms EC8A captured with the bimodal voter accreditation system (BVAS) and transmitted to IReV, were not relevant for the collation of results.

The witness also told the court that the glitch recorded during the presidential poll did not affect the credibility of election results. He said only physical results (forms EC8As) were used for collating final election results.

Recall that aggrieved political parties in the February 25 presidential election and their candidates had challenged the outcome of the poll, insisting that it was not in compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution. 

Specifically, the PDP and Atiku disputed the outcome of the election on the major grounds that INEC did not conduct the election in line with the Electoral Act (2022). They argued that INEC breached its earlier commitment to transmit the result of the presidential election electronically using the Bimodal Voters Accreditation System (BVAS) and INEC Results Viewing Portal (IReV).

On their part, the LP and Obi also contended that the elections were marred by electoral malpractices. They accused INEC of rigging the election in favour of Tinubu. They further accused Tinubu of fraudulent academic records and drug trafficking, amongst other issues.

The petitioners asked the court to invalidate the declaration of Tinubu as the winner.

Recall that before closing their cases on June 21, Atiku and PDP called 27 witnesses, while Obi and LP called 13.

Both candidates’ witnesses included party agents and officials, experts, forensic analysts and subpoenaed presiding officers of INEC.

In the course of the proceedings, both petitioners tendered a litany of documents, which were admitted by the court and marked as exhibits. The petitioners also subpoenaed witnesses, including INEC ad hoc staff and officials, to appear before the court.

While closing their case, PDP and Atiku’s 27th witness, Mr. Mike Enahoro Ebah, tendered some documents in his efforts  to prove the allegation that President Tinubu forged his academic career and diplomatic records.

The witness further tendered notarised judgment of the US District Court regarding Tinubu’s alleged forfeiture of funds traced to his bank account suspected to be proceeds of narcotic deals.

Led to give evidence by PDP’s lead counsel, Chris Uche (SAN), Enahoro-Ebah, tendered INEC Forms EC13 and EC9 (nomination forms) filed by Tinubu at INEC. He also tendered an affidavit, receipts and a letter submitted to INEC by President Tinubu as part of his nomination documents.

Other documents he included were an INEC-certified Chicago State University certificate, an NYSC discharge Certificate bearing the name “Tinubu Bola Adekunle”, and Tinubu’s certificate of service from Mobil Nigeria Plc, as well as particulars submitted to INEC when he ran as Lagos State governor.

Enahoro-Ebah also tendered in evidence, the academic records from Chicago State University belonging to Tinubu, obtained through a subpoena that was served on the university by his lawyer in the US. According to the records, a copy of the actual degree certificate issued by Chicago State University to Tinubu, his undergraduate certificate from the said university in 1977, and a South West College Transcript issued to Tinubu, had female as the gender of the applicant.

Also critical to note in the documents tendered was that at the time of his supposed graduation from the university, there was no NYSC exemption on the basis of age. This means that he ought to have produced an NYSC Certificate and not an exemption letter.  In addition, the documents obtained by the witness from the Chicago State University indicate that in the said transcript, the certificate bearer is a female and not male, as claimed by Tinubu. 

Before him, a subpoenaed witness and digital forensic analyst, Hitler Nwala, while giving evidence as an expert witness, had told the court that results on all the 110 Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines he inspected were deleted.

He also told the court that he didn’t know at what point the results were deleted on the machines. He added that he attached a standard device used for such an exercise to the machine to arrive at the conclusion.

When asked if he had the authority of the commission to attach an external device to the BVAS machine, the witness answered in the affirmative.

Also at the proceedings, PDP lawyer Eyitayo Jegede (SAN) tendered more INEC-certified true copies of Form EC8As for Ogun, Ondo, Jigawa, Rivers, Delta, Ebonyi, Edo, Enugu, Imo and Kogi states.

On his part, Obi and his party closed their case after calling a total of 13 witnesses and presenting several electoral documents, including INEC Form EC8As.

The Chief Spokesman of the LP Presidential Campaign Council and National Director, Media, Labour Party, Yunusa Tanko, who testified last, told the court that he also served as the national collation agent at the party’s situation room.

Led in evidence by Obi’s lead counsel, Levy Uzoukwu (SAN), Tanko tendered receipts issued by INEC to LP for several documents requested from the electoral umpire by the party. The court admitted them in evidence. He had earlier tendered 18,088 blurred polling unit results downloaded from IReV certified by INEC, and the five-man panel of the court led by Justice Tsammani admitted them as evidence.

The petitioners also tendered BVAS machine reports from 28 states of the federation and the FCT, Abuja. They lamented the refusal of the Chairman of INEC, Prof. Yakubu Mahmood, to accept summons to appear and produce documents used for the February 25 presidential election before the court.

Uzoukwu insisted that it was very clear that the INEC chairman could not be served with a copy of the subpoena and that the court bailiff said the service was refused, which he noted can be verified by the court.

However, INEC’s counsel, Dr. Kemi Pinhero (SAN), argued that it was untrue that the subpoena could not be served on the INEC chairman, adding that it has become a pattern for the petitioner (Obi) to look for a whipping boy.

With the closing of the cases, the court has asked all the petitioners and respondents to wait for when it would communicate to them for the adoption and submission of their final written addresses.

Those who have been following the proceedings at the court believe that no presidential election dispute has ever been diligently argued in the history of Nigeria as the instant case. It is hoped that the five-man panel of the court would carefully examine the evidence put before them and do justice to the case.