• As Tinubu, APC kicks
From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) on Friday admitted in evidence video clips containing the live interviews granted by the National Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof Yakubu Mahmood and the spokesperson of the commission, Festus Okoye relating to the assurance about the credibility and functionality of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System(BVAS) in the 2023 general election.
The video evidence which was contained in two flash drives were tendered before the court by a subpoenaed witness and staff of Channels Television, Mr. Lucky Obewo–Isawode.
Before the electronic evidence were admitted as exhibits, there was heated argument from counsel to the INEC, President Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress(APC), as to competence of the subpoenaed witness to give evidence for the petitioners.
Another leg of the argument from the camp of the respondents bordered on the admissibility of the video clips in evidence.
Canvassing argument on the first issue, lead counsel to Tinubu, Chief Akin Olujinmi SAN, submitted that based on the provisions of the Electoral Act, it is settled that a petition must be filed within 21 days after election results have been announced by INEC, and that all witnesses and evidence have to be itemized in the petition.
He said it was after the resumption of the court today that the petitioner forced on him the statement on oath of the witness standing in the dock.
Olujimi contended that the witness is not listed in Obi’s petition and the law mandates parties to front load all their witnesses in their case whether they are ordinary witnesses or subpoenaed (invited by order of court) ones.
He maintained that the petitioners listed video, audio relating to the election as part of their evidence in their petition.
He cited the provisions of paragraphs 4(5) and (6) of the fisrt schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022; the case law in Ararume V INEC (2019) LPELR 48397 at page 33 (a Court of Appeal) decision; PDP V Okogbuo (2019) LPELR and an unreported case in ANDP V INEC& 8 ors, in urging the court to reject the witness.
On his part, counsel to INEC, Oluwakemi Pinheiro SAN adopted the submission of Olujinmi in objecting to the competence of the journalist.
He submitted that while the petitioners stated that they would produce video and audio recordings of the INEC Chairman, Yakubu Mahmood’s statement, they did not mention the specific journalist or media house being presented.
It was the turn of counael to APC, Afolabi Fashanu SAN, who equally aligned with the submissions of Tinubu and INEC in open court, asking the court to refuse taking the witness statement on oath.
Repsponding to all the objections by the respondents, Counsel to Obi and Labour Party, Jubril Okutepa, SAN, said if there is any objection that deserve dismissal, it was the ones raised by the respondents.
He said a subpoena is an order of court issued against any person and such person is competent to testify.
He then urged the court to discountenance the objections and allow the witness to tender his evidence.
In his ruling, Justice Haruna Tsammani said ruling on the objections “will be delivered at the point of final judgment.”
The coast was now cleared for the witness who then adopted his witness statement on oath.
He was thereafter asked to produce the recording of the live interview of INEC chairman, Yakubu Mahmood and that of the electoral umpire’s spokesperson, Festus Okoye.
The witness produced a flash drive to the court.
But Olumiji again asked the court not to admit it as evidence, saying he ought to have been given to study the recording before commencement of proceedings.
He contended that it will deprive his clients the right to fair hearing.
But the court told him not to object to the admissibility of the flash drive, of which he eventually agreed.
Counsel for the APC did not object to the tendering of the flash drive.
“The flash drive is admitted as exhibits,” the panel said.
Okutepa then sought the court’s permission to play the contents in the flash drive.
Olujimi rose up again, saying he has an objection to the flash drive being played today because the petitioners did not serve him a copy of the flash drive.
He said he needs to study the recording so he could know the contents and cross-examine the witness later after getting the flash drive.
The APC legal team aligned with Olujimi.
But INEC’s lawyer, Pinheiro, said he would not object to the flash drive being played today in open court.
The arguments between counsels lasted for over 2 hours.
Justice Haruna Tsammani finally adjourned to Saturday for continuation of hearing.
In its ruling, the panel held that the respondents are not in any way prejudiced if the video is played today as requested by Obi.
However, the court ruled that due to time constraints, it will be played on Saturday.
