Tinubu, APC Resist INEC Staff Testifying Against Tinubu In Atiku’s Petition

ABUJA – The All Progressives Congress (APC) and President Bola Tinubu on Thursday opposed the move by the former Vice President Abubakar Atiku to engage an ad-hoc staff of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to give evidence in his petition challenging the outcome of the February 25 presidential election.

Atiku and the Peoples Demo­cratic Party (PDP) had subpoe­naed three ad-hoc workers of INEC to testify on their experi­ences in respect of the presiden­tial election.

Specifically, the petitioners had requested the INEC ad-hoc staff to offer explanations on how the results of the presiden­tial election results were transmitted and carried out.

But Tinubu represented by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) objected to the use of statements made on oath by the witnesses to be ten­dered at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) in aid of Atiku’s petition.

Tinubu and the APC ar­gued that the statements of the ad-hoc workers were not front loaded at the time of filing the petition.

Olanipekun argued that since they were subpoe­naed by Atiku, as the pe­titioner, he ought to have front loaded their state­ments on oath along with the petition.

He asked the court to reject the witnesses and discountenance their state­ments on grounds of vio­lating the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022.

Tinubu’s arguments against the subpoenaed witnesses were adopted by Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) who stood for the APC and Abubakar Mah­moud (SAN) who appeared for INEC.

However, Atiku’s lead counsel, Chris Uche (SAN) asked the court to dis­miss the objections on the grounds that they were utterly misplaced and mis­conceived.

Uche posited that the objections by Tinubu, APC and INEC were deliberate ploy designed to delay pro­ceedings.

He submitted that the statements of the subpoe­naed witnesses could not have been front loaded along with the petition be­cause they have not been summoned at the time of filing the petition.

Meanwhile, Chairman of the Presidential Election Petition Court, Justice Ha­runa Tsammani, reserved ruling on the issue.

However, the PEPC or­dered that the evidence of the three subpoenaed witnesses be taken and the respondents to cross exam­ine them.

Obi Seeks Order To Question INEC On ICT Experts

Meanwhile, the standard bearer of the Labour Par­ty (LP) in the February 25 presidential poll, Peter Obi, on Thursday, prayed for an order of the Presidential Election Petition Court to interrogate the Indepen­dent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on the experts on Information and Communication Technolo­gy (ICT) used for the con­duct of the election.

In two separate motions argued by Patrick Ikweto (SAN) on behalf of Obi and LP, the petitioners demand­ed to know the quality of the ICT experts deployed in the use of technology for the conduct of election.

In the motions, Obi and LP prayed the PEPC to compel INEC to supply them with names and pro­file of ICT personnel that handled the technological aspects of the election.

They posed 12 questions to be forwarded to INEC for answers so as to aid Obi and LP in establishing their al­legations of poor conduct especially malpractices in the conduct of the election.

The petitioner’s lawyer claimed that the request if granted would assist them in the effective pre­sentation of their petition challenging the declaration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu as winner of the election.

However, INEC repre­sented by Kemi Pinhero (SAN) objected to Obi’s bid to subject INEC to interro­gation through incompe­tent applications.

He argued that Obi’s ap­plications had become be­lated because he brought them outside the time al­lowed by law.

Pinhero argued that such an application ought to have been brought and argued during the pre-hear­ing session, adding that bringing the application outside the pre-hearing ses­sion has robbed the court of jurisdiction to hear it.

Tinubu represented by Akin Olujimi (SAN) and the All Progressives Con­gress represented by La­teef Fagbemi (SAN) all op­posed granting the request.

They insisted that the application is grossly in­competent in the face of the law.

Chairman of the PEPC, Justice, Haruna Tsamma­ni, has reserved ruling in the applications.