The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its presidential candidate in the February 25 presidential election on Friday in Abuja, closed their case at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC).
The petitioners closed their case after calling 27 out of the 100 witnesses they had said they would call to give evidence in support of their joint petition challenging the outcome of the presidential election.
The witnesses included expert witnesses such as forensic analysts, star witnesses and subpoenaed witnesses mostly Presiding Officer of the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC).
The petitioners’ tendered their last batch of documents through their 27th witness, Mr Mike Enahoro-Eba, a legal practitioner.
The documents, which were admitted in evidence, included certified true copies of academic and work records of President Bola Tinubu such as a National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) Certificate, a certificate from the Chicago State University and a Mobil Nigeria Oil Company Plc certificate of service.
Other documents admitted in evidence were a computer generated copy of a Guinean passport bearing the name Bola Ahmed Tinubu and notarised document of the judgement showing criminal forfeiture of $460,000 along with the certified cover note notorising it.
Enahoro-Eba was led in evidence by the petitioners lead counsel, Mr Chris Uche, SAN.
The petitioners also tendered a certificate of compliance and a witness statement on oath to prove the allegations contained in their petition challenging the outcome of the Feb. 25 presidential election.
The witness told the court that the NYSC certificate attached to the president’s documents which he submitted to INEC together with his form EC9, which is his nomination form, was issued in the name Tinubu Bola Adekunle.
He also told the court that the transcript in aid of admission into the Chicago State University made by South West College in the name of Bola Ahmed Tinubu had female as the gender of the applicant.
Counsel to all the respondents, the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress, (APC), all objected to the admissibility of the documents.
Under cross examination by the lead counsel to INEC, Mr Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, the witness told the court that he was in Abuja during the election and that he voted.
He further said that the election was smooth from when he was accredited up to when he voted and left the polling unit.
The witness also told the court that he instituted a public interest suit against Tinubu at a Magistrate’s Court challenging Tinubu’s qualification to contest the presidential election.
For his part, counsel to President Tinubu, Mr Wole Olanipekun, SAN, confronted the witness with a letter of the Chicago State University of June 27, 2022 stating that President Tinubu not only graduated from the University but graduated with honours.
The witness, however, told the court that he knew nothing about the letter.
Olanipekun also asked the witness if he had gone through the petitioner’s pleadings before coming to give evidence and he said he didn’t bother to read it because he was not part of the legal team of the petitioners.
The senior lawyer, therefore, told the witness that if he had bothered to read the petition, he would have noticed that the judgement he tendered was not part of the petitioners case.
For his part, counsel to the All Progressives Congress, (APC), Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, asked the witness if there was any certificate given by a police officer with regards to the judgement he tendered, the witness said there was none.
The witness also confirmed to the court that there was no finger print or signature on the judgement and that the documents were not certified.
The witness, in answering Fagbemi’s question as to whether he was an APC member, said that he was a member of the Obidient Movement of the Labour Party.
Having discharged the witness, Uche told the court that that was the end of the case of the petitioners.
“My lords, pursuant to paragraph 46 (5) of the Electoral Act, 2022, we most humbly apply to close the case of the petitioners.”
The respondents appealed to the court to allow them open their cases after the Eid-el-Kabir holiday.
The five-member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani accepted the request and adjourned the case until July 3.
The petitioners in their joint petition marked: CA/PEPC/05/2023 are praying the court to among other things, withdraw the Certificate of Return issued to the President Bola Tinubu by INEC.
The petitioners maintained that the declaration of Tinubu as winner of the presidential election was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.
They also contended that Tinubu’s election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices, insisting that he was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast during the election.
Atiku asked the PEPC to declare him winner of the presidential election on the grounds that he secured the second highest number of lawful votes cast during the election.
Also, Mr Peter Obi and his Labour Party (LP), on Friday, closed their petition before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) challenging the election of President Bola Tinubu.
Obi and LP are complainants in the petition marked CA/PEPC/03/2023, challenging the election which brought Tinubu to power on May 29.
Respondents in the petition are the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima and All Progressives Congress (APC).
The petitioners were given 21 days to prove their case against the respondents before the court.
They told the court that they would call 50 witnesses to prove their case, but as they were closing on Friday, they called only 13 witnesses.
Earlier, counsel to the petitioners, Livy Uzoukwu SAN, informed the court that their 12th witness, Yunusa Tanko, was in court to be cross examined by the respondents.
Counsel to the respondents are Kemi Pinhero SAN for INEC, Wole Olanipakun SAN for Tinubu and Shettima, while Lateef Fagbemi SAN represented APC.
The 12th witness (PW12) was Yunusa Tanko, member of LP Situation Room, who testified and some documents were tendered through him.
Being cross examined by INEC, the witness told the court that the results given to them were mutilated and not readable.
When asked by Olanipekun how many party agents his party had during the election, he said over 130,000 while there were 176,974 polling units through the federation.
Tanko was also asked what he wanted the court to do with the 12 states where LP won and what would happen to Atiku Abubakar, who was declared 2nd.
He said that he was challenging the entire results of the election because after four months of the election, the results are still being downloaded from the IreV.
When asked by Fagbemi on why he did not provide the number of unlawful votes, he claimed that their expert had already given evidence on the number of disputed votes.
The respondents tendered through the witness judgments of Federal High Court, with FHC/ABJ/1454/2022, delivered on Jan. 23, 2023, concerning LP vs INEC.
Tendered also was a SC/CV/501/2023, Supreme Court judgment delivered on May 26, 2023, between PDP and INEC with three others.
The petitioners objected to the admissibility of the documents and reserved their reason in their final written addresses.
The court, however, admitted and marked the documents as exhibits.
Peter Yari, PW 13 , an adhoc staff of INEC, also gave his evidence.
Counsel for the petitioners, Uzoukwu after the testimony of PW13, informed the court that they are closing their case.
The respondents prayed the court to give them till next week to go home and celebrate the Sallah with their families and come back by July 3 to open their case.
The five-member panel presided over by Justice Haruna Tsammani adjourned until July 3, for the respondents to open their case.
