Two video clips tendered by the Labour Party and its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, in support of his petition challenging the conduct and outcome of the February 25 presidential election were allowed into evidence by the Presidential Election Petition Court.
The petitioners, via their lawyer, Jubril Okutekpa (SAN), informed the court at the resumed hearing on Friday evening that they had subpoenaed Channels Television to provide the recordings contained on two flash drives.
Okutekpa said that the TV station received two different subpoenas, dated May 30 and June 6, and that one of its employees was sent to provide the requested evidence.
The subpoenas have been admitted into evidence as Exhibits PBH-1 and PBH-2 by the five-member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani.
One flash drive was said to contain clips from an interview given by INEC Chairman Prof Mahmoud Yakubu before the general elections, in which he promised that the poll results will be electronically transmitted in real time.
The other was a news conference held by Festus Okoye, a national commissioner of the commission, who reiterated the commission’s intention to electronically transmit the results.
Lucky Obese-Alawode, a senior reporter and editor at Channels TV, was called to the witness stand in order to present the content of the video clips in open court.
The petitioners’ move, however, was strongly opposed by the petitioners’ responses.
Akin Olujinmi (SAN), counsel for the President, questioned the witness’s competence on the grounds that his statement was not filed with the petition.
President Bola Tinubu’s counsel contended that the law was clear that a petition must be filed within 21 days of the declaration of the result of an election, citing paragraphs 4 (5) and (6) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2022.
He said that when the petition was submitted, the petitioners should have included all the necessary documents as well as a list of witnesses they planned to call in support of their case.
“A petition which fails to comply with the law will not be accepted,” he stressed. The statement of this witness was served on us after the proceedings started today, my lords. This is more than three months after the election results were announced.
“The petitioners did not list this witness, and his statement was not attached to the petition.” To that extent, he has no capacity to testify before this court.”
He said that the petitioners were aware that they would rely on the video recordings when they submitted the petition, but did not include it in their list of documents.
In agreement with Olujimi SAN, the Independent National Electoral Commission claimed, through its lawyer, Kemi Pinhero (SAN), that Obi and LP should have included the requested evidence in their petition.
However, counsel for the petitioners, Okutekpa (SAN), maintained that the witness was fit to testify because the subpoena was a court order over which he had no control.
Despite the objections, the panel admitted the two flash drives into evidence as Exhibits PBH-3 and PBH-4.
When lawyers for the petitioners requested that the contents of the flash drives be played in open court, the respondents refused, with the exception of the electoral commission, which was indifferent.
Olujimi insisted that his client was not given a copy of the flash drive.
He went on to say that playing the video video clips without his clients’ knowledge would deprive them of their right to a fair hearing.
“This is not a game of hide and seek,” he said. We have the right to be served with a copy so that we can learn about the substance and prepare. We will not allow it to be played until we are served.
Solomon Umoh (SAN), counsel for the All Progressives Congress, said it would be an ambush for the petitioners to play the content of the flash drives without first serving it on the respondents.
In his decision, the chairman of the five-member panel, Justice Tsammani, said that the respondents’ viewpoint was not prejudiced against playing the video clips, but rather on their lack of service prior.
Due to time restrictions, he adjourned the case until Saturday afternoon, when video clips will be played in open court.
Disclaimer
The provided information is intended for general awareness and may not be entirely accurate or up-to-date. The post disclaims any warranties regarding the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content, services, or graphics on the website. It advises caution when using the information for any purpose.