Why PEPT judgment had our watermark – Tinubu’s legal team

The Tinubu Presidential Legal Team has issued a response to the controversy surrounding the watermark found on the widely disseminated copies of the Presidential Elections Petition Tribunal’s judgment. The presence of this watermark had stirred up controversy, particularly on social media, where some critics had raised suspicions of a hidden agenda.

In response to these criticisms, Babatunde Ogala, the coordinator of the TPLT, released a statement on Saturday, rebuking the critics for suggesting that the watermark was indicative of premeditated manipulation. He asserted that there was nothing untoward about it. Ogala clarified that they had applied the watermark to their copy of the judgment immediately after obtaining it from the Court of Appeal, prior to distributing the scanned copies to their team members.

The statement conveyed the following explanation: “In light of certain misleading insinuations circulating in certain circles regarding the innocuous watermark on copies of the consolidated judgment of the Court of Appeal bearing the inscription ‘Tinubu Presidential Legal Team ‘TPLT’, we find it necessary to provide clarification.

“After the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on September 6, 2023, in the three election petitions, it instructed its registry to make physical copies of the judgment available on September 7, 2023. Accordingly, the Tinubu Presidential Legal Team promptly requested a Certified True Copy of the judgment and duly paid the required fee.

“It is worth noting that representatives of the PDP were also present at the registry to collect the same judgment at the same time. In fact, the PDP representative obtained the first available copy from the registry.

“Upon receiving our own copy, we expeditiously scanned it and added the watermark bearing the inscription ‘Tinubu Presidential Legal Team ‘TPLT’’ before disseminating the scanned digital copies to our legal team members.

“We would like to emphasize that the Certified True Copy issued to us and to the other involved parties in the petitions by the registry does not include the aforementioned inscription. Any insinuation to the contrary is false.

“We expect that counsel for the petitioners will also acknowledge the falseness of the insinuations being circulated in certain quarters. These insinuations are not only untrue but also unkind, unfair, and regrettable, as they possess the same certified copies of the judgment that we do.”