The decision of former Vice President Abubakar Atiku to bring subpoenaed witnesses into the hearing of his petition on Wednesday unsettled the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), President Bola Tinubu, and the All Progressives Congress (APC), who stood their ground that the witnesses should not be allowed to testify until June 8.
Atiku, the candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the disputed February 25 presidential election, called his first subpoenaed witness at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPEC) to present some sensitive documents. However, INEC and Tinubu vehemently opposed the move.
During the proceedings, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, the lead counsel to the PDP, called in one of the listed witnesses after admitting exhibits from 10 local governments in Kogi State. The witness provided evidence on how INEC failed to transmit results in real time, as promised.
After the cross-examination of the witness, Hon. Ndubuisi Nwobu from Anambra State, Uche informed the court that the petitioners had three subpoenaed witnesses and proceeded to call the first one, an Adhoc staff of INEC.
However, before the witness could take the oath, counsel to INEC, Mr. Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, objected to the hearing of the witness’s evidence. He stated that he had only been served with the witness’s statement this morning and needed time to study it for a thorough cross-examination.
Tinubu’s lawyer, Chief Akin Olujimi, SAN, and APC’s lawyer, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, supported this objection, stating that they had also received the statement shortly before the proceedings and had not had the opportunity to review its contents.
In response, Uche argued that with a subpoenaed witness, they were not required to provide the witness’s statement to the respondents in advance. He contended that there was nothing unusual in the statement that warranted an adjournment.
Uche pleaded with the court to allow at least one of the subpoenaed witnesses to testify, so they could make efficient use of their allotted time, as an adjournment would eat into their schedule.
Presiding Justice of the Court, Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani, proposed a 30-minute trial stand-down to enable the respondents to examine the documents and cross-examine the first subpoenaed witness while being considerate of their concerns.
However, INEC insisted that the witness should not be allowed to testify because he was said to be an Adhoc staff of the Commission. They requested time to confirm the witness’s status by examining INEC’s records adequately.
Given the respondents’ insistence, Uche urged the court to adjourn until the following day to call the three subpoenaed witnesses.
Earlier in his evidence, Nwobu informed the court that the election went smoothly in most polling units, including where he cast his vote. However, issues arose at the Ward Collation Centers.
According to him, the results were entered into the EC8A forms at the polling units but were not transmitted in real time to the IReV system due to the failure of the BVAS machines.
He stated that he intervened to prevent attacks on some INEC staff who were unable to upload results in real time.
“There was no real-time transmission of results as promised by INEC,” he said.
Meanwhile, further hearing in the petition has been adjourned until June 8.