President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) vehemently kicked against the bid by the former Vice President, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku to engage ad-hoc staff of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to give evidence today in his petition challenging the declaration of Tinubu as winner of the 2023 presidential election.
In a bid to establish the alleged electoral irregularities, Atiku had subpoenaed three ad-hoc INEC workers to give first hand account of their experiences during the presidential election of 25th February.
He had specifically requested them to offer explanations on how the results of the presidential election results were transmitted.
However, President Tinubu, represented by Chief Wole Olanipekun, objected to the use of statements made on oath by the witnesses to be tendered at the election petition court in aid of Atiku’s petition.
The grouse of the President and the APC was that the statements of the ad-hoc workers were not front loaded at the time of filing the petition.
Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), cited several provisions of the law against the use of the witnesses, and 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 discontenance 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 argued that the objections by Tinubu, APC and INEC were deliberate ploy designed to delay proceedings.
The senior lawyer insisted that the statements of the subpoenaed witnesses could not have been front loaded along with the petition because they had not been summoned at the time of filing the petition.
He asked the court to discountenance the objections of the three respondents and hold that they are not regular additional witnesses envisaged in the law Olanipekun cited.
Although the court stood down for ruling, the presiding Justice, Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani announced that ruling in the objections had been reserved.
Justice Tsammani however ordered that the evidence of the three subpoenaed witnesses be taken and the respondents to cross examine them.
