On Thursday in Abuja, two witnesses who had been subpoenaed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate acknowledged before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) that the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) had failed to transmit the election results after collation.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) witnesses, Mr Friday Egwuma and Ms. Grace Timothy, both Adhoc staff claimed that the BVAS machine assigned to them experienced a system error as soon as the results of the Senate and House of Representatives portions of the election were freely transmitted. This supports the claims that the results of the presidential portion of the election on February 25 were not sent in real-time via BVAS following the Electoral Act of 2022 and INEC regulations.
After realising that the BVAS machines would not assist them, the two electoral body employees testified under oath that they had to find alternative methods of communicating the findings.
While Grace Timothy worked for INEC in Plateau State, Egwuma presided over a voting unit in Abia State.
The two witnesses acknowledged that voting happened without a hitch at their respective places of employment, notwithstanding the BVAS machines’ failure to send the presidential election results.
Atiku’s principal attorney, Chief Chris Uche SAN, led them to the witness stand.
During cross-examination by Mr. Abubakar Mahmud SAN, a candidate for the electoral board, Egwuma admitted he used an offline system in place of the BVAS devices.
In her testimony to the court, Grace Timothy acknowledged that the largest challenge she had during the election was entering the presidential election results into the I-Rev site.
Both Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, who spoke on behalf of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, and Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, who spoke on behalf of the All Progressives Congress (APC), cross-examined the witnesses.
Initially, Tinubu and the APC had aggressively opposed Atiku’s attempt to use the ad hoc employees to provide testimony in his petition contesting the proclamation of Tinubu as the winner of the 2023 presidential election.
Atiku subpoenaed three INEC ad hoc employees to testify under oath about their personal experiences linked to the February 25 presidential election to prove the alleged anomalies against the election.
He had asked them explicitly to provide justifications for the transmission and execution of the presidential election results.
However, Tinubu objected to using comments made under oath by the witnesses to be tendered to the Presidential Election Case Court (PEPC) in support of Atiku’s case. Tinubu was represented by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN.
Tinubu and the APC complained that the ad hoc workers’ comments were not front-loaded when the petition was filed.
Olanipekun, SAN, cited multiple legal restrictions prohibiting using the witnesses. He contended that since Atiku was the petitioner and had subpoenaed them, he should have front-loaded their sworn testimony with the petition.
He requested that the court disregard the testimony of the witnesses and dismiss their claims due to alleged Electoral Act 2022 violations.
Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, who represented the APC, and Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, who appeared for INEC, adopted Tinubu’s arguments against the subpoenaed witnesses.
However, Atiku’s lead counsel, Chris Uche, SAN asked the Court to dismiss the objections because they were utterly misplaced and misconceived.
Uche argued that the objections by Tinubu, APC and INEC were deliberate ploys 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 have not been summoned at the time of filing the petition.
He asked the Court to discountenance the three respondents’ objections and hold that they are not regular additional witnesses as envisaged in the law cited by Olanipekun.
Although the Court stood down for ruling, the Presiding Justice of the Court, Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani, on resumption, announced that ruling in the objections had been reserved.
Justice Tsammani, however, ordered that the evidence of the three witnesses who had been subpoenaed be taken and that the respondents cross-examine them.
Meanwhile, further hearings in the petition has been adjourned to June 9.
