• Obi, LP play footage of INEC’s Yakubu, Okoye speaking on election results’ transmission
• We complied with all guidelines, regulations, Atiku’s witnesses tell court

The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), yesterday rejected two applications by Mr. Peter Obi and his party, the Labour Party (LP) to issue and deliver interrogatories to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The court said the applications lacked merit.

Obi and the LP had filed the applications to obtain more information from INEC and to have the first application heard outside the pre-hearing session.

Ruling on the applications yesterday, the court’s five-member panel was unanimous that the two applications were filed outside the time allowed by law.

The Presiding Justice (PJ), Justice Haruna Tsammani said the petitioners did not establish any circumstance of extreme urgency that would have made the court exercise discretion in their favour.

He said the situation the petitioners found themselves in was self-induced and could not pass as special circumstances on which the court could act in their favour.

Paragraph 17(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2022, according to him, requires the petitioners to file all applications within 10 days of filing their reply to the defendants’ responses to their petition.

The judge observed that while the petitioners filed their last reply on April 21, they filed the application, in which they sought to serve INEC interrogatories on May 22, the day the court ended the pre-hearing session.

He added that even though the application was actually filed on May 22, the petitioners’ lawyer failed to draw the court’s attention to it, as was required of him.

“I do not believe that the application was filed before the proceedings of that day. Even if it was filed before the proceedings of that day, the lawyer did not bring that fact to the attention of the court,” the judge said.

He held that it was wrong for the petitioners’ lawyer to attempt to avoid taking the blame for failing to act within the time allowed by the law.

“The application is incompetent having not been filed within the time allowed by law and the court has no jurisdiction to hear it. This application is hereby struck out,” Justice Tsammani said.

Shortly after the ruling, another lawyer to the petitioners, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) applied to play two videos which they tendered on Friday.

The first, which was footage of a press briefing by INEC Chairman, Prof Mahmood Yakubu, showed him talking about plans for the election and pledging that BVAS would be used for voter accreditation, while results would be transmitted from polling units in real-time.

The second one showed INEC’s National Commissioner, Festus Okoye explaining the efforts made to address the glitches experienced during the presidential and National Assembly elections.

Part of the second video also showed President Bola Tinubu announcing his selection of Kashim Shettma as his running mate for the election, which Okutepa claimed supported their case of double nomination.

After the videos were played, the petitioners proceeded to tender some Certified True Copies (CTCs) of INEC materials, including Forms EC40G (PU), EC40G and EC40G1 from Benue State.

Further hearing in the petition has been adjourned till 9 am on Tuesday.

Earlier yesterday, two former members of the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC), who worked as INEC ad-hoc staff during the last elections, said they complied with all rules and regulations in carrying out their assignment.

Alheri Ayuba and Sadiya Mohammed Haruna who were subpoenaed witnesses of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, spoke while testifying as the petitioners’ 17th and 18th witnesses before the PEPC.

Ayuba and Haruna said the whole process went well except for the hitch they experienced while trying to upload the images of the result sheets immediately at their polling units, using the BVAS machine.

They, however, said they failed to include, in the written statements, their inability to upload the results.

Led in evidence by the petitioners’ lawyer, Chris Uche (SAN), Ayuba and Haruna said they served as polling unit Presiding Officers in Abuja.

The witnesses adopted their written statements after lawyers to the respondents – Kemi Pinheiro (SAN) for INEC, Emmanuel Ukala (SAN) for President Bola Tinubu and Solomon Umoh (SAN) for the All Progressives Congress (APC) – raised objections to the admission of their testimonies.

Under cross-examination by Pinheiro, Ayuba said: “I performed my duties diligently on the day of the election. I confirm that the election went smoothly besides the issue of the BVAS that failed to upload results.

“BVAS was used to accredit all the voters. After sorting the results, I announced it to everybody’s hearing. I entered the results diligently in the presence of everybody at the polling unit,” she said.

The witness added that all the agents of the political parties present got copies of the result sheet (Form EC8A), the original copy of which she personally submitted at the Ward Collation Centre.

“It was the image of the Form EC8A that I captured with the BVAS that I tried to upload, but I could not,” Ayuba said.

Under cross-examination by Ukala, Ayuba said she conducted herself strictly in compliance with INEC Guidelines and Regulations for the conduct of elections.

The witness said she was neither induced nor influenced by anybody to manipulate the process.

“The results that I entered in Form EC8A were the correct results in the polling unit. I took the results by myself to the Ward Collation Centre l. I am aware that the results were fully collated at the Ward Collation Centre,” she said.

Ayuba said she did not include, in her statement, that she encountered challenges while trying to upload the results.

While being cross-examined by another lawyer to INEC, Steve Adehi (SAN), Haruna said: “On the day of the election, I carried out my duty as we were taught.

“Apart from the BVAS problem, which was about transmission, every other thing went well. At the end of the election, I sorted out the votes and entered them in Form EC8A manually. I gave copies to party agents.

“It was when I tried to transmit the image of the results sheet that the BVAS failed. The party agents followed me up to the Ward Collation Centre.

“They refused to go and insisted on following me to the Ward Collation Centre where I submitted the results in Form EC8A,” she said.

Under cross-examination by Ukala, the witness also said she complied with all the rules and was not induced by anyone in the course of the election.

Haruna said after Form EC8A was duly signed by party agents and herself, she took a photograph of the form with the BVAS device and posted a copy of the result in a conspicuous place for people to see.

At the conclusion of Haruna’s testimony, the court adjourned further hearing in the petition till next Tuesday at 2 pm.