A rowdy session was witnessed at the Presidential Election
Petitions Court sitting in Abuja on Tuesday when the legal team of the presidential
candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Peter Obi, said they had only one witness
for today’s proceedings and about five documents to tender as evidence in their
case against President Bola Tinubu.
J.S Okutepa SAN told the
five-man panel of the court led by Justice Haruna Tsammani that he has filed
his team’s schedule of documents for the witness this morning, adding that he
intends to tender five documents as evidence as well.
The documents he sought
to tender were from INEC (bordering on Kashim Shettima’s nomination) aside from
a United States District Court judgement on alleged drugs dealings associated
with Bola Tinubu’s bank account resulting in forfeiture of 460,000 dollars.
But INEC’s lawyer, A.B
Mahmoud SAN rose up and accused Obi’s team of hiding their documents only to
bring them up during the proceedings.
He said he needed time
to consult with his client (INEC) before admitting any document from Obi even
if they were electoral materials.
“We have been served
with the schedule of documents not with the documents itself. I have not seen
the document as of now,” Mahmoud said, adding that it was not right for the
petitioner to “ambush” him.
“They should give us their documents ahead of time. We are not
here to conduct trial by ambush, ” Mahmoud said.
Tinubu and Kashim
Shettima’s lawyer, Wole Olanipekun SAN, equally maintained that he has not seen
Obi’s documents.
But Okutepa rose up
again saying, “There is no law mandating the petitioners to give our documents
to the respondents days before hearing.”
He countered INEC,
saying the document that he wanted to tender was already certified by the
Commission and its lawyer cannot tell the court that he has not seen the
documents Obi’s team intends to tender.
Following their
arguments, the panel ordered the proceedings to be suspended for ten minutes
for them to go back to their chambers and return and for lawyers to go through
the documents Obi’s legal team wants to tender.
When the court resumed,
a member of the panel, Justice Stephen Adah, faulted Obi’s lawyers for causing
delay in commencement of hearing, saying they ” breached protocol.”
Referring to Obi’s team,
the court ordered that all processes should be filed and given to parties
before hearing date, not on the day of proceedings.
On INEC’s lawyer’s
statement that he needs to meet with his client before he can confirm the
electoral materials Obi wants to tender, the court said the lawyer should know
INEC’s certification when he sees one.
Justice Adah reminded
all parties that they had agreed not to object to certified documents from
INEC.
Justice Adah pointed
towards Mahmoud, saying “INEC, you should know your certification.”
The panel also directed
Obi’s legal team to file all his schedule of documents, not one by one.
“I apologize and we take correction,” Okutepa replied but urged
the court to note that INEC was yet to give him all the documents they had
applied for.
Subsequently, Okutepa
asked the panel to admit his five documents relating to Tinubu’s alleged drug
forfeiture in US and INEC forms on Shettima’s nomination.
INEC did not object but
Tinubu and APC lawyers, Wole Olanipekun and Lateef Fagbemi SAN, raised
objection to the document on alleged forfeiture but said they reserved their
comment till final address as stipulated by the court.
Cross Examination Of First
Witness
Okutepa then presented a
lawyer, Lawrence Uchenna Nwakaeti, from Ihiala, Anambra state, as his first
witness for the day.
The witness adopted his
statement on oath and also admitted he obtained the “proceedings of the United
States District Court” on Tinubu’s alleged forfeiture.
During cross
examination, INEC counsel asked the witness to confirm whether all he told the
court about electoral forms and the U.S. Court Judgment was his legal opinions
or not.
The witness said his
statement was in line with “pure law”.
Olanipekun asked the witness,
Nwakaeti: “You stated emphatically that Tinubu was fined 460,000 dollars in
USA?
“Will you be surprised
that not a single line or word relating to fine was mentioned in the US Court
Judgment?”.
The witness insisted
that Tinubu was fined.
The APC counsel asked
the witness to confirm whether the forfeiture in U.S was civil or criminal.
The witness replied that
it was a civil forfeiture.
The court subsequently
discharged the witness from the testimony dock and adjourned hearing till
tomorrow, Wednesday.
0 Comments