The ‘Obidients’ have cause to celebrate, as the flagbearer of
the Labour Party, Peter Obi, presented a reporter from Channels Television as a
subpoenaed witness before the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal sitting
in Abuja on Friday.
The reporter was invited to
produce the live interviews granted to the Independent National Electoral
Commission Chairman, Yakubu Mahmood and the electoral umpire’s spokesperson,
Festus Okoye, regarding their assurance about the functionality of the Bimodal
Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) in the 2023 election.
Obi’s legal team
represented by J.S. Okutepa SAN said he subpoenaed Channels Television to play
certain videos regarding the election.
A Channels TV Senior
Reporter/Editor, Lucky Ukpewo, then came forward to testify.
But Tinubu and Kashim
Shettima’s lawyer, Akin Olujimi SAN, raised objection against the competence of
the witness to testify in the proceedings.
He said based on the
Electoral Act, it is settled that a petition must be filed within 21 days after
election results have been announced by INEC, and that all witnesses and
evidence have to be itemized in the petition.
He said it was after the
resumption of the court today that the petitioner forced on him the statement
on oath of the witness standing in the dock.
Olujimi contended that
the witness is not listed in Obi’s petition and the law mandates parties to
front load all their witnesses in their case whether they are ordinary
witnesses or subpoenaed (invited by order of court) ones.
He maintained that the
petitioners listed video, audio relating to the election as part of their
evidence in their petition.
INEC lawyer, Oluwakemi
Pinheiro SAN joined in objecting to the competence of the journalist, saying
while the petitioners stated he would produce video and audio recordings of the
INEC Chairman, Yakubu Mahmood’s statement, they did not mention the specific
journalist or media house being presented.
APC’s lawyer, Afolabi
Fashanu SAN, equally aligned with the submissions of Tinubu and INEC in open
court, asking the court to refuse taking the witness statement on oath.
Replying to all the
respondents, Okutepa said if there is any objection that deserve dismissal, it
was the ones raised by the respondents.
He said a subpoena is an
order of court issued against any person and such person is competent to
testify.
According to him, even
when a witness statement was not front loaded in a petition, such a person can
be allowed to testify once he has been subpoenaed.
“Ruling on this will be
delivered at the point of final judgment,” the panel replied to the parties
directing the subpoenaed witnesses to go on.
The witness asked the
court to adopt his witness statement on oath.
Lucky was asked to
produce the recording of the live interview of INEC chairman, Yakubu Mahmood
and that of the electoral umpire’s spokesperson, Festus Okoye.
The witness produced a flash drive to the court.
But Olumiji again asked
the court not to admit it as evidence, saying he ought to have been given to
study the recording before commencement of proceedings.
He contended that it
will deprive his clients the right to fair hearing.
But the court told him
not to object to the admissibility of the flash drive, of which he eventually
agreed.
Counsel for the APC did
not object to the tendering of the flash drive.
“The flash drive is
admitted as exhibits,” the panel said.
Okutepa then sought the
court’s permission to play the contents in the flash drive.
Olujimi rose up again,
saying he has an objection to the flash drive being played today because the
petitioners did not serve him a copy of the flash drive.
He said he needs to
study the recording so he could know the contents and cross-examine the witness
later after getting the flash drive.
The APC legal team aligned with Olujimi. But INEC’s lawyer, Pinheiro, said he would not object to the flash drive being played today in open court.
The arguments between counsels lasted for over 2 hours. Justice Haruna Tsammani finally adjourned to Saturday for continuation of hearing.
In its ruling, the panel held that the respondents are not in any way prejudiced if the video is played today as requested by Obi. However, the court ruled that due to time constraints, it will be played on Saturday.
0 Comments