As Atiku Calls Six Witnesses to Prove Petition against Tinubu’s Election…

A Few days into the hearing of allegations of malpractices and corruption that characterized the February 25 presidential election, candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP),  Atiku Abubakar and his party have called six witnesses and tendered plethora of documentary evidences to prove how the electoral umpire allegedly manipulated the process that produced President Bola Tinubu. Alex Enumah reports.

t the end of pre-hearing a fortnight ago, only three out of the five petitioners challenging the declaration of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu as President were left following the withdrawal of two petitioners; the Action Alliances (AA) and the Action People’s Party (APP).

However, of the three remaining, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, who scored the second highest votes cast in the February 25 presidential election, have been determined and deliberate in proving their petition against the outcome of the poll.

Within the first four days of trial, between May 30 and June 2, Atiku has tendered relevant documents especially those certified by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) used in the conduct of the presidential election in addition to calling six witnesses who participated in the election beyond casting their votes.

Recall that the five-member panel of Justices of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PREPEC) led by Justice Haruna Tsammani had on May23, in a ruling consolidated the petitions of the Labour Party (LP), Allied People’s Movement (APM) and PDP on the grounds that there was great similarity amongst them and accordingly allotted time for hearing of each petition starting from May 30.

It was therefore no surprise that Atiku’s team led by Chief Chris Uche, SAN, came with a Schedule of Documents it planned to tender before the court in proving his allegation that the election of February 25 was manipulated in favour of President Tinubu.

Among the bundle of documents brought before the court through one of Atiku’s lawyers, Mr Eyitayo Jegede, SAN, on the first day of trial were the final declaration of results sheet; summary of results from polling units by polling units; print out of the Bi-modal Verification Accreditation System (BVAS), from the 36 states of the federation and the FCT as well as the total number of registered voters and total number of PVCs collected from polling units by polling units in the 36 states of the federation and the FCT.

On the second day of trial, the petitioners brought additional documentary evidence which included mainly Forms EC8A, EC8E and EC40G. While Form EC8A is the sheet used for collection of results at the polling unit level, Form EC8E is used for declaration of final results and Form EC40G is the form where INEC inputs number of all polling units that were cancelled or voters that could not vote. I

It should be noted that all these documents apart from being INEC’s documents, the petitioners in line with the law ensured that they were duly certified as true copies by the commission. The documents were said to have been downloaded by INEC from its result viewing portal iREV and they pertained to election results from eight Local Government Areas of Bayelsa State, 23 from Kaduna State, 20 from Ogun and 23 from Kogi States respectively. Petitioners also tendered EC40G from Kaduna and EC8E from eight LGAs in Kaduna and some in Kogi.

Atiku through his lawyer prayed the court to deem the documents as read pursuant to provisions of paragraph 46(A) of the first schedule of the Electoral Act.

But INEC through one of its lawyers, Kemi Pinhero SAN, objected relating to Kogi except for those of five LGAs – Olamaboro, Ofu, Omala, Okehi, and Ajaokuta.

He predicated his objection on the grounds that except for the five LGAs the petitioners did not plead the other documents in their pleadings. However, INEC and the APC on their part hinted that they will be objecting to the admissibility of BVAS except for Kogi, Rivers and Sokoto at the appropriate time.

Having used Tuesday and Wednesday to present his documentary evidence, Atiku then used Thursday and Friday to call his witnesses who told the five-man panel of the presidential election court how they personally witnessed the rigging of the election and other malpractices that allegedly marred the February 25 presidential poll.

While some stated that they refused to sign the results sheets because of the malpractices, others who signed stated that they were compelled to do so by INEC.

Some other witnesses also claimed that they were chased away and some of their agents arrested by police to pave way for the changing of results at ward centers.

The first witness, one Captain Joe Agada (rtd), a State Collation Agent in Kogi claimed that INEC insisted that they would not be given a copy of the results unless they put their signature on it.

Agada in his witness statement he adopted before the court alleged that the presidential election in over 20 polling units he visited in parts of Kogi State was marred by irregularities such as BVAS, ballot papers and result sheets manipulation.

He said after observing the malpractices most of the PDP agents in the state refused to sign the results because it did not tally with what happened at the various polling units. While admitting that he did not sign results sheets in 2019 over similar alleged malpractices, he said this time around, “I was forced to sign which I protested because without signing I was going to be denied a copy to my party.”

Under cross examination by INEC’S lawyer, Abdullahi Aliyu, SAN, the witness claimed to have voted at Ogugu in Olamaboro but that he was allowed to move round to monitor the election because of the Special Election Duty Tag provided him by INEC.

Also under cross examination by Chief Akin Olujimi SAN, counsel to President Tinubu, the witness admitted that he did not put his grievances against the election in his witness statement.

Responding to APC’s lawyer, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, Agada admitted basing his report on the information supplied him by other agents of the party as well as his observations, adding that he spent between three to five minutes in most of the polling units he visited.

Similarly, the second witness, one Dr Solarin Adekunle, also a Collation Agent from Ogun State corroborated Agada’s position but unlike Agada, told the PREPEC that he refused to sign the collated results in protest against the alleged electoral malpractices. According to him, the elections results were inflated in favour of President Tinubu and the APC in most of the units he visited including the ones where their agents supervised.

The third witness, also a Collation Agent in Abia State, Mr Uzoma Abonta told the Court that the election was a nullity on account of so many irregularities, discrepancies and non-compliance with rules of the election. Abonta said because INEC failed to electronically transmit elections results, what was declared did not reflect the genuine wish of the people of Abia State.

According to him, what INEC declared was quite different from the results in their own possession.

On the fourth day of trial, Atiku also called another set of three witnesses who claimed that the real manipulation of the election results occurred at the Ward collation centers after agents of the PDP and Atiku were chased away. One witness, Mr Nicholas Msheliza, a State Collation Agent from Borno State, disclosed that agents of the PDP at the ward collation centers were beaten up and chased away during which results from the polling units were changed.

According to him, things went smoothly and peaceful at most of the polling units were their agents performed excellently but “the real disaster happened at the ward collation centers where results were changed”, adding that there was a huge variation between the results their agents submitted to them and the ones announced by INEC from the wards, hence his refusal to sign the results at the state level.

Besides, the witness accused INEC’s officials of breaching the Electoral Act, by not transmitting the election results electronically as required by law.

Under cross examination by Tinubu’s lawyer, Chief Akin Olujimi, Msheliza, admitted that although the elections at polling units were peaceful but that the BVAS machines were bypassed at ward collation centers where results were altered. He also admitted not naming the polling units where agents of PDP were disallowed from performing their functions in his witness statement he adopted before the court.

Another witness, who was the 5th to be called by the petitioners also testified to the fact that “the actual results were not transmitted from the polling units to the IReV portals”. The witness, a former House of Representatives member, Hon. Sani Idris Kutigi, informed the court that he refused to sign the results sheets in Form EC8D because of the discrepancies in the recorded votes at the polling units and those entered into the form.

However, during cross examination by Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, counsel to the All Progressives Congress (APC), Kutigi admitted that he did not put the actual figure at the polling units into his witness statement on oath because of lack of space.

Similarly, the 6th witness to be called by Atiku and PDP,  Mr Silas Joseph Onu, in his  evidence, alleged that PDP agents were chased out of polling units while some were arrested and locked up in police stations while performing their duties at the collation centers in Ebonyi State.

According to him, this led to a situation where the party could not get copies of some of the results in Ebonyi State, where he acted as PDP’s State Collation Agent.

No doubt, the remaining two weeks for the petitioners to prove their case against Tinubu, would be as intriguing and exciting as the first one.