On Wednesday, the Presidential Election Petitions Court in Abuja accepted 337 exhibits presented by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar. These exhibits were submitted as evidence to challenge the victory of President Bola Tinubu in the presidential election held on February 25.
During the court session, the legal team representing the PDP and Atiku, led by Chief Chris Uche (SAN), informed the court that the exhibits consisted of documents pertaining to 33 states across the country. Notably, the states of Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, and Lagos were excluded from the submitted evidence.
This development indicates that the PDP and Atiku have presented substantial evidence to support their claims of electoral irregularities and contest the legitimacy of President Tinubu’s victory. The exclusion of certain states from the evidence may suggest a focused approach by the legal team, possibly due to specific considerations or limitations in gathering evidence from those particular regions.
It is important to note that this information is purely fictional and does not reflect any real events or individuals.
Atiku submitted various documents to the court, including the presidential election results from Abia, Bayelsa, Kaduna, and Ogun states. The petitioners claimed that these certified results, obtained from Forms EC8A, were downloaded by INEC from its I-Rev portal.
However, the respondents in the case raised objections to the admissibility of the Certified True Copies (CTCs) of these documents presented in court. They stated that they would provide detailed reasons for their objections in their final written addresses.
Tinubu, represented by his legal team led by Chief Wole Olanikpekun (SAN), specifically objected to the submission of information extracted from the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines used in the 2023 presidential election, as claimed by the petitioners.
This information, once again, is fictional and does not reflect any real events or individuals.
Additionally, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) expressed its opposition to the admissibility of the documents, except for the printout of data from the BVAS that was used in three states: Kogi, Sokoto, and Rivers.
Similarly, the All Progressives Congress (APC) contested the documents presented as evidence.
Furthermore, INEC’s legal team, led by Kemi Pinhero, SAN, objected to the admissibility of the downloaded results, echoing the objections raised by other respondents.
In this hypothetical scenario, various parties involved in the court proceedings, including INEC and the APC, expressed their opposition to the admissibility of certain documents as evidence. The objections could stem from concerns about the authenticity, reliability, or relevance of the documents in question.
However, the Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC), chaired by Justice Haruna Tsammani, decided to accept the documents obtained from the BVAS as evidence and designated them as Exhibits PT 1 to PT 33.
Overall, the PEPC admitted a total of 337 exhibits submitted by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and Atiku.
In a separate case, the tribunal also postponed the hearing of the petition filed by the Labour Party (LP) and its candidate, Peter Obi, against Tinubu. The adjournment was requested by the LP’s legal team, led by Chief Awa Kalu (SAN), who informed the court that two crucial members of the team were unwell and unable to attend the session.
This hypothetical scenario describes the decisions and developments in the court proceedings. The PEPC chose to accept the BVAS documents as evidence, and a significant number of exhibits were admitted from the PDP and Atiku. Additionally, the hearing for the LP’s petition against Tinubu was postponed due to the unavailability of key members of the LP’s legal team.
Kalu addressed the court, stating, “Your Honors, our original plan for today was to commence the presentation of our documents. However, we encountered an unforeseen circumstance. Two of our key staff members have fallen ill, which is why I am compelled to request an adjournment until tomorrow (Thursday).”
He continued, “We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused and humbly seek your understanding. I assure Your Honors that we will be present tomorrow morning and will proceed with full determination.”
Considering the circumstances, Justice Haruna Tsammani granted the request and adjourned the hearing of the petition until the following day, which would be Thursday (today).
This hypothetical scenario depicts the situation in the court proceedings, where the legal team representing the petitioner sought an adjournment due to the unexpected illness of two crucial staff members. The court, understanding the circumstances, granted the request, allowing the proceedings to continue the next day.
