Th Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) staff member Egwumah Omachonu Friday testified before the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) that he was unable to transmit the results of the presidential election to the commission’s server despite being able to transmit those of the Senate and House of Representatives.
The election, which was held on February 25, 2023 was calm, but the presidential results couldn’t be sent with the other results, according to a subpoenaed witness who worked as INEC’s ad hoc personnel during that time.
Chris Uche, the petitioners Atiku and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), served as the witness’s primary counsel. The witness was an INEC presiding officer.
Friday stated that he served at 017 polling unit in Abia State.
Another subpoenaed witness, Grace Timothy, a presiding officer at one of the polling units in Bauchi State, told the PEPC that the election was peaceful and went well.
The All Progressives Congress (APC) and President Bola Tinubu had angrily opposed PDP presidential candidate Abubakar Atiku’s attempt to enlist INEC special employees to testify in his case.
Chief Wole Olanipekun, speaking on behalf of Tinubu, raised concerns about the petition of Atiku using statements made under oath by witnesses.
The President and the APC complained that the ad hoc workers’ declarations had not been frontloaded at the time the petition was filed.
Olanipekun claimed that since Atiku, the petitioner, had subpoenaed the witnesses and had done so, he ought to have frontloaded their sworn statements alongside the petition since many legal provisions prohibiting the employment of the witnesses were listed.
On the grounds that the witnesses’ testimony contravened the Electoral Act of 2022, he requested that the court dismiss the witnesses’ testimony and discount their claims.
Prince Lateef Fagbemi, who represented the APC, and Abubakar Mahmoud, who spoke for INEC, embraced Tinubu’s arguments against the witnesses.
Uche, however, argued that the concerns should be dismissed because they were unfounded and misguided.
Uche pointed out that the objections from Tinubu, the APC, and INEC were intentional attempts to stall the process.
The senior attorney maintained that because the subpoenaed witnesses had not yet been called, their testimony could not have been frontloaded with the petition.
He urged the court to reject the three respondents’ arguments and rule that they are not the ordinary extra witnesses that the law Olanipekun quoted contemplates.
The PEPC postponed the hearing until today.
Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s (LP) candidate for president, also asked the court for permission to question INEC about the IT staff that was employed during the election.
In two different motions, Patrick Ikweto argued this on his side.
Kemi Pinhero, speaking for INEC, objected to Obi’s plan to interrogate his client using inadequate apps.
The senior attorney contended that because Obi filed his application beyond the deadline set by law, it was now tardy.
