The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) has admitted two video flash drives on Friday (June 9, 2023) as part of Mr. Peter Obi’s case against President Bola Tinubu through the testimony of a witness who had been subpoenaed.
In the petition with the file number CA/PEPC/03/2023 contesting President Bola Tinubu’s election, Obi and his Labour Party (LP) are signatories.
The All Progressives Congress (APC), President Bola Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) are the respondents.
For Obi and his Party, the court recognized two video flash drives that were presented by a witness who had been subpoenaed.
Levi Uzoukwu, SAN, counsel for the petitioners, informed the court that Jubrin Okitepa, SAN, would preside over the hearing when it was resumed.
He added that software engineering will also be needed for the process.
A reporter and editor from Channels TV named Lucky Obowo-Isawode was brought as a subpoenaed witness.
Two subpoenas, dated May 30 and June 6, were served on the TV station to produce the video footage, the attorney told the court.
He said that the video clips were excerpts from an interview with Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, chairman of INEC.
The second is from Mr. Festus Okoye, National Commissioner and INEC Committee Chairman for Information and Voter Education.
Kemi Pinhero, SAN for INEC, Akin Olujimi, SAN for President Tinubu and Vice President Shittema, and Afolabi Fashanu, SAN for the APC are the respondents’ attorneys.
While none of them opposed the witness, they did protest the approval of his sworn declaration.
Olujimi opposed to the adoption of his witness statement under oath on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents.
He claims that it violates the Electoral Act’s clause.
“It is settled that an election petition must be filed within 21 days after the announcement of the election.
“The documents sent out must be accompanied by the petition, list of witnesses and their statements.
“The witness statement was filed today, three months after the announcement of the results,” he said.
He continued by saying that he had glanced through the petition’s pages but had not noticed the witness’s name.
“The witness is not competent to testify before this court, this point has been settled in the decision of this court,” he said.
Pinhero aligned with the submission by Olujimi.
“The petitioners were aware of the videos and ought to have filed it along with the petition as required by the law,” he said.
He consequently pleaded with the court to sustain the objection and reject the adoption.
Fashanu for the APC agreed with the arguments made by the attorneys for the other respondents.
He continued by saying that for the purposes of compliance, there is no different between a witness who has been subpoenaed and a regular witness.
He requested the court to sustain the objection and reject the adoption as meritless as a result.
The objections of the respondents, according to Okitepa, should be dismissed if there is anything.
“A subpoena, we know, is an order of the court issued against a person.
“It is not a witness in control of the petitioner or respondent and is competent to testify.
“If a subpoenaed witness can testify orally, what injury would we suffer? I submit none.
“It will rather quicken the hands of justice.
“No injury should be suffered. I, therefore, urge the court to overrule the objection, you need to see the video,” he said.
He informed the jury that the subpoenaed witness presented live interviews with the INEC chairman and Mr. Festus Okoye as evidence.
Flash disks containing the video were presented and allowed as evidence, and the attorney requested that it be shown.
Olujimi objected, saying that since they hadn’t received the flash drive, it shouldn’t be played.
He said that they needed to know what was on the flash drive so they could prepare themselves because they didn’t know what was on it.
“Having not served us before the proceeding, it would not be in the interest of fair hearing”, he said.
While Pinhero for INEC stated the video may be shown because it had previously been admitted as evidence, Fashanu for the APC sided with Olujimi.
The five-member panel, presided over by Justice Haruna Tsammani, took a break in order to play the videos and continue hearing the appeal.
