Cloned Nigerian Anchor

Author: Vivian Michael

  • Appeal Court reinstates ex-NIA DG Dauda  

    Appeal Court reinstates ex-NIA DG Dauda  

    The Court of Appeal has reinstated Ambassador Mohammed Dauda as the Director General of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA).

    The court also awarded the sum of N1 million to the dismissed DG against the NIA.

    The presiding Judge, Justice Peter Ige gave the verdict on Thursday evening, while delivering a judgement in an appeal filed by the NIA.

    In his judgment, the judge held that Dauda should be allowed to retire in service in accordance with the stipulated laws. 

    The Judge resolved all the contentious issues against NIA in favour of respondent.

    He held: “There is no evidence before the court that shows that the respondent has constituted any risk or breached any law.

    “The appellant appeal is hereby dismissed for lacking in merit and the Industrial Court judgment is hereby affirmed,”

    Earlier, the Abuja National Industrial Court had ordered the reinstatement of Mohammed Dauda as the head of National Intelligence Agency and payment of salaries and entitlements from March 2018 till date after it found that his dismissal fell short of the NIA Act.

    In the judgment delivered by Justice Olufunke Anuwe, it was held that, under the agency’s rule, the appropriate committee to investigate disciplinary cases against management staff is the management staff disciplinary committee, “not the special management staff disciplinary committee”.

  • INEC deleted results on 110 BVAS, Atiku’s witness tells Tribunal

    INEC deleted results on 110 BVAS, Atiku’s witness tells Tribunal

    A prosecution witness 26 (PW26) of the  Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku, Mr Hitler Nwala has told the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC) that results on all the 110 BVAS machines he inspected were deleted.

    Testifying before the court, Nwala said that the machines inspected were only those from the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

    Led in evidence-in-chief by the lead counsel to Atiku, Chief Chris Uche SAN, the subpoenaed witness said that he was a Digital Forensic Analyst and that he didn’t know at what point the results were deleted it from the machines.

    Under cross examination by counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mr Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, the witness said that he attached a standard device used for such an exercise to the machine to arrive at the conclusion.

    When asked if he had the authority of the commission to attach an external device to the BVAS machine, the witness answered in the affirmative.

    Mahmoud further asked the witness if he was aware that inspecting only 110 machines out of 3,163 that were deployed in the FCT amounted to only 3.4 per cent of the total number of BVAS deployed in the FCT and 0.06 per cent of BVAS deployed nationwide.

    In his defense, the expert witness said he only compiled the report and didn’t take out time to calculate the percentages.

    The INEC counsel attempted to give a BVAS machine to the witness to check if it was deleted as he had said in his report.

    The witness, however, said that it would be against the ethics of his profession to collect the BVAS machine in open court to check it.

    “It is professionally wrong to access a device that will be used as evidence in a court of competent jurisdiction because it will temper with the evidence.

    “We cannot access the device directly, what we do is to extract the evidence and take it for analysis.”

    Moreover, the witness told the court that since all the devices had the same model and look the same on the outside, he couldn’t tell if it was one of the ones he inspected my merely looking at it.

    On his part, counsel to the All Progressives Congress, (APC) Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN told the witness that neither he nor any of his team member signed the six volume forensic report.

    The witness, however, insisted that he signed  the report as well as the certificate of compliance.

    On his part, counsel to President Bola Tinubu, Mr Wole Olanipekin, SAN confronted the witness with a portion of his report where he said that from his inspection of the machines, “nothing was intrinsically wrong with them”.

    “Were you in Abuja on the day of the presidential election?

    “If you were not in Abuja, how then can you know that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the machines on the day of election?”

    The witness said that he was not in Abuja and so he couldn’t have known if something went wrong with the machines on the day of election.

    After the witness was discharged, the petitioners went further to tender Forms EC8A series from 20 local government areas of Ogun, 17 local government areas of Ondo, 27 local government areas of Jigawa and 20 local government areas of Rivers.

    The Chairman of the Court, Justice Haruna Tsammani adjourned hearing in the petition until Friday.

    Recall that going by the pre-hearing report, Atiku and the PDP are expected to close their case on

    Thursday, 22nd June (today), however a grace of one day was given. With the new development, the Prosecution will be closing their case on Friday, the 23rd, June.

  • Tribunal: US Immigration lawyer testifies against Lagos Dep Gov Hamzat

    Tribunal: US Immigration lawyer testifies against Lagos Dep Gov Hamzat

    A United States Immigration lawyer, Mrs. Olubusayo Fasidi, on Thursday, said that Lagos State Deputy Governor Obafemi Hamzat to the took oath of allegiance in the U.S. to renounce Nigerian citizenship.

    Fasidi, a Nigerian, testified before Lagos State Election Petition Tribunal.

    She was led in evidence by Dr Olumide Ayeni (SAN), counsel to the petitioner, Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour of the Labour Party.

    The witness told the tribunal that Hamzat, the third respondent in the petition, also applied for naturalisation as contained in Forms 8CFR/337 and N400.

    Ayeni tendered the documents to the three-man tribunal but counsel to all the respondents objected, saying that the reason for their objection would be included in their final written addresses.

    During cross-examination by counsel to Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mr Eric Ogiegor, the witness said that an individual could enjoy dual citizenship.

    She, however, said that she was not aware of the provision of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution that dealt with dual citizenship.

    She said that she was subpoenaed before the tribunal to explain U.S. law and not Nigeria’s Constitution.

    Mr. Bode Olanipekun (SAN), counsel to Hamzat and Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu, asked the witness to disclose the jurisdiction and date Hamzat applied for naturalisation but she said she would not, because the information was protected by the Privacy Act of 1974.

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) counsel, Mr Norris Quakers, asked the witness if she was aware that Hamzat disclosed his American citizenship.

    The witness replied in the affirmative, and Quakers thereafter argued that the witness addressed issues of law and not those of facts.

    The tribunal led by Justice Arum Ashom, while admitting all the documents in evidence, ordered counsel to the respondents to include their objections in their final written addresses.

    The other members of the tribunal are Justice Mikail Abdullahi and Justice l.P. Braimoh.

    The tribunal adjourned the case until June 26 for continuation of hearing.

    Earlier, Ayeni presented result sheet from polling units in nine local government areas of the state to establish differences in some areas, against what is recorded on INEC’s Form EC 40A.

    Counsel to INEC, Sanwo-Olu, Hamzat and APC objected to the admissibility of the Form EC 40A, reserving reasons until their final written addresses.

  • Asset Forfeiture: Court hears Diezani’s suit against EFCC October 23

    Asset Forfeiture: Court hears Diezani’s suit against EFCC October 23

    A Federal High Court, Abuja has fixed October 23 for hearing a suit filed by former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, challenging the order obtained by the EFCC for final forfeiture of her seized assets.

    Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date on Wednesday after Alison-Madueke’s lawyer, Benson Igbanoi, and EFCC’s counsel, M.D. Baraya, regularised their processes in the suit.

    The anti-corruption agency had planned to conduct public sale of all the assets seized for being proceeds of crime as ordered by courts to be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government

    The auctioning exercise, conducted on the seized assets believed to include Diezani’s property, started on Jan. 9.

    The immediate-past chairman of EFCC, Abdulrasheed Bawa, had recently revealed that $153 million and over 80 property had been recovered from Alison-Madueke.

    She was alleged to have escaped to the United Kingdom and remained there after her exit from public office as the petroleum minister, an office she held between 2010 and 2015 under the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan.

    But the ex-minister, in her suit, sought an order extending the time within which to seek leave to apply to the court for an order to set aside the EFCC’s public notice issued to conduct public sale on her property.

    In the motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/21/2023 dated and filed on Jan. 6 by her lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, the former minister sought five orders from the court.

    While Alison-Madueke is the applicant, the EFCC is the sole respondent in the suit.

    The former minister, who argued that the various orders were made without jurisdiction, said these “ought to be set aside ex debito justitiae.”

    She said she was not given fair hearing in all the proceedings leading to the orders.

    “The various court orders issued in favour of the respondent and upon which the respondent issued the public notice were issued in breach of the applicant’s right to fair hearing as guaranteed by Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, as altered, and other similar constitutional provisions,” she said.

    She argued that she was neither served with the charge sheet and proof of evidence in any of the charge nor any other summons howsoever and whatsoever in respect of the criminal charges pending against her before the court.

    She further argued that the courts were misled into making several of the final forfeiture orders against her assets through suppression or non-disclosure of material facts.

    “The several applications upon which the courts made the final order of forfeiture against the applicant were obtained upon gross misstatements, misrepresentations, non-disclosure, concealment and suppression of material facts and this honourable court has the power to set-aside same ex debito justitiae, as a void order is as good as if it was never made at all.

    “The orders were made without recourse to the constitutional right to fair hearing and right to property accorded the applicant by the constitution.

    “The applicant was never served with the processes of court in all the proceedings that led to the order of final forfeiture,” she said, among other grounds given.

    But the EFCC, in a counter affidavit deposed to by Rufai Zaki, a detective with the commission, urged the court to dismiss her application.

    Mr Zaki, who was a member of the team that investigated a case of criminal conspiracy, official corruption and money laundering against the ex-minister and some other persons involved in the case, said investigation had clearly shown that she was involved in some acts of criminality.

    He said Alison-Madueke was therefore charged before the court in charge no: FHC/ABJ/CR/208/2018.

    “We hereby rely on the charge FHC/ABJ/CR/208/2018 dated 14th November, 2018 filed before this honourable court and also attached as Exhibit C in the applicant’s affidavit,” he said.

    The EFCC operative, who said he had seen the ex-minister’s motion, said most of the depositions were untrue.

    He said contrary to her deposition in the affidavit in support, most of the cases which led to the final forfeiture of the contested property “were action in rem, same were heard at various times and determined by this honourable court.”

    He said the courts differently ordered the commission to do a newspaper publication inviting parties to show cause why the said property should not be forfeited to the Federal Government, before final orders were made.

    Mr Zaki argued that one Nnamdi Awa Kalu represented the ex-minister in reaction to one of the forfeiture applications.

    “We humbly rely on the judgment of Hon. Justice I.LN. Oweibo dated 10th September, 2019 shown in Exhibit C of the applicant’s affidavit,” he said.

    The officer said contrary to her, the final forfeiture of the assets which were subject of the present application was ordered by the court since 2017 and that this was not set aside or upturned on appeal.

    According to him, the properties have been disposed of through due process of law.

  • Tribunal: APM closes case after calling one witness

    Tribunal: APM closes case after calling one witness

    The Allied Peoples’ Movement on Wednesday in Abuja, closed its case at the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC) in its petition  challenging the Feb. 25 election of President Bola Tinubu and Vice-President Kashim Shettima after calling one witness.

    The counsel to the APM, Mr. Gideon Idiagbonya had told the court on Monday that he needed just one day to open and close his case since he had only one witness.

    The hearing of the party’s petition had stalled due to its inability to obtain a Supreme Court judgment on May 26.

    The judgment had dismissed the PDP’s suit which sought to nullify the president’s election based on allegations of double nomination of Shettima.

    The petitioner, however, on getting hold of the judgment told the court that there was nothing in the judgment to prevent it from going ahead with the petition.

    Respondents in the case, especially counsel to President Bola Tinubu, Mr Wole Olanipekin, SAN was however, of the view that the judgment had settled the sole issue the petitioner was contending.

    At the resumed hearing on Wednesday, counsel to the petitioner called Ms Aisha Abubakar who was his only witness.

    Abubakar told the court that she was a politician and the Assistant Welfare Officer of the APM, (the petitioner).

    Under cross examination, the witness told the court that she wasn’t privy to when INEC got the notice of substitution for Borno Central Senatorial District for the APC.

    The witness told the court that she was aware of the Supreme Court judgement delivered on May 26.

    The All Progressives Congress, (APC), through its counsel, Mr Wole Olanipekin, SAN, tendered a copy of the judgment in evidence.

    Idiagbonya, objected to the admissibility of the document in evidence but reserved his reason for objecting to the admissibility of the judgement until the final address stage.

    Olanipekin made the witness read part of the judgment highlighting the part where the apex court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal that said both the president and vice-president were qualified to contest the election.

    She was also made to read the part where the Supreme Court described the case of the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) as a frivolous appeal.

    She also admitted that Kabiru Masari did not contest the presidential election.

    After the witness was discharged from the witness box, counsel to the petitioner told the court that he would be unable to close his case as he had said on Monday.

    The lawyer said this was because INEC had yet to give him some documents he requested from them.

    “My lords, we could have closed our case today but some of the documents we asked for have not been given to us.

    “We have issued a subpoena on INEC and we hope they will avail us the remaining documents.”

    He, was however, reminded that he had said in open court that  he needed just one day to open and close his case and that today was his “one day”.

    After realising that some of the documents he had subpoenaed had been brought to court by an INEC staff, Mrs Joan Arabs, a Deputy Director  of Legal Drafting, he took the hint of the court and closed his case.

    One of the document was the original of the online form submitted by Shettima and another document was the original online form submitted by Lawan Shehu replacing Shettima as senatorial candidate in Borno.

    Mr Kemi Pinhero, counsel to INEC, the first respondent in the petition, also closed his case after tendering the letter that Shettima wrote to his party which was sent to INEC withdrawing his candidature for senatorial election.

    All the respondents; President Tinubu, Shettima, the APC and Kabiru Masari all closed their cases against the APM.

    The Chairman of the Court, Justice Haruna Tsammani ordered the respondents to file their addresses within 10 days.

    The judge also asked the petitioner to file his reply within seven days and the respondents to file their reply on points of law within five days.

    The court adjourned proceedings until July 14 for parties to adopt their final written addresses.

    The APM had in its petition marked: CA/PEPC/04/2023, contended that the withdrawal of Kabiru Masari, who was initially nominated as the vice presidential candidate of the APC invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy in view of Section 131(c) and 142 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

    The party argued that there was a  three-week gap between the period that Masari, who is listed as the 5th respondent in the petition, expressed his intention to withdraw, the actual withdrawal of his nomination, and the time Tinubu replaced him with Shettima.

    It further argued that Tinubu’s candidature had elapsed as at the time he nominated Shettima as Masari’s replacement.

    The party prayed the court to declare that Shettima was not qualified to contest as the vice presidential candidate of the APC as at Feb. 25 when the election was conducted by INEC.

    This, according to the petitioner was on the grounds of having violated the provisions of Section 35 of the Electoral Act, 2022.

    The petitioner, therefore, asked the court for an order nullifying and voiding all the votes scored by Tinubu in the presidential election in view of his non-qualification as a candidate of the APC.

    Meanwhile, the hearing in the petition of the Peoples’ Democratic Party, (PDP) and Alhaji Abubakar Atiku was adjourned until Thursday because the hearing in the petition of the APM had encroached into their time.

    The court had adjourned the hearing of the petition of the PDP until Wednesday at 10am but the hearing of the petition of the APM which started at about 9.30 am went on until about 12.30 pm on Wednesday.

    Atiku and the PDP were supposed to have closed their case on Thursday but because their petitioner could not be heard on Wednesday, Justice Tsammani said that they could take until Friday to conclude their case.

  • Tribunal: Atiku, PDP set to close its case against Tinubu on Thursday

    Tribunal: Atiku, PDP set to close its case against Tinubu on Thursday

    The Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) and its Presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, will Thursday, June 22, close their case in their joint petition challenging the declaration of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the winner of the February 25 presidential election.

    According to the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) pre-hearing report, the Petitioners were supposed to close their case on Tuesday, 21 June.

    However, when the matter was called up, the lead counsel to Atiku, Chief Chris Uche (SAN) informed Justice Haruna Tsamani led the panel that they lost two days out of the days allotted to them.

    The petitioners, who said that they would call 100 witnesses, but have called only 25 witnesses so far, prayed the court the two days be returned back to them.

    Speaking shortly after proceeding, petitioners said, they might call additional five witnesses to have a round figure of having called 30 witnesses.

    Uche said that some of the documents to be tendered in the remaining two days would take the place of the remaining 70 witnesses.

    “We are closing our case on Thursday, it was supposed to end today (Tuesday) but because we lost two days, one of which was the June 12 public holiday, the court graciously extended our time by two days.”

    Earlier in the proceedings, the petitioners lamented the difficulties encountered in getting Certified True Copies (CTC) of documents out of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in aid of their joint petition challenging Tinubu’s election.

    At the resumed hearing of the petition, Counsel to Atiku and his party told the court that, getting materials from INEC is like getting weapons from opponents. 

    He told the Court that getting documents from INEC is very difficult, but however commended the legal team of the electoral body, headed by Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN) for their assistance in getting some of the documents from INEC.

    Justice Haruna Tsammani adjourned till Wednesday, June 21 for the continuation of the hearing in the petition.

  • Sanwo-Olu doesn’t possess WASC result, Jandor tells Tribunal

    Sanwo-Olu doesn’t possess WASC result, Jandor tells Tribunal

    The Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) Governorship Candidate for Lagos State in the 2023 General Elections, Mr Abdulazeez Adediran (a.k.a. Jandor), on Monday, said that re-elected Lagos  Governor, Babjide Sanwo-Olu does not have a WASC result.

    Jandor, who made the claims before the Lagos State Election Petition Tribunal, said that one of the documents is a printout said to be from WAEC Result Verification Portal.

    The witness, while being questioned by counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mr Adetunji Oyeyipo, said that he bought a WAEC scratch card on the instruction of WAEC to check for Sanwo-Olu’s result on the portal and the portal showed: “Result not available for this candidate in the specified year and on the examination date”.

    He said that Sanwo-Olu lied on oath when he claimed that he attended Ijebu-Ife Community Grammar School and sat for West African School Certificate Examination in 1981.

    Adediran said that he confirmed from the West African Examination Council (WAEC) Result Verification Portal that the governor lied.

    While being led in evidence by his counsel, Mr. Clement Onwuenwunor (SAN), he had told the tribunal that his investigation showed that Sanwo-Olu did not have a West African School Certificate (WASC).

    Adediran also claimed as unlawful the process that led to the sponsorship of the Governorship candidacy of Sanwo-Olu and Mr Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour of the Labour Party (LP).

    He was being cross-examined by APC’s lead counsel, Mr Muiz Banire (SAN).

    According to Adeniran, a political party can only be said to have sponsored a candidate validly in a general election, if it adheres strictly to the Electoral Act.

    “Election is a process and not an event. The processes of their nomination that led to the parties’ sponsorship of the candidates are unlawful,” he said.

    The Chairman of the three-man tribunal, Justice Arum Igyen-Ashom, admitted in evidence 12 documents that Adediran tendered through his counsel.

    During cross-examination by the APC lead counsel, Mr Norrison Quakers (SAN), he told the tribunal that he was sponsored by his party.

    He told the court that he was not a member of PDP in 2018 and that he was not declared the winner of the 2023 Governorship Election because Sanwo-Olu was allegedly unlawfully declared the winner.

    While being cross-examined by Rhodes-Vivour’s counsel, Mr Uchechukwu Ani, he said he was never a member of LP but he knew about the primary election of the party held on June 1, 2022, and Aug.10 2022 through a document he got from INEC.

    According to him, Rhodes-Vivour’s Form EC9 was submitted on Aug. 13, 2022, but had been endorsed on July 4, 2022, before the primary election that produced him as the LP Candidate.

    He told the court while being cross-examined by counsel to LP, Mr. I.O. Benson, that his grouse with the governorship candidates was not nomination but sponsorship.

    The other members of the tribunal are Justice Mikail Adubulahi and Justice l.P. Braimoh.

    The tribunal adjourned until June 21 for the continuation of the hearing.

  • Shun juicy gifts from corrupt litigants, CJN warns Judges

    Shun juicy gifts from corrupt litigants, CJN warns Judges

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Olukayode Ariwoola has warmed the newly inaugurated Justice of the Industrial Court against accepting juicy and irresistible gifts from corrupt persons, especially politicians and businessmen so as not to bring shame and disgrace to their families.

    The CJN reminded them that many high-profile cases would definitely come before Judges in the course of discharging their duties in the company of irresistible gifts, especially when they involve mouthwatering financial aid and business transactions.

    “I am making it clear to you now that you must flee from such disguised danger”, the CJN said while inaugurating six newly appointed Judges for the National Industrial Court on Monday at the Supreme Court Complex.

    The six new Judges inaugurated are Justices Subilim Emmanuel Danjuma, Mohammad Adamu Hamza,  Damachi-Onugba Joyce Agede, Hassan Mohammed Yakubu, Buhari Sami and Sanda Audu Yelwa.

    “You must, against all odds, conduct your affairs within the ambit of the law and the oath that has just been administered to you.

    “If you were hitherto 50 percent under public scrutiny, I can confidently tell you now that it has automatically risen to 100 percent by virtue of this appointment”

    Justice Ariwoola charged the Judges to redouble their efforts and dialogue with their conscience in order not to fall out of the grace of God and the Nigerian people.

    “It absolutely takes nothing to join the crowd but it takes quite a lot to stand alone with a good conscience”.

    The CJN charged the new Judges to fasten their belts and roll up their sleeves to face the challenges head-on, adding that they must double their pace to catch up with the expectations of litigants.

    “As Judicial officers, you have a divine mandate on earth that you must discharge with unveiled honesty and sincerity”

    “You must give a good account of yourselves to justify your appointment. However, if you decide to do the contrary, the sledgehammer will, without hesitation, descend heavily on you.

    “No judicial officer at any level of our Courts will be allowed to drag the reputation of the Nigerian Judiciary into the mud. We cannot come this far to fail. Take heed of this admonition by working rightly towards occupying an enviable space in the annals of the Nigerian Judiciary,” the CJN said.

  • APM insists on petition against Tinubu, APC

    APM insists on petition against Tinubu, APC

    The Allied People’s Movement (APM), has shut down all attempts by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) to truncate its petition against them. 

    Tinubu, through his lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN had sought to use a Supreme Court judgment delivered on May 26, 2023 to terminate the APM’S petition but the request was turned down.

    They premised on the ground that the issue raised in the petition of the APM had been resolved by the Supreme Court in the judgment in a suit filed by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP).

    Consequent to the above, Olanipekun prayed the Court to rely on the judgment of the her court to halt hearing into the APM’S petition.

    He submitted that the APM’S petition is predicted on internal affairs of the APC and that the Supreme Court’s latest judgment had taken life out of the petition.

    The Presiding Justice of the Court, Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani however disagreed with Tinubu and held that the party cannot be shut out in the face of fair hearing.

    Justice Tsammani asked Tinubu to keep his objections against hearing of the petition to the final address stage of the Court’s proceedings.

    Similar objections raised by APC through its counsel, Charles Edosomwen SAN  against the petition on the same ground was turned down by PEPC for the same reason.

    Earlier, the APM through its lawyer, Mr Gideon Ijiagbonya had informed the Court of receipt of the Supreme Court judgment being sought to be used to terminate its petition.

    The lawyer said that upon perusal of the judgment by the Supreme Court, he and his legal team came to the conclusion that there is life in petition and applied for its hearing.

    He however sought for adjournment till June 26 to enable him obtain a vital document from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to establish his case.

    Justice Tsammani in a brief ruling rejected a week long adjournment and fixed Wednesday June 21 for hearing of the petition.

    Tinubu had early this month told the Court that the petition instituted against him and his Vice, Kashim Shetima by the APM died at the Supreme Court on May 26, 2023.

    The President said that the petition challenging his qualifications for the election on ground of “place holder’ by Kabir Masari was resolved by the Apex  Court in a judgment in a suit instituted by PDP on similar ground.

    Tinubu through his lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN disclosed the the PDP’S case marked SC/CV/501/2023 had resolved the grievances brought before the Court by the Allied People’s Movement.

    The Supreme Court had in the judgment held that PDP or any other parties, have no right to poke nose into how other parties conducted their primary elections and nominated their candidates.

    Olanipekun had argued that the APM’S petition was similar to the PDP’S case taken to Supreme Court and dismissed on the grounds that PDP has no business interfering with internal affairs of other parties.

  • We couldn’t upload only presidential results, INEC Officers tell Tribunal

    We couldn’t upload only presidential results, INEC Officers tell Tribunal

    Three subpoenaed witnesses of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and the Peoples’ Democratic Party PDP on Monday informed the court that they only had problems uploading presidential election results.

    The witnesses, who were presiding officers of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) told the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) that the refusal of Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) to transmit the presidential election results on Election Day frustrated their jobs.

    They however, submitted that the results of the Senate and the House of Representatives were transmitted unhindered and that the problems of technical hitches arose at the point of transmitting only the presidential poll results.

    While lead in evidence in chief, by the counsel to Atiku, Eyitayo Jegede SAN, the witnesses admitted that the election process went well until the period the BVAS machines refused to work.

    The three witnesses are Janet Nuhu Turaki, Christopher Bulus Ardo and Victoria Sani, served as INEC’S Presiding Officers at Yobe, Bauchi and Katsina States respectfully.

    In her testimony, prosecution witness 23(PW23), Janet Turaki said that the accreditation of voters was successful but that the process became frustrating at the point of uploading of the election results.

    She emphasized that while results of the National Assembly election sailed smoothly, that of the presidential poll failed and refused to work throughout the day.

    The witness however informed the Court that the collated results in the forms EC8A were signed by the party agents and herself as INEC’S Presiding Officer.

    In his own evidence, Christopher Bulus Ardo, PW24 told the Court that he felt unfulfilled in his assignment with INEC on the election because he could not transmit the presidential election results as required by law.

    In her own, Victoria Sani PW25, said she could not remember the candidate that won the presidential poll in Katsina state but insisted that all did not end well due to inability to transmit the presidential aspect of the February 25 election.

    Meanwhile, the Presiding Justice of the Court, Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani has fixed June 20 for continuation of hearing in the petition.