Author: Vivian Michael

The candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2023 presidential election, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, has revealed that he will be calling not less than 100 witnesses to prove that Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the All Progressive Congress (APC) was not duly elected as the president of Nigeria.

At the resumed sitting on Saturday, Atiku, through his lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche SAN, told the court that the matter for the day is for completion of pending issues in the pre-hearing section.

Uche submitted that the parties  have met and agreed on number of witnesses and duration of examination of the witnesses, examination in chief, cross examination and  on re-examination.

According to him, the parties agreed to streamline the number of witnesses and duration for each parties to call witnesses, all subject to ratification by the court.

Breaking it down: The time duration to give evidence in Chief for Star witness is 30 minutes because they may wants to tender documents, 15mins for opposing team for cross-examination and 5mins for re-examination for the lead witness of the Petitioner.

On the other witnesses for the Petitioner, the parties proposals subject to the court consideration are, 10mins for evidence in chief, cross examination for 10mins and 5mins for re-examination.

For Respondents witnesses, the parties proposed 30mins for the Star witness’s evidence in chief, 30mins for cross examination and 5mins for re-examination.

Concluding, Chris Uche suggested no cross examination by respondents for his own witness.

Meanwhile, the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC, (1st respondent)through its counsel, Abubakar Mahmoud, revealed they will be calling two witnesses.

While Tinubu will be calling 39 witnesses and APC will be calling 25 witnesses.

The respondents all opposed to the proposal made by Cris Uche of no cross examination by for respondents witnesses by the  respondents counsel

They described it as unconstitutional and an attempt against fair hearing.

The Justice Simon Tsamani panel, had adjourned to Monday, 22 May for parties to agree on the issue of consolidation.

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja and headed by Justice Hamza Muazu have on Friday granted an order of stay execution on the suspension of Julius Abure, Chairman of the Labour Party (LP) and others.

Others are the National Organizing Secretary, Mr Clement Ojukwu and National Treasurer, Oluchi Opara, who were restrained from parading themselves as LP national officials.

The plaintiffs in the case are Martins Esikpali John; Lucky Shaibu; Isah Zekeri; Omogbai Frank; Abokhaiu Aliu; Ayohkaire Lateef; John Elomah and Dr Ayobami Arabambi,.

They had in an ex-parte motion, sought the removal of Abure and the three other national officers of the party. The judge after listening to arguments from the parties granted the order for a stay of execution pending the determination of the appeal filed by the defendants.

Justice Muazu had on April 5 issued an interim injunction stopping Abure, Ibrahim and the party’s National Organizing Secretary, Mr Clement Ojukwu and National Treasurer, Oluchi Opara, from parading themselves as national officers of LP.

At the sitting on Friday, the defendants told the court that they had a notice of appeal pending at the Court of Appeal. After much arguments from the parties, the judge granted an order for a stay on the suspension on Abure and the other officials of the Labour Party as first served by the court.

Following the April 5 ex-parte injunction made by Justice Muazu, stopping Abure, Ibrahim and two other national officials of the party, Alex Ejesieme, SAN had on April 20 argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

The senior advocate had submitted that the matter before the court bordered on the internal affairs of the Labour Party, adding that criminal allegations made by the plaintiffs in the case, could not be ventilated in an origination summon.

He added that the eight plaintiffs that brought the case before the court were not members of the National Executive Council of the party and as such lacked the locus standi to institute the case.

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate in the 2023 election, Atiku Abubakar, has described the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as a meddlesome interloper in its defence against Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

At the resumed proceeding on Friday, the electoral empire, through its counsel, Mr Kemi Pinhero (SAN) moved a motion on notice praying the Court to strike out some of the allegations made against Tinubu.

Specifically, INEC pleaded with the Court to strike out 32 allegations made against Tinubu by Atiku for various reasons comprising lack of jurisdiction.

But Atiku, through his lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche (SAN) filed a counter affidavit in opposition to INEC’S request and asked the Court to dismiss the electoral body’s position.

Uche argued that it was not the duty of INEC to do the battle or argue the case for Tinubu who is the 2nd defendant in the petition.

Atiku insisted that INEC ought to be neutral but has somersaulted by turning itself into a busybody and a meddlesome interloper by taking up the defense of Tinubu against the provisions of the law.

He, therefore, asked the Court to dismiss INEC’s motion for being a gross abuse of court process, lacking in merit, and grossly incompetent.

Meanwhile, the Chairman of the Court, Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani has fixed ruling till the date of judgment in the substantive petition.

The factional Chairman of the Labour Party, Lamidi Apapa has arrived the Court of Appeal premises, the venue of the Presidential Election Petition Court on Friday morning, for the continuation of the proceeding.

Recall that on Wednesday, factions of the LP had clashed in court, leading to Apapa being taken into protective custody by security operatives attached to the Court.

The problem had started shortly after the adjournment of the case, as Apapa, while stepping out of the courtroom, made an attempt to address the media, as a group of youths that identified themselves as “Obidients” pushed him away from the cameras, insisting that he lacked the right to speak for the party.

Meanwhile, Labour Party presidential candidate, Mr Peter Obi was sighted arriving the Court for hisa case against president-elect, Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the All progressives Congress (APC).

More details later…

*Denies receiving N500m from Tinubu

The factional National Chairman of the crisis-ridden Labour Party, Alhaji Basiru Lamidi Apapa, has asked the Presidential Candidate of the party in the last election, Mr Peter Gregory Obi to objectively intervene and resolve the heating crisis.

The embattled Apapa also denied the allegation of receiving the sum of N500 million from the All Progressive Congress to unsettle the party.

In a media briefing after his attack at the Presidential Election Petition Court on Wednesday, Apapa demanded that Obi must be unbiased in order to get the disputed chairmanship tussle resolved.

He insisted that what happened at the Presidential court in which fracas broke out in the presence of Peter Obi, was disgraceful and a test to Obi’s leadership quality.

Apapa said that the leadership crisis would have been put behind them if the presidential candidate had respected the order of the Federal Capital Territory High Court which ordered Julius Abure and three others from parading themselves as National Officers of the party over their indictment for forgery and Perjury.

Tracing the genesis of the leadership crisis, Apapa said that immediately after the order of court was served on the party, he was unanimously selected in acting capacity as the National Chairman of the party.

Further in his speech, he said that it was wrong of Obi to accord respect to Abure in-spite of the order of the court and as a presidential candidate seeking Justice from the same court of law.

On the alleged receipt of 500 million Naira from external forces to destabilize the party, Apapa vehemently denied receiving any money or being influenced by anybody or any group to work against the party.

He also said that it was wrong of Peter Obi to have claimed not to know him, adding that he worked closely with and even travelled on the same flight with Peter Obi throughout his Presidential electioneering campaign.

He therefore, appealed to Obi to be open-minded, neutral, and objective so as to be able to resolve the crisis.

Also speaking at the briefing the deputy National Chairman of the Party in the North Mike Ayuba Auta denied that the all Progressive Congress was behind the crisis adding that the allegation was baseless and unfounded.

Auta apologized to Nigerians who he said gave Labour Party over 6 million votes during the last presidential election, adding that that should not be discouraged by the current leadership crisis and assured that the dispute will soon be resolved.

Meanwhile, the Court has adjourned till Friday, May 19, the pre-hearing of the petition filed by Peter Obi against the President-elect, Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

The court, led by Justice Haruna Tsamani, fixed the date, following the failure of parties to agree on documents, among other reasons.

The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), has further adjourned pre-hearing in the petitions filed by Mr. Peter Obi and his Labour Party until Friday.

The panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, adjourned after parties submitted on their meeting promised on May 10 on exchange processes and responses and harmonization.

After listening to the submissions, Tsammani, said the petitioners would state their position documents and tender documents.

“The petition is further adjourned until May 19 (Friday).

Following the agreement by all the parties in the petition on May 10, the court adjourned until today (Wednesday).

Obi and the LP filed petitions marked CA/PEPC/03/2023.

The respondents are Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Sen.Bola Tinubu and Sen. Kashim Shettima and All Progressives Congress (APC).

Counsel for the petitioners, Dr Levi Uzoukwu, SAN drew the attention of the court that Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is yet to produce the documents asked for.

He argued that INEC provided less than 30 percent in Rivers and Sokoto states.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) counsel, Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN pledged to hasten the proceedings.

He claimed that the petitioners refused to attend the meeting of the parties agreed on at the last sitting on May 10.

He said that he called the petitioners’ lead counsel to ask why their team was not at the meeting and he said they were not aware.

Mahmoud alleged that the petitioners walked out of the meeting on Tuesday.

Counsel to Sen. Bola Tinubu and Sen. Kashim Shettima, Wole Olanipakun (SAN) similarly said that after the agreement on May 10 by all parties, the 2nd and 3rd respondents set up a team.

He said the team was led by Ogwu Onoja, SAN and A.A. Malik, SAN, and others.

Olanipakun said he put a call across to the petitioners’ lead counsel asking how they would proceed in court today.

He added that the petitioners failed to respond to their documents filed, saying they needed up to Friday to respond.

The APC counsel, Lateef Fagbemi, aligned with the accounts of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents’ counsel.

He said there should not be a mistake of subpoena at this stage, it is whatever document produced that should be brought to the table.

He further said that the petitioners should look at the fundamental cause which is the refusal to pay the necessary fee as required by the law

He added that the court officials were present when the petitioners walked out, adding, Victor Umoh, SAN and others represented the team for the 4th respondent.

He said the effect of the report was that all true certified documents will not be objected to.

Responding, the petitioners’ counsel, Uzoukwu told the court that he was concerned over the language of his colleagues.

The Chairman of INEC, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu had declared Tinubu winner of the Feb. 25 presidential election after securing majority of votes cast at the poll.

He said Tinubu met the constitutional benchmark of scoring 25% in two-thirds of 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory.

Disagreeing with the outcome of the result, Obi and his party, LP filed a petition challenging the victory.