The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) has made a critical decision to strike out the evidence provided by 10 out of the 13 witnesses called by Peter Obi and the Labour Party (LP) in their petition challenging the election of President Bola Tinubu.
The court’s judgment highlighted a crucial procedural error: the witnesses, who were called upon at the petitioners’ request, failed to submit their written statements, containing their evidence, within the 21-day timeframe allowed by the Electoral Act of 2022. This failure to comply with the legal timeline led to the dismissal of their evidence.
Under the leadership of Justice Haruna Tsammani, the PEPC also rejected various documents, including an analysis report, which the petitioners had introduced through the testimony of these 10 affected witnesses. The court identified that some of these witnesses not only had an interest in the case’s outcome but also produced their reports during the ongoing legal proceedings, undermining their credibility.
Justice Tsammani emphasized that the petitioners had alleged over-voting in specific states but had failed to specify the precise polling units where these alleged malpractices occurred. Furthermore, they did not provide specific figures regarding the votes they claimed to have received at these units.
The court also ruled against the admissibility of evidence provided by Mr. Obi’s web engineer, Mpeh Ogar, concerning a technical glitch observed on the INEC Results Viewing portal on the election day. The judge argued that Ms. Ogar, given her own political aspirations on the Labour Party’s platform, was an interested party in the petition.
The PEPC went on to reject the European Union’s report on the February 25 presidential election. This decision was based on the absence of an official authorized to present the document on behalf of the organization, which is the document’s author and custodian.
Furthermore, the reports of forensic analyses, presented by three Labour Party witnesses, were also dismissed by the presidential election court. These reports were rejected due to their creation either during the ongoing case’s proceedings or by individuals with vested interests in the petition’s outcome.
Additionally, the court clarified that the petitioners’ claim regarding blurred 18,000 results sheets was misconceived, as they failed to specify the particular polling units to which these sheets were related.
