The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC on Tuesday told the Presidential Election Petition Court, that some documents requested for by the presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP) at the 2023 election, Peter Obi to prove its case against declaration of Bola Tinubu of All Progressives Congress, APC as the winner of the poll are non-existent.
Obi’s lead counsel, Dr. Livy Uzoukwu, SAN, at the resumed hearing of the case, informed the tribunal that the bailiff successfully served two subpoenas dated May 30 and June 13, on INEC Chairman, Prof. Mahmoud Yakubu, on Monday, after many failed attempts.
He told the court that the INEC Chairman sent a representative to tender some of the requested documents in evidence.
On the prompting of the court, the INEC’s representative, Mrs Moronkenji Olufimulayo Tairu, mounted the witness box.
She identified herself as a Deputy Director, Certification & Complaints, Legal Drafting and Clearance Department at the INEC headquarters in Abuja.
The witness said she was in court with respect to the subpoena dated May 30, adding that someone from the ICT department of the Commission would present documents that were requested for in the second subpoena.
She told the court that while some documents that Obi requested for “are not in existence”, others could not be easily assembled owing to logistics reasons as they are in various states of the federation.
“We have to send messages to our staff members in the states to get them ready. We were only served with the subpoena yesterday.
“However, we came with two of the requested documents, which are listed in paragraphs R and S. The two documents are INEC’s Manual for election officials and INEC’s Regulations for the conduct of the 2023 general elections. It will take us throughout the week to get the other documents,” the witness added.
Her submissions angered Obi’s lawyer who accused INEC of deliberately frustrating the case.
Uzoukwu, SAN, told the court that INEC Chairman refused to receive copies of the subpoena from the bailiff.
On his part, INEC’s lawyer, Mr. Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, drew attention of the court to Section 74 of the Electoral Act, which he said mad it clear that an application for such requested documents should be made to Resident Electoral Commissioners, RECs, in all the states.
Responding, Obi’s lawyer told the court that the INEC Chairman had on many occasions he held a meeting with the petitioners, assured them that he would make all the requested electoral materials available.
“We also sent lawyers with necessary applications to the states. At the states, we got some documents, but the RECs said they would not release other requested documents without authorization from the headquarters.
“They told us to go to Abuja. At a point, Secretary of the Commission told them not to release the documents unless they were authorised to do so.
“My application is that INEC having been served with the subpoena yesterday, that this court should order them to produce the documents tomorrow. They created this situation when they refused to accept the subpoena since May 30,” Obi’s lawyer insisted.
However, members of the panel intervened by blaming the petitioners’ legal team for relying on assurances from INEC Chairman instead of writing formally to the RECs as required by the law.
The panel said it would have wielded the big stick against any REC the refused to produce the needed documents, assuming the petitioners followed the provisions of the Electoral Act in making their demands.
“Truth be told, you left the provisions of the law and pursued something else. There is nothing before us to show that the application was made to the RECs. We are not here to play by sentiments,” a member of the panel chided Uzoukwu, SAN.
One of Obi’s witnesses, Ms Loretta Ogah, an ICT cloud engineer, had earlier told the tribunal she contested election into the House of Representatives on the platform of Labour Party in Cross River, but lost the election.
Ogar had told the court that she works with Amazon Web Services, AWS, Incorporated, which INEC engaged to provide technical support to it during the general elections.
She had in her evidence-in-chief, insisted that contrary to INEC’s claim, that there was no technical glitch in the country on February 25 when the presidential election held.
Her evidence countered INEC’s position that its inability to electronically transmit results of the presidential poll to its viewing portal, in real time, using the Bimodal Voter Accreditation, BVAS, machines, was owing to technical glitches it experienced on the election day.
However, while being cross examined by the Respondents, the witness, admitted that she was not sent to the court by Amazon.
Ogar further admitted to the court that contested House of Representatives election for Yala/Ogoja Federal Constituency in the 2023 general elections under Labour Party and lost.
Though the witness insisted that the last time Amazon experienced a technical glitch in its services was on December 10, 2021, she told the court that in the same year, AWS was reported to have suffered more than 21 outages.
Asked if it was not within the realm of common sense that if such glitch occurred before that it could happen again, the witness, said: “Anything is possible. But with the report I produced before this court, there was no such glitch on the AWS service on February 25.”
While being cross examined by President Tinubu’s lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, the witness, said she had prior to the general elections, sued INEC over her inability to upload her details to its server which she said “crashed”.
The Justice Tsammani-led panel adjourned further hearing on the petitions till Wednesday.
With NAN report
Leave a Reply