With one witness apiece Tinubu, INEC defend victory, integrity of polls

In the next few weeks the firepower at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) will ebb as the five-member panel of the court, headed by Justice Haruna Tsammani, has sent lawyers and petitioners back to their chambers to produce their final written addresses.

The Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), the first respondent in the petition, opened and closed its case with a sole witness.

The witness, Mr Lawrence Bayode, an Assistant Director in the commission’s Information Technology Department, insisted that the presidential election was free, fair and in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022.

Bayode also told the court that whether or not photographic copies of polling unit results captured by Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) were transmitted manually or electronically, the integrity of the election was not compromised.

According to him, the glitch on the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IREV) on election day did not affect the actual scores of the candidates as the results of each of them remained the same.

Following a request by counsel to the petitioners, the witness read in the court, portions of the European Union Election Observer Mission report that was earlier admitted in evidence.

He specifically read the portion where the EU stated that the 2023 election was not a transparent and inclusive election as promised by INEC.

He also read a portion in the report which said only 31 per cent of results uploaded in IREV were mathematically correct.

The witness maintained that the technological innovations which INEC introduced into the electoral process were to guarantee transparency and integrity of the election.

With Bamidele as his star and only witness, Tinubu closed his defence against Obi and Atiku petitions.

Tinubu opened and closed his defence after the testimony of Bamidele, who was elected as the Senate Majority Leader only a day before he appeared in court to give evidence.

Through Bamidele the president tendered 17 sets of exhibits, including his educational and travel records.

Bamidele, in his testimony, insisted that the votes President Tinubu got in Kano state were not properly recorded, saying that there was a shortfall of about 10, 929 votes.

Bamidele further confirmed a letter the LP wrote to INEC on April 25, 2022, where it forwarded its membership register as well as a list of members in Anambra to the commission.

He told the court that the list of membership the LP forwarded to INEC did not contain Obi’s name and as such Obi was not a member of the party when he contested the election.

He urged the court to take a judicial notice of the fact the petitioners anchored their petition on criminal forfeiture whereas the judgment of the court explicitly stated that the case was a civil matter.

Bamidele told PEPC that Tinubu was given a clean bill of health by the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria.

He also told the court that as a long standing associate of the president for over 35 years, he knew him as a bona fide Nigerian citizen by birth.

When asked if he was aware that Tinubu would be the first person to be declared president without scoring 25 per cent votes in the FCT, Bamidele answered that it was not a statutory requirement.

He said the requirement is for him to score 25 per cent of total votes cast in the election, not only in the FCT.

The Senate Leader also acknowledged that of all the four major candidates that contested the presidential candidates, only Tinubu did not win in his home state.

In what many political enthusiasts who are closely following the proceedings of the PEPC, termed an anti-climax twist, the All Progressives Congress, (APC) closed its defence without calling any witnesses.

For the APC, as captured by its lead counsel, Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, there is no need whipping a dead horse.

The five-member panel consequently directed the respondents to within 10 days, file their final written address.

It further directed petitioners to upon receipt of the respondents’ address, file their own final brief of argument within seven days.

The respondents were subsequently given five days to reply on points of law if they wished to.

The court warned that all the written addresses should not exceed 40 pages, but that parties were at liberty to file separate written addresses not exceeding 10 pages, for all the objections they raised in the course of the hearing.

The court said the date for adoption of all the addresses, preparatory to its final judgment in the petitions, would be communicated to all the parties.