On the witness box is another PDP and Atiku/Obi’s witness, Babagana Kukawa, from Kukawa LGA in Borno State
The APC lead counsel asked the witness to read his witness statement from paragraph 1 to 20
He read that he observed that the votes allocated to the PDP in the February 23, 2019 Presidential election in Kukawa LGA was not the true reflection of what transpired during the election. That the votes were merely written by the INEC in collaboration with the APC agents. SEE Atiku Versus Buhari: Verbatim Report of 2019 Presidential Election Petition Tribunal Proceedings On July 8
PDP and Atiku Obi called on witness number 67 on the witness list
Suleiman Mohammed Bulama from Yobe State
INEC counsel Usman
Asked if he was a polling unit agent and he said he was the ward collation agent
Asked to read paragraph 6 of his statement
He read that the agents of the APC in the nine polling units under his wards, harassed and intimidated voters to vote for President Muhammadu Buhari
Asked if voting was by secret ballot and he said no.
Asked if he saw voters vote for a particular candidate and he said no.
Asked if he did not see the votes, how come he said the APC influenced the votes, he said that APC agents were at the polling box and when a voter is accredited, the voter will be forced to hand over the ballot paper to the APC agents who will be now thump print for the voter instead of the voter voting himself/herself.
Asked if agents wore uniform and he said they only wore tags.
Asked if voters wear tags or uniform and he said they don’t.
Asked if he has records of people injured or people collecting money from agents and he said yes. SEE Atiku Vs Buhari: Verbatim Report of Proceedings at Presidential Election Tribunal Today, July 12
That one of the PDP agent was injured by a soldier because he challenged the unlawful activities of the APC and INEC.
Asked if the person that was humiliated is still alive and he said yes.
Buhari’s counsel
Asked if he is from Channa in Yobe State and he said yes. SEE Atiku Vs Buhari: Final Verbatim Report of Proceedings at Presidential Election Tribunal, Abuja Today, July 11
Asked if his names are as he stated and he said yes.
Asked who is Alamba in paragraph 7, and he said yes and asked if that is a complete name of a person and he said Alamba is a name of the village head in his LGA.
Asked if he stated the name of the village head and he said Alamba.
Asked if he signed the result sheet and he said yes because he wanted to keep the record.
Asked how many registered voters in his polling unit and he said he did not know.
Asked if he knows the amount of money votes were being bought and he said the lawyer should asked the APC agent.
Asked if he gave the result of the polling unit to a senator in his LGA and he said his party did and not him.
Asked if he has the results of the election with him and he said no.
Asked if he stands by his statement that he paid 10,000 to soldiers and he said yes, that they were forced to pay the money.
APC counsel Fagbemi
Asked if he was an agent of PDP in ward 4 and he said yes.
Asked if other political parties also had agents and he said yes.
Asked if he was present in all the nine units during the election and he said he went round the whole nine units.
Asked if he knows what transpired in each of the polling units and he said no, but went round the nine polling units and he also has agents in the polling units.
Asked if he offered bribe to the soldiers and he said no.
Asked if the district heads he mentioned on his witness statement are still alive and he said yes.
Asked if he checked the voters register and he said no.
Asked if he knows the PDP polling agent in Gudi and he said his name is Abubakar.
Asked if what he stated on his witness statement concerning that polling unit was given to him by Abubakar.
Asked to give the amount of money being paid to voters and he said the lawyer should ask the APC agents that question because they were the ones buying votes.
PDP and Atiku/Obi called witness number 4 on the witness list
The PDP lawyer also requested that in the course of the witness testimony, a video clip will be played to the court
Arguments ensued between counsel on the necessity of the video and asked if the witness is a star witness and the PDP and Atiku/Obi counsel confirmed that the witness is a star witness
Segun Sowonmi is on the witness box.
An LCD screen was brought into the court room accompanied by some Indians and other technical staff
Setup was made and Segun Showunmi is now testifying.
Asked if he was the media adviser to the first petitioner and he said yes.
Asked if in his witness statement there was a document he said he recorded in a compact disc and he said yes.
Asked if he sees the compact disc he will recognise it and he said yes.
A set of documents (compact disc) were presented to him for identification and he sighted and confirmed.
Asked if he also signed a copy of a certificate act in defense of the said documents and he said yes.
Asked if he signed every page of the certificate of compliance and he said yes.
The PDP and Atiku/Obi presented the copy of the compact disc (27) of them to the court and a copy of the certificate of compliance
INEC counsel rejected the documents and submitted that video evidence were not part of the agreed documents to be submitted in court.
Secondly, Usman argued that it does not comply with paragraph 4(6)(c) of the first schedule of the electoral act 2010 (as Amended).
Buhari counsel also associated himself with the position of INEC. He said the presentation of the evidence is an ambushment and does not comply with paragraph 41 and sub 2 and 8 of the first scheduled of the electoral act.
APC counsel Akintola also opposed the admissibility of the compact disc presented to the court by the PDP and Atiku/Obi. He aligned himself with the position of INEC and Buhari
That the Court of Appeal has treated this same case before between PDP against Mohammed Tanimu, but cannot present the citation, saying that the PDP is amending the petition through the back door.
And he again cited Okey against Mimiko, 2014 but could not present the citation against PDP and Tanimu.
The PDP and Atiku/Obi cited paragraph 27 of the pre-hearing report where all the counsel of the parties agreed to present their objections during the final address and also agreed that documents could be tendered in court, filed and exchanged.
Therefore, the petitioners are in order to tender the evidence and the respondents are also at liberty to object and do so in writing in their final address
Secondly, on the issue of front-loading evidence, that in the case of the petitioner, they are at liberty to list or front-load, except the respondents that cannot list and front load citing first schedule paragraph 4(5)(I)(c)
That the PDP and Atiku/Obi listed the evidence in page 43, items number 38, 40 and 44 of the main petition submitted to the court
Even in paragraph 108 in page 37, the presentation of compact disc was listed vividly and stated that there was no ambushment ad alleged by the respondents
He cited the case of Batuga against Oyegokun and others in 2014, LPELR page 22, 34 of the Court of appeal and the case of Holdest International limited against Petersvile Nigeria Ltd, 2013, Court of Appeal and in the Case of Dickson and Silver decided by the Supreme Court in 2016 where a video recording was presented in court and the court admitted it in evidence
And in section 258 (1) of the evidence act 2011 when has expanded the ratio of evidence to video recordings
Going by these, he asked the court to agree that the petitioner tender and present the video recordings and let the respondents object as agreed in their final submissions
After long deliberations by all the counsel to the parties, the trial judge ruled that the court will look at the authorities cited by all the counsel and decide on whether to admit the evidence or not.
The court is now on recess and will resume to deliver ruling on the application by the PDP and Atiku/Obi regarding the video tape presentation
[15/07, 2:59 pm] Ike Abonyi: Updates from the Court of Appeal…
The court is back in session
The trial judge ordered the registrar to situate the matter.
The court registrar did and the counsel register appearances.
The trial judge then proceeded to rule on the matter concerning the admissibility of the video evidence
As follows
That the relevant point which needed to be considered in respect of the evidence if it was coveted by the agreements reached counsel to the parties
He went ahead to read the portion of the agreement reached by counsel to the parties in which they agreed that evidence can be tendered and objection filed during final addresses at the end of trial.
He went further to cite other evidence that was presented in court, though objected by respondents but admitted in court and the reasons for the objections will be tendered by parties at the final address.
Consequently, the court
Ruled that the 48 video evidences shall be admitted in court as evidence and same with certificate.
The witness is now called to the witness box.
Segun Showunmi is back on the witness box to give his testimony
The PDP and Atiku/Obi requested that exhibit p74,to 75 and 80 be shown to the witness
The items were brought to the court and shown to the witness.
The items are:
1. INEC collated results as done by the Chairman of INEC, Professor Yakubu obtained from TVC 390 (p74)
2. Exhibit p75 – video clip of Osun Decides, showing count down to Osun governorship election.
3. Video clip of election postponements by Professor Mahmood Yakubu on INEC breakdown of material challenges
4. Video clip of how INEC officers were demonstrating on how to vote
5. Video clip of ifex Nigeria results transmission on mp4
6. Nigerian Army Press Conference on General Buhari’s missing certificates
The PDP and Atiku/Obi then requested that the selected video clips be shown to the court at least two minutes each
A clip was then played showing Seun Akinbaloye speaking with INEC officers on the postponement of the February 23, 2019 Presidential Election
INEC officers apologised to Nigerians on account of operational realities.
The second video clip is about Mike Igini, INEC Akwa Ibom REC showing to the court and an INEC officers explained that there is no need for evidence Form in the coming election.
Mike Igini explaining how results will be transmitted to INEC central server via Form EC8E.
That results will be transmitted straight away to the INEC central server.
The third video clip is a press conference showing how the Army in a press conference by Army Public Relations Officer, in NTA news, read that Buhari obtained WAEC in 1961, saying that neither the original copy or photocopy of Buhari’s certificate is in custody of the Nigerian Army.
After this tape, the court requested that PDP and Atiku/Obi should make application for other videos which Dr. Chris Uche made.
The fourth video is shown to the court, showing Professor Mahmood Yakubu explaining that INEC will deploy technology during the election to electronically transmit results of the election to the server.
After the video clip, the APC counsel, Akintola said that all the videos should be played and should not be taken as read because the parties have not consented to it but the court ruled that it has noted his concern.
INEC Counsel Usman
Asked if the witness downloaded the video clip from Channels TV website in which INEC chairman said results transmission will not be possible and he said no, that he is not aware of such comments.
Asked if he has all the statements and press releases of INEC chairman on the election and he said relevant ones.
He was asked to present the statement of INEC chairman on the 8th of February and he said he does not have them.
Asked to present his appointment letter as Atiku SA and he said he does not have it with him.
Asked if he is truly the media adviser to Atiku and he said yes, that it’s in public space.
Asked if he is aware of INEC chairman press statement of the 6th of February 2019 and he said he has it in his record but can’t say what it is.
Asked if he brought, played and amplified Mike Igini’s statement and he said yes.
Asked if he knows Mike Igini is not the spokesman of INEC and he said no.
Asked if INEC chairman statement and that of Igini were done before the election and he said yes.
Buhari counsel
Asked if he is conversant with the interview of INEC chairman of the 6th of February and he said he presumed.
Buhari counsel seeks the court’s permission to show the witness a copy of a compact disk and asked if the court can play the compact disk but the PDP and Atiku/Obi counsel objected that the compact disk cannot be played with his own devices.
The Court called the counsel to order and advised them to cooperate with each other.
But the PDP and Atiku/Obi replied that the compact disk presented by the Buhari counsel does not have certificate of compliance and so cannot be used in his equipment, that it maybe be infected with virus and the court agreed with him and asked the Buhari counsel to come with their own equipment for such purpose
The request by Buhari Counsel to come to court with his own equipment to play the video clip was granted and court adjourned to Tuesday, February 16, 2019.
banker of the day - FREE banker tips from experts