The All Progressive Congress alongside its presidential candidate has objected to Atiku Abubakar’s bid to allow three INEC ad-hoc staff to give evidence in his petition.
The applications by Atiku were rejected by the counsel to President Bola Tinubu on Thursday
He asked the court to reject the witnesses and discountenance their statements saying it violates the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022.
Background
Atiku had subpoenaed three INEC ad-hoc staff to give evidence in order to confirm the irregularities that happened during the February 25 election.
He asked them to explain how the results of the presidential election were transmitted.
They were supposed to make a statement on oath at Atiku’s petition challenging the outcome of the February 25 presidential election.
What happened in court
At the hearing today, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) opposed their giving statement on oath saying it violates the provision of the electoral act.
He noted that their statements were not front-loaded at the time of filing the petition.
He contended that since Atiku subpoenas them, the right thing to have done was to front-load their statement on oath along with the petition.
Read also: Court to hear Atiku’s Petition today
Consequently, he urged the court to reject the witnesses and their statements.
However, Atiku’s counsel Chris Uche SAN asked the Court to dismiss the objections on the grounds that they were utterly misplaced and misconceived.
He contended that the objections raised by the respondents are deliberate efforts to delay the proceedings.
Arguing it was not possible to frontload the statements alongside the petition because they were yet to be summoned when the petition was filed.
He asked the Court to discountenance the objections and to hold that the witnesses were not regular additional witnesses.
Court`s decision
The court stood down the application for a ruling, However, when the court resumed Justice Haruna Tsammani reserved a ruling on the objections made.
He othered that the evidence of the three subpoenaed witnesses be taken and that the respondents should cross examine the witnesses.
This is a developing story as the court is still in session at the time of filling this report….
