The All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential and vice presidential candidates, Alhaji Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Senator Kashim Ibrahim Shettima, who are the second and third Respondents in the petition filed by Labour Party (LP) and its presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Gregory Obi, have stated reasons why they objected to the Certified True Copies (CTC) of the documents tendered at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC).
The petitions followed the election to the office of the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria held on 25th February, 2023, with petition no: CA/PEPC/03/2023, wherein the Petitioners tendered a host of documents against which the Respondents indicated their objections.
It could be recalled that the respondents, including even the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had objected to the documents which were reportedly issued by the electoral commission.
In their closing arguments in the Court of Appeal at Abuja where the petition was holden, Tinubu/Shettima gave several reasons why they rejected the said documents, saying that INEC downloaded and certified irrelevant documents for the Petitioners.
In their written address to the admissibility of documents which essentially captures the various objections of the 2nd & 3rd Respondents in relation to the documents tendered by the Petitioners but admitted and marked by the tribunal, subject to objection, they said amongst other things:
“The above documents are ward collation results sheets for Ebonyi State ECBBs, Local Government Collation Result sheets for Ekiti and Delta States respectively. Continue Reading…
“We note from the tenor of the Petition that the Petitioners have not agitated any complaint in relation to the aforementioned States. Therefore, it is a complete remiss for the Petitioners to belabour this tribunal with tons of election materials therefrom.
“Accordingly, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents submit that the documents are not relevant to the inquiry being undertaken by this court.
“Relevancy is the bedrock of admissibility such that any document that does not enjoy or wear the toga of relevance will automatically enjoy no reception in evidence.”
Respecting the IREV Report from INEC for Adamawa State filed on 08.06.2023, the Respondents objected to documents tendered by Peter Obi/Labour Party as per their sixth schedule of documents, saying:
“The above documents are IREV Report from INEC for Adamawa State downloaded and certified by the 1st Respondent.
“We object to the admissibility of the said documents on the ground that no certificate of authentication in compliance with section 84 (2) of the Evidence Act was produced at the point of tendering the said documents.
“We submit that conditions spelt out therein are mandatory and cannot be waived.”
As per the documents filed on 13.06.2023 tendered by the petitioners for Niger, Osun, Edo and Sokoto States, Tinubu/Shettima stated:
“The documents relate to Form EC400 (Summary of Registered Voters of Polling Units: Election not Held/cancelled) for Niger, Osun, Edo and Sokoto States, and EC8As for Ekiti and Ogun States.
“We submit that having failed to ventilate any complaint on the Presidential election held in the aforementioned States, the documents tendered by the Petitioners serve no useful purpose and are thus irrelevant to the case of the Petitioner.
“We accordingly adopt our earlier arguments and urge this Honourable Court to reject the documents.”
Respecting the IREV report for Bayelsa and Gombe States tendered by the petitioners as per their ninth Schedule of documents filed on 09.06.2023, the Respondents, objecting, said:
‘The above documents are IREV report for Bayelsa and Gombe States downloaded and certified by the Ist Respondent. Again, the Petitioners did not make any complaint with respect to the said States.
“We accordingly adopt our arguments on the relevance of the said documents and urge this Honourable Court to expunge the said exhibits from its record.”
Reacting to the 10th and 11th schedule of documents for Cross River and Gombe States filed on 20.06.2023 simultaneously, Tinubu/Shettima noted:
“These are supplementary IREV reports for Cross River and Gombe States downloaded and certified by the Respondent. As earlier noted, the Petitioners did not ventilate any complaints with regards to the said States.
“In the circumstance we adopt our earlier arguments and urge this honourable Court to find and hold that the said documents are not relevant to the case of the Petitioners.”
On the ECSAs for Bayelsa, Oyo, Edo, Ebonyi, Nasarawa, Delta, Ondo, Sokoto and Kogi States tendered by the petitioners as per their 12th schedule of documents filed on same day, Tinubu/Shettima objected:
“These are ECSAs for Bayelsa, Oyo, Edo, Ebonyi, Nasarawa, Delta, Ondo, Sokoto and Kogi States. The Petitioners did not make any complaint with respect to the said States.
“We accordingly adopt our arguments on the relevance of the said documents and urge this Honourable Court to expunge the said exhibits from its record.” Continue Reading…
Part Two
Stating their reason for the objection to the admissibility of documents EC8Bs for Bayelsa, Kogi, Nasarawa, Niger, Ondo, Sokoto, Delta, Ekiti, Oyo, Cross River, Edo and Akwa Ibom States, Tinubu/Shettima stated:
“The Petitioners did not make any complaint with respect to the said States. We accordingly adopt our arguments on the relevance of the said documents and urge this Honourable Court to expunge the said exhibits from its record.”
On the objection to the admissibility of EC8Cs for Bayelsa, Cross River, Ebonyi, Edo, Niger, Ondo, Oyo and Sokoto States, the Respondents said:
“The documents are EC8Cs for Bayelsa, Cross River, Ebonyi, Edo, Niger, Ondo, Oyo and Sokoto States. The Petitioners did not make any complaint with respect to the said States.
“We accordingly adopt our arguments on the relevance of the said documents and urge this Honourable Court to expunge the said exhibits from its record.
“Additionally, the law is well settled that evidence of any fact which is not pleaded in a given case is not admissible.
“The specific pleading by the Petitioners in paragraph 101 of the Petition lends credence to our contention that the Petitioners never evinced any intention in the Petition to make use of or rely on these documents.”
“The Respondents submitted further that the certification falls short of the clear provisions of the law as outlined in section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Continue Reading…
“The Evidence Act in Section 104 provides thus:
(1) “Every Public Officer having the custody of a public document which any person has a right to inspect shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees prescribed in that respect, together with a Certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part of it as the case may be.
(2) The Certificate mentioned in subsection (I) of this section shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal, and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.
“See TABIK INVESTMENT V GTBANK (2011) LPELR — 3131(SC) where it was held that all the elements stated in section 104 are mandatory and must be complied with. The documents are therefore patently inadmissible and having been wrongfully admitted, ought to be expunged. We submit that this Honourable Court is vested with vires to expunge any document that was wrongfully admitted at the stage of trial.
“In addition to the foregoing, we submit that all the forms EC8As, EC8Bs, and EC8Cs (and such other documents), tendered for polling units, wards and Local Government Areas across the country are inadmissible, as the said polling units, wards and Local Government Areas were not specially pleaded in the petition. They include, but are not limited to Form ECSAS for Ebonyi State (EXHIBITS PP1-PP13), Nasarawa State (EXHIBITS PQ1-PQ13), Delta State (EXHIBITS PR1-PR25) and Sokoto State (EXHIBITS PVI-PV7) and Kogi State (EXHIBITS PWI-PW21); Form EC8Bs for Kogi State (EXHIBITS PAA1-PAA21), Nasarawa State (EXHIBITS PABI – PABII), Sokoto State (EXHIBITS PAE1-PAE21), Delta State (EXHIBITS PAF1- PAF25), Cross River State (EXHIBITS PAL1-PAL18 ) and Akwa-Ibom State (EXHIBITS PANT-PAN31), Ebonyi State (EXHIBITS PAQ1-PAQ12); FORM EC8Cs for Cross River State (EXHIBITS PATI-PAT18), Ebonyi State (EXHIBITS PAUL-PAU10), Rivers State (EXHIBITS PBAI-PBA23) Sokoto State (EXHIBITS PBB1-PBB23); and Delta State (EXHIBITS PBD1-PBD25); Form EC4OG (PU) for Edo State (EXHIBITS PBM1-PBM23); I-REV Report for Edo State (EXHIBITS PBW1-PBW17); as well as Supplementary I-REV Report for Cross River State (EXHIBITS PCH37-PCH39); List of Registered Voters and PVCs collected for 2023 General Elections with respect to Local Government Areas in Ogun State (EXHIBIT PCN5), Akwa – Ibom State (EXHIBIT PCN6), Kebbi State (EXHIBIT PCN 7), Kogi State (EXHIBIT PCN 9), Cross River State (EXHIBIT PCN 10), Enugu State (EXHIBIT PCN 11), Sokoto State (EXHIBIT PCN 12), Ebonyi State (EXHIBIT PCN 16), Nasarawa State (EXHIBIT PCN 17), Delta State (EXHIBIT PCN 18), Anambra State (EXHIBIT PCN 22), Jigawa State (EXHIBIT PCN 25), Edo State (EXHIBIT PCN 27) and Abia State (EXHIBIT PCN 29).
“We also refer to Exhibits PCE-PCE4, which claims to be evidence of specific eighteen thousand and eighty-eight (18,088) polling units in which the petitioners alleged that their votes were suppressed, as per paragraph 60 of the petition due to alleged failure to transmit polling units’ results. We submit that the specific polling units of which these purported 18,088 result belong, ought to have been specifically set out in the pleading. Therefore, failure to set out these polling units renders the said documents inadmissible.
“Also relying on the plethora of judicial authorities, including paragraphs 4(5) and 41(8) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022, I.N.E.C. v. Ray (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 892) 92 @ 136, Ekere v. Emmanuel (2022) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1841) 339 @ 358, we further submit that having failed to specifically list these documents or accompany their petition with same, they stand inadmissible, and we urge the court to so hold. CONCLUSION On the whole, we urge this Honourable Court to uphold our objection and reject the documents affected.”
The response by Tinubu/Shettima was dated July 14, 2023, and signed by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, Yusuf Ali, SAN, and 72 other lawyers. Continue Reading…
Leave a Reply