President Bola Tinubu and Vice-President Kassim Shettima has refuted Labour Party’s case against the February 25 elections outcome.
Their legal team, led by Wole Olanipekun, describes the arguments and witnesses’ testimonies as worthless.
The respondents dismiss the petition as frivolous, poking holes in the witnesses’ testimonies. They urged the court to dismiss them as bogus and hearsay.
INEC had declared Tinubu the winner with 8,794,726 votes, while Peter Obi of the Labour Party received 6,101,533 votes.
Following the declaration, Obi and LP filed a petition seeking the nullification of the elections. They alleged non-qualification of the president and non-compliance with the Electoral Act.
During the election tribunal, Obi produced thirteen witnesses. But Tinubu’s team presented one-star witness, Senator Michael Opeyemi, to counter Obi’s submissions.
In their written address dated July 14, the 2nd and 3rd respondents led by Olanikpekun, SAN, faulted the claims of Obi’s witnesses, including Clarita Ogah, who claimed to be a cloud engineer and an Amazon staff.
‘Arguments and witnesses’s testimonies worthless’
Olanikpekun highlights how the witness failed to validate her claims on the status of AWS and supported INEC’s claims of glitches during the elections.
He said, “The interesting thing about her political involvement, however, is that, in her quest to secure the admission and publication of her name by INEC for the National Assembly election, she had averred before the Federal High Court that she made several efforts to upload her name on the INEC network site, but because of network failure, her efforts proved abortive, as the INEC site crashed-this she wholly admitted under cross-examination.”
“This evidence supports the respondents’ claim of a technological glitch on the election day, undermining the petitioners’ claim of technological invulnerability.”
“The witness acknowledged several incidents of glitches and outages on the AWS sites, stating that ‘anything is possible.'”
“However, the witness was not the maker of the downloaded documents from the AWS website, making them worthless in court.”
“These documents lacked a key to interpret the characters, rendering them meaningless and fit for the trashcan.”
“The witness also admitted to the unpredictability and imperfection of technological devices, including the BVAS.”
‘Petitioner’s testimonies inconsistent’
He dismissed her credibility as a staff of Amazon, arguing that the witness failed to prove her connection with AWS. The documents she attempted to employ as proof were unsigned, which affected their relevance and admissibility.
As a result, her evidence should be disregarded since she couldn’t properly identify herself as an AWS staff. She admitted that the report she presented only relates to AWS infrastructure, but the subpoena was not delivered to Amazon.
Furthermore, her letter of employment by AWS was missing, and the document presented seemed to be fabricated during litigation.
Tinubu’s legal team questions the objectivity of the witnesses, pointing out one as a card-carrying member of the LP.
They argue that the petitioners’ testimonies are inconsistent claiming both no transmission and upload through the BVAS and winning the election through the same.
The team contends that the petitioners failed to prove how the alleged non-transmission affected the election’s result.
They argued that the petition does not address other electoral vices like violence or vote-buying.
They also challenged the contention that Tinubu’s election should be canceled for not scoring 25% of the votes in the FCT.
Peter Obi’s name not in LP membership’s list
The legal team interprets the FCT question with Section 299 of the 1999 constitution, stating its application to the FCT.
“We must bring to the court’s attention the absence of a comma in the Constitution’s section 134(2)(b), making it conjunctive.”
“Any other interpretation would lead to absurdity and chaos, altering the legislature’s intent.”
Regarding the alleged non-qualification of the president due to US forfeiture proceedings, Tinubu’s counsel argued that the petitioners’ witnesses couldn’t find any mention of the word “fine” in the documents presented.
They stated that they should register the judgment in Nigeria according to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Ordinance and Foreign Judgment Act.
“Upon registration, it becomes a Nigerian judgment by virtue of the order for registration.”
Moreover, the witnesses couldn’t provide any “certificate from a police officer” from the US containing relevant information.
Assuming any connection with criminal forfeiture, the Constitution allows a maximum of 10 years for the conviction’s subsistence.
Besides, they presented exhibits showing Tinubu’s unrestricted travel rights to the US, indicating no criminal record.
Furthermore, they stressed that the forfeiture of funds in Tinubu’s bank account was a civil proceeding, and he was not convicted.
They argued that Peter Obi’s name wasn’t in the Labour Party membership register during the election. Adding that he was still part of the PDP.
The respondents pleaded with the court to declare that if the election of February 25, 2023, is voided, only Tinubu and PDP’s Atiku Abubakar, who came second, would be eligible to contest the subsequent election.