Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC) Archives

July 6, 2023

APC lawyer to Atiku at PEPC: No need to whip a dead horse

APC, Atiku Abubakar, PDP, Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC)

The All Progressives Congress (APC) on Wednesday in Abuja, closed its case against the election petition of Alhaji Abubakar Atiku and the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) at the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC) without calling any witness.

Counsel to the APC, Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, told the court that there was no need ” whipping a dead horse” saying the evidence of President Bola Tinubu ‘s sole witness, Sen. Opeyemi Bamidele was enough to do damage to the petitioners’ case.

“Having taken a sober reflection of the entire case, we have enough evidence and we are not calling any witness.

” We do not intend to whip a dead horse, we announce the closure of the case of the 3rd respondent, (the APC),” Fagbemi said.

Fagbemi took this position after he cross examined Bamidele who was Tinubu’s star and only witness. witness.

Bamidele who is also a lawyer, told the court that the 460,000 dollars forfeiture judgment tendered in evidence by the petitioners was not strong enough to warrant the nullification of Tinubu’s election.

According to the witness, the judgment of the US court on the forfeiture of 460,000 dollars had Tinubu’s name on it but not as a criminal proceeding but as civil proceeding.

The witness insisted that it was not a criminal forfeiture but a civil one.

Bamidele, who is the Senate Majority Leader held that Tinubu was not charged, arraigned, indicted or sentenced for any criminal offence by any court in the United States.

” As far as criminal indictment is concerned, Tinubu has a clean bill of health because he was never indicted and convicted by any court in the United States.”

The witness told the court that he had known President Tinubu for over 35 years adding that in all those years, he knew the president as a bonafide Nigerian citizen by birth.

While answering questions posed by counsel to the petitioners’, Mr Eyitayo Jegede, SAN, the witness said that Tinubu did not need to score 25 per cent of votes cast in Federal Capital Territory, (FCT) to be declared winner of the Feb. 25 presidential election.

He also said that the president did not need to win the election in his home state to be declared winner.

The witness insisted that Abuja was simply the federal capital city and had no special status attached to it.

He agreed with the petitioners’ counsel that President Tinubu scored 19.4 per cent of the total votes cast in FCT.

The witness who was led in evidence by counsel to Tinubu, Mr Wole Olanipekun, SAN, said a judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in a suit filed by Labour Party on the mode of collation of election results, held that INEC was at liberty to use any mode of collation it deemed fit.

The witness also told the court that he was licensed to practice at the New York Bar in the United States as well.

With the sole witness, Olanipekun also announced the closure of Tinubu’s defence against the petition filed by the PDP and Atiku.

The closing of the defence by Tinubu and the APC marks the end of one phase and takes the case filed by PDP and Atiku to its next phase which is the exchanging of final written addresses among parties and closing arguments.

The presiding judge of the five-member panel, Justice Haruna Tsammani gave the respondents, INEC, APC and Tinubu 10 days to file their final written addresses while the petitioners have seven days to respond and the respondents have another five days to reply on points of law.

Justice Tsammani said that the parties would be communicated on the date for the adoption of the final written addresses.

Atiku came second in the Feb. 25 presidential election, but he is urging the court to overturn Tinubu’s victory on account of electoral fraud and non-compliance with statutory provisions in the conduct of the election.

July 3, 2023

INEC calls lone witness against Atiku as Tinubu begins defence of poll victory

Independent National Electoral Commission(INEC), President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC)

President Bola Tinubu will on Tuesday, open his defence at the Presidential Election Petition Court,(PEPC) to defend his victory at the Feb. 25 presidential polls.

This is in the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku.

Counsel to President Tinubu, Mr Wole Olanipekun, SAN, made this known on Monday after the Independent National Electoral Commission,(INEC) closed its case against Atiku after calling a lone witness.

The electoral umpire opened and closed its case against the petitioners after calling the lone witness, Mr Lawrence Bayode and tendering some documentary exhibits in evidence.

One of the documents was a letter dated July 6, 2022, which Vice- President, Kashim Shettima,(the third respondent) wrote to the commission.

The letter was the notification of his decision to withdraw his candidature for senate under the platform of the All Progressives Congress, (APC) for the Borno central senatorial seat.

Bayode who was led in evidence by INEC’s lead counsel, Mr Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, introduced himself as a Deputy Director of ICT for the commission.

Under cross examination by Olanipekun, the witness, asserted that the presidential election was free, fair, credible and conducted in compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022.

The witness, also told the court that the technical glitch that occurred on the election day did not affect the actual scores of the presidential candidates as manually computed by polling officers in the forms EC8As at the different polling units.

According to Bayode, INEC does not have an electronic collation system and results of the presidential election were manually collated and not electronically collated.

For his part, counsel to the APC, Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN confronted the witness with a publication in Tribune newspaper where the commission had, a few days to the election said that it would no longer be able to go ahead with the electronic transmission of results.

The document was admitted in evidence amidst strong opposition from counsel to the petitioners’, Mr Chris Uche, SAN.

Uche, while cross examining the witness asked him if he was aware of the recently released European Union Observation Mission Report on the Presidential Election.

The witness said that he was aware of the report even though he had not read it.

The respondents opposed the tendering of the document in evidence but reserved their reasons until the final address stage.

The court, however admitted the document in evidence and marked it appropriately.

Uche proceeded to show the witness a certified true copy of the report and asked him to read a portion of the report where the EU said only 31 per cent of presidential election results uploaded on the IREV were mathematically correct.

They further said that this was evident of the extent of training the commission gave to polling unit staff.

The witness also read a portion of the report where the EU stated that the 2023 election was not a transparent and inclusive election as had been promised by the commission.

The witness insisted that the technological innovations introduced by the commission into the electoral process were to guarantee transparency and integrity of the results.

Uche, however, insisted that there was no technical glitch on the day of the presidential election and that the only glitch was human glitch or an INEC glitch.

After the witness was discharged from the witness box, counsel to INEC told the court that that was the case of the commission as it had no other witness to call or documents to tender.

Justice Haruna Tsammani, Chairman of the five-member panel of the court adjourned hearing in the petition until Tuesday.

June 20, 2023

INEC to Tribunal: Peter Obi asking for non-existent documents in petition against Tinubu

Independent National Electoral Commission(INEC), Peter Obi, Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC)

The Independent National Electoral Commission(INEC) has told the Presidential Election Petition Court(PEPC) that some documents requested by Peter Obi, the Labour Party (LP) candidate are non-existent.

INEC made the declaration on Tuesday.

Obi and the Labour Party (LP) are challenging the Feb. 25 election of President Bola Tinubu before the court in a petition marked CA/PEPC/03/2023.

Respondents in the petition are INEC, President Tinubu, Vice-President Kashim Shettima and their All Progressives Congress (APC).

Giving evidence before the court, Mr Lawrence Bayode, Deputy Director, ICT at INEC told the court that out of the five documents Obi asked for; two were non-existent, while one was work in progress.

One of Obi’s witnesses, Ms Loretta Ogah, an ICT cloud engineer, said she contested election into the House of Representatives on the platform of Labour Party in Cross River, but lost the election.

Ogah was cross-examined by Mr Wole Olanipekun (SAN), counsel for Tinubu and Shettima.

She told the court that she sued INEC after her loss because the electoral umpire did not list her name on its portal as a result of network failure.

Also cross-examined by Mr Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), counsel for APC, Ogah told the court that glitches did not occur on INEC portal on Feb. 25.

She said she did not know INEC’s password protocol as she was not INEC’s employee.

The court, presided over by Justice Haruna Tsammani, adjourned further hearing till Wednesday.

June 17, 2023

Melaye claims INEC figure for Tinubu wrong but fails to present the ‘real’ result

Atiku Abubakar, Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC), Senator Dino Melaye

Dino Melaye, a former senator and star witness of Alhaji Abubakar Atiku and the Peoples Democratic Party claimed the final result of the presidential election was wrongly computed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

But under cross examination, he failed to present his own authentic and counter result.

Melaye, the 22nd witness of the petitioners gave evidence on Friday at the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC) on Friday in Abuja.

Led in evidence by the petitioner’s lead counsel, Mr Chris Uche, SAN, Melaye told the court that he was PDP’s National Collation Agent.

He also identified himself as a businessman and a politician.

The witness said that the presidential result, as announced by INEC Chairman, Prof. Yakubu Mahmood, was wrongly computed and that he refused to sign the results.

He added that he walked out of the national collation centre before the end of the process when he discovered the fraudulent activities going on at the centre.

Under cross-examination by INEC’s lawyer, Mr Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, Melaye said most PDP agents across the country did not sign the Form EC8As which were the result from the polling units.

The witness further claimed that the results brought to the national collation centre by state electoral officers were at variance with the results recorded in the state.

Melaye said that he had three major grouses with the conduct of the election one of which was the refusal of INEC to transmit the election results electronically to its portal.

He said his depositions in his statements were based on his personal experience at the national collation centre and information from the party agents across the country who reported to him as the national collation agent of the party.

He also said that some of the reports given by the agents were live feeds of what was happening at their location real time through the use of technology.

Under cross examination from counsel to President Bola Tinubu, Mr Akin Olujinmi, SAN, Melaye said that the failure of INEC to transmit results from Form EC8As to its I-ReV was an infringement of the law.

He, however, said that the result captured in Form EC8A could not be changed even where it was not transmitted electronically.

The witness further told the court that as a contributor to the drafting of the Electoral Act, the conduct of the presidential election was not done according to the law.

He said that that electronic transmission of results from the polling units unto the IReV was a very important aspect of the election process, adding that without that, the election circle could not be said to have been completed.

“Result is transmitted from polling units before you move to the ward collation centre.”

When asked to give the actual scores of Atiku in the election since he claimed the scores of Tinubu were wrongly computed, the witness said that he did not calculate them directly but that they were calculated through his statistician.

The five-member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani then discharged Melaye from the witness box after all the respondents had questioned him.

The petitioners also tendered two sets of documents acquired from IREV via a subpoena issued on May 26 at Friday’s proceeding.

The documents are the certified true copies of Forms EC8A series from 13 local government areas of Nasarawa.

The second set of documents are Forms EC40G and Form EC40G(2), which were summaries of polling units where elections were cancelled or disrupted.

All the respondents objected to the admissibility of the documents saying they would advance reasons for their objection at the fin address stage.

However, the documents were admitted.

The court subsequently adjourned proceedings until June 19.

June 10, 2023

Tribunal throws out Labour Party, Obi’s request to question INEC

Labour Party, Peter Obi, Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC)

The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) on Saturday dismissed the application filed by the Labour Party and Mr Peter Obi seeking an order to question INEC on the technology it deployed for the conduct of the general elections.

Obi and LP are petitioners in the petition marked CA/PEPC/03/2023 challenging the election which brought President Bola Tinubu into power.

Respondents are the INEC, President Bola Tinubu and Vice president Kashim Shettima and All Progressives Congress (APC).

Ruling on the application, the five -member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani held that it lacked the jurisdiction to grant the request as it was brought outside the pre-hearing session and therefore incompetent.

“It is an afterthought on the grounds that the pre-hearing period to file such an application elapsed on May 22.

“I have not disputed the fact that they did not call the attention of the court during the pre-hearing session.”

“It is for the applicant to take a step towards the hearing of his motion on notice. The court cannot do that for him.

“The petitioners’ counsel are very conversant with the provisions of the law and did not ask for an extension of time.

” They rather seek to employ the right to fair hearing as a magic wand to escape the consequence of their failure to comply with the law and blame the court for its inaction” the court held.

The court also held that the applicants failed to disclose any extreme circumstance that stopped them from filing within the statutory time.

In a unanimous decision, the court stated that motions cannot be heard at the hearing session and as such can be deemed as abandoned.

”Their application is incompetent and the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it and accordingly, the application is struck out,” the court held.

The petitioners, among other reasons for disputing the outcome of the elections are accusing the electoral umpire of non-compliance with the Electoral Act.

Their concerns also included failure to transmit the results of the presidential election in real-time on the INEC results viewing portal as assured.

In their effort to support the grounds of their petition, the petitioners had asked the court to permit them to question INEC on the technology deployed to conduct the election including the quality of the ICT experts who oversaw the conduct of the election.

In two applications, the petitioners through their lawyer, Patrick Ikweto, SAN, urged the court to order INEC to supply the names and other details of its ICT professionals that deployed electronic devices for the conduct of the election.

Specifically, the petitioners maintained that given INEC’s reply to their petition, it should be compelled to answer 12 questions posed to them.

They asked INEC to specify the date the electoral body conducted functionality tests on the system it deployed for the elections, as well as names and details of those that conducted the test.

They further required INEC to answer the following questions: “Who created/deployed the four (4) Applications Patches/Updates to fix the HTTP 500 error that prevented the e-transmission of the results of the Presidential election on 25th February 2023?

“What was the exact time of the occurrence of the technical glitch which prevented the e-transmission of the result of the Presidential election on 25th February 2023?

“What time were the technological glitches fixed and or repaired?

“What percentage of the result of the Presidential election was uploaded on the I-Rev on Feb. 25?

“What percentage of the result of the Presidential election was uploaded on the I-Rev at the time of the declaration of the Result of the Presidential election on March 1?”

Judges at the PEPC( Presidential Election Tribunal

June 1, 2023

Tribunal scolds Obi’s legal team for shoddiness, adjourns case

Peter Obi, Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC)

The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), on Thursday in Abuja, scolded the legal team of the Labour Party and its presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, for failing to properly organise its schedule of documents for seamless tendering as exhibits.

Obi and his party filed a petition challenging the outcome of the Feb. 25 presidential election.

At the resumed hearing of the petition, the court frowned at the team’s inability to present its schedule of documents in a manner that would be easy for the court to comprehend.

This led to the court abruptly stepping down hearing in the petition for some minutes to enable the lawyers, led by Prof. Awa Kalu, SAN, to put its house in order.

After resuming from the short break, the presentation of documents being handled by Mr Emeka Okpoko, SAN, still seemed not be have been done in the direction that had been agreed upon during the pre-hearing stage.

This led to the judges asking Obi’s team to take an adjournment and put their house in order before returning to tender the documents.

Specifically, Justice Misitura Bolaji-Yusuf said that the whole exercise of the petitioners was a waste of the court’s time.

“What we have done today is a waste of time. The poor way you have arranged the documents will cause confusion for both of you and the court.

“At this stage, it is better for you to go back and rearrange those documents in a sequence so as to help yourselves and the court.”

Prof. Kalu, however, prayed the court to allow his team tender the documents they had rather than take an adjournment since they had already lost one day.

The court allowed the petitioners to proceed following the appeal after which the petitioners said they would challenge the election results in 18 out of the 36 states.

The petitioners proceeded to tender certified true copies of electoral documents obtained from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in six out of the 18 states whose results they are challenging.

The documents are mainly Forms EC8A, which are election results from polling units.

The documents were admitted as exhibits and marked appropriately by the Chairman of the Court, Justice Haruna Tsammani.

INEC, which issued the documents to the petitioners, objected to all the documents being admitted in evidence.

INEC was represented by Mr Kemi Pinhero, SAN.

Similarly, counsel to President Bola Tinubu and Vice-President Kashim Shettima who are the second and third respondents and represented by Mr Adebayo Adelodun, SAN, and Mr Afolabi Fashanu respectively, also opposed the admissibility of the electoral documents.

They, however, said that they would give their reasons for objecting to the admissibility of the documents in their final addresses.

A list of the tendered and admitted documents include Forms EC8A from 15 local government areas of Rivers, 23 local government areas of Benue, 18 in Cross River, 23 in Niger, 20 in Osun and 16 in Ekiti.

Justice Tsammani, thereafter, adjourned further hearing in the petition to Friday at the instance of the petitioners.

Obi and his party are challenging the election of President Bola Tinubu and Vice-President Kashim Shettima on the grounds of electoral malpractices during the Feb. 25 presidential election.

May 30, 2023

Obi’s ‘moon’ witness rattled in court by Tinubu, APC lawyers

Peter Obi, Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC)

Lawyers to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, INEC and the All Progressives Congress rattled a witness of Peter Obi, the Labour Party candidate, when the witness faced cross examination today.

The lawyers bombarded the witness, identified as Lawrence Nwakaeti, with questions on whether the document he claimed contained an indictment of the president on drug accusation was registered in Nigeria or the U.S. consular office in Nigeria.

He was also asked whether he obtained a police certification of the document in the U.S. He replied no.

Nevertheless, the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC), admitted the documents.

Lawyers to Tinubu, Kashim Shettima and the APC told the court that they opposed the documents, but said they would expatiate on their objection in their closing remarks.

The document tendered on Tuesday was a United States District Court judgment, which Peter Obi claimed indicted Tinubu, because it ordered his forfeiture of 460,000 dollars in a drug suspicion offence.

Nwakaeti, who was jokingly called a ‘moon witness instead of a star witness’, was led in evidence by Mr Jibrin Okutepa, SAN.

Nwakaeti told the court that he was a registered voter and that he voted at a polling unit in his hometown in Anambra on Feb. 25.

Counsel to the respondents raised objections to the admission of the document in evidence but reserved their arguments to their objections until the final address stage.

Under cross examination by counsel to Tinubu, Mr Wole Olanipekun, SAN, the witness admitted that the judgment was not registered in Nigeria.

Nwakaeti also admitted that there was no certificate from any Consular in Nigeria or America in support of the judgment but that the judgement was obtained and certified by the person in whose custody it was.

The witness told the court that he had been to the United States and also that he had read the judgment in its entirety adding that he would be surprised if no mention was made of 460,000 dollars forfeiture in it.

While also cross examining the witness, counsel to the All Progressives Congress, (APC), Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, sought to know if the document had the certification of any police officer in the United States.

“Do you have a certificate given under the hand of a police officer in the United States where the alleged conviction took place.

“Are you aware of a formal clearance report dated Feb. 4, 2003 issued under the legal attache’ of the United States embassy in respect of the alleged indictment and forfeiture?”

The witness told the court that he had no certificate from the police and that he was not aware of any such report.

The witness further told the court that he did not have the charges against Tinubu because there were no charges since the indictment was from a civil forfeiture proceeding.

Since Nwakaeti was the petitioner’s only witness for the day, the Chairman of the Court, Justice Haruna Tsammani adjourned further hearing in the petition until Wednesday.

Full Transcript of Cross Examination:

LP: I apply that the witness be recalled to the witness box. Witness is listed as Number 7 LUNN in our petition

Court: Is he a star witness?

LP: No he’s a moon witness (joke). He’s an ordinary witness Where do you live?

W: Ihiala Anambra state

LP: On 20th of March 2023 you deposed to a witness statement to this honourable court. Please identify it.

W: I can identify my deposition

LP: What do you want to do with it.

W: Before I continue I wish to ask to apply to amend at paragraph 10. I mistakenly inserted 14th July (not February) 2022.

LP: My Lords I hope you effect this corrections before we progress. I so apply

Court: Any objections?

Respondents: No objections

Court: In the absence of any opposition it is hereby amended.

W: I seek to adopt same as my evidence

LP: In Para 17 of witness disposition you referred to the proceedings of the US district courts. Are these the documents you referred to then?

W: Yes they are

LP: I apply to tender that document which has been listed at number 5, pages 2 to the last of exhibit BA. Witness referred to it in paragraph 17 of his deposition.

Court: Objections?

INEC: No objection

T/S: Yes. I will put in the objection with arguments in our final Address

APC: I am objecting but I’ll do so in my final address.

Court: Admitted and marked as exhibit

T/s: His time is up.

LP: Please look at paragraph 7-11 of exh BA1 to BA4, are they the documents you referred to in your deposition?

W: Yes
LP: Thank you my Lord. I surrender him to cross examination

INEC: Witness, confirm to the court that you are a registered voter

W: I have my PVC and I voted on the 25th day of February, 2023

INEC: What’s your polling unit

W: Located in front of my house. Umuezala Village Square. That’s my polling unit

INEC: Will I be correct to say that you played no other role in the election

W: I’m a legal practitioner, not an author.

INEc: Confirm to the court if you have ever appeared to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court as an Amicus on any constitutional matter

W: No

INEC: please confirm that your statements in Para 4, 15, 16 & 17 of your deposition are the legal opinion you have formed on the exhibit you have identified.

W: They are not my legal opinion but matters of pure law

INEC: You said you’re from Amoka Community. Confirm to the court that there was crises

LP: I object because there is nothing related to this in his deposition. The sky is not the limit for cross examination.

Court: INEC what are you driving at?

INEC: I want to establish that he is a serial at causing crises. It is relevant for injuring his credibility in this election. He caused the crisis such that they have two presidents in the elections

T/S: Good Day my Learned friend. Did you prepare the statement and reached the conclusion or it was prepared for you?

W: I vetted it myself and I did not draw conclusion but I stated facts

T/S: Have you been to US? When and where?

W: Been Once in 2003, in Michigan.

T/S: In para: 17 & 18 you stated emphatically that the 2nd respondent was fined 460k dollars in the US. Do you still stand by it?

W: Yes I do

T/S: I suggest to you that you have never read through exhibit P5 series

W: I read through the entire document.

T/S: Will it surprise you that it was never indicated that in this document you tendered that no word, paragraph, line and sentence referred to him being fined?

W: I will be surprised because he was fined & the document speaks for itself.

T/S: We argue that these documents are not registered in Nigeria. Are they?

W: No but allow me to explain

T/S: No certificate from either the consul of United States, you know that?

W: There are certificates

S: Is there a certificate issued by any consular in US or Nigeria?

W: No certificates from the consular

T/S: Lastly, you tendered exhibit P1-P4, judgement of the Supreme Court. It settles any matter, Is that right?

Court: Objection to that question?

W: No.

APC: Do you have in Exh PA5 series, a certificate given under the hand of a police officer in the area where this occurred in the US?

W: None from the police

APC: Are you aware that a letter dated 6th of July, 2023, was written to the 1st respondent by the 4th respondent in respect to his nomination

W: I am not aware

APC: Are you aware of a formal clearance document dated 1st day of Feb, 2003?
W: Not aware

APC: You are aware that all the proceedings in exh B5 proceedings were civil?
W: Civil Forfeiture

APC: Do you have a copy of the charge?

W: I did not mention charge so I don’t have it.

LP: No re-examination my Lords

Notes: NB: T/S is Tinubu/ Shettima counsel

W is Witness

May 30, 2023

Tinubu: Tribunal adjourns APM’s case

Allied Peoples Movement (APM), President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC)

The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) has adjourned till Friday hearing in the petition by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) challenging the election of President Bola Tinubu.

APM wants Tinubu’s election invalidated over the nomination of Kashim Shettima as a replacement for Kabir Masari as the vice presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

The adjournment is to enable the lawyer to the APM, Shehu Abubakar and other parties obtain copies of the May 26 judgment of the Supreme Court on the appeal by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) challenging the APC’s nomination of Shettima, which the PDP had termed double nomination.

Abubakar sought the adjournment upon an observation by lawyer to the President, Bola Tinubu and Shettima, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), that the Supreme Court judgment has an effect on the petition by the APM, which deals solely with the same issue of Shettima ‘s nomination.

Olanipekun promised to obtain a CTC of the judgment and make it available to the court within two days.

He also said he hopes to meet with the lawyer to the petitioner to know whether, in view of the judgment, the APM will still continue with its case.

Abubakar said he needed time to enable him obtain the judgment, study same to ascertain its effect on his client’s case and decide what further steps to take.

The petition of the APM is one of the three petitions now pending before the PEPC against the February 25 presidential election.

Justice Haruna Tsammani heads the five-member panel of the PEPC hearing the petition.

Culled from The Nation

May 22, 2023

Presidential Election Petition Court rejects live broadcast of proceedings

Live broadcast, Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC)

The Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC) on Monday in Abuja, dismissed the application by the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) and the Labour Party, for live broadcast of court proceedings.

In a unanimous decision, the five-member panel held that the order sought by the petitioners lacked merit and was outside the scope of the petition.

The judges held that televising of proceedings was not provided for in any law.

They held that the court was created by the constitution and operated under the law by the Court Of Appeal.

“The court was created to hear and determine the petitions before it and cannot act as an a vanguard.

“The undue pressure of allowing cameras into the courtroom should be avoided as the impact it would have on witnesses could not be predicted.

“The court is created to find out the truth and should be allowed to do so,” Justice Tsammani said.

In a reaction, lawyer to Atiku Abubakar said that the dismissal of the application for a live broadcast was not a setback to their petition against Sen. Bola Tinubu, the President-elect.

Counsel to PDP and Abubakar, Mr Eyitayo Jegede, SAN, stated this while fielding questions from newsmen shortly after the PEPC’s decision.

“There is no setback here. The court, in its wisdom decided that the subject of our application on the live streaming and open telecast did not, in any way, connected with the merit of our petition.

“The petition is separate; it is ongoing. The application did not succeed to have the televised version of the proceedings.

“As far as we are concerned, we are now set for hearing.

“Tomorrow, we will be hear by God’s grace for pre-hearing report that will determine the progress of the petition and the time the petition will be heard and concluded,” Jegede said.

On whether they still have confidence in the court, the senior lawyer simply said: “For us, we are prepared for hearing.”

On the issue of consolidation of the whole petitions, he said it was one that was compelled by statute and that they had no objection to it.

L-R Justices Adah, Misitura and Tsammani

May 8, 2023

Faces of the judges at the Presidential Election Tribunal

Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani, Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC)

The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC), otherwise known as the election tribunal began sitting in Abuja on Monday.

It will hear petitions filed by aggrieved presidential aspirants against the declaration of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) as winners of the 2023 Presidential Election.

The panel of justices has five-members, with Justice Haruna Tsammani as Chairman.
Other members of the panel are Justice Stephen Adah, Justice Misitura Bolaji-Yusuf, Justice Boloukuoromo Ugo and Justice Abbah Mohammed.

Here is a brief bio about the Justices:

Justice Haruna Simon Tsammani, the Chairman:

Was educated at LEA Primary School, Tarawa Balewa, between 1967 and 1973 and Government Secondary School, Maiduguri between 1973 and 1978.
Tsammani went to Ahmadu Bello University in Zaria to read law between 1978 and 1982. He was called to the bar in 1983, after a year in the Law School in Lagos.
Ever thirsty for more knowledge, he went to Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at UNILAG, Abubakar Tarawa Balewa University in home state and University of Jos.
He was first appointed as a judge of the Bauchi state High Court in 1998 and 12 years. Later, he was appointed to the court of appeal.

Hon. Justice Stephen Jonah Adah:

Adah was born on 30 July 1957 in Dekina, Kogi state. He was first appointed as a judge of the Appeal Court in November 2012.
Young Adah had his primary education in four schools, from 1964. He spent the longest time at N.A. Primary School in Idah, where he passed out in 1970.
He went straight to St. Peters College, also in Idah for his secondary education, from 1971 to 1975.
After a year at Ilorin Teachers College, he went to School of Basic Studies at Ugbokolo for his A-Level and then Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria to read law. He graduated in 1981 and was called to the bar in 1982.
He was appointed as a judge of the Federal High Court in 1998.

Justice Misitura Bolaji-Yusuf:
She was born in Oyo on 7 August 1959. After her primary education, she went to Iranian Grammar School, also in Oyo, where she spent just one session.
She then left for Bremen Asikuma Secondary School, Central Region of Ghana, where she finished her education in 1976.
In 1979, she was admitted to read law at Obafemi Awolowo University in Ile-Ife. She completed the programme in 1983 and was called to the bar in 1984.
Misitura joined the bench of Oyo state in January 1997. In March 2014, she was appointed to the Court of Appeal.

Hon. Justice Boloukuoromo Moses Ugo:
Moses Ugo is the youngest judge on the panel. He was born 7 June 1965 in Kolokuma Bayelsa State.
He had his primary education at State School, Igbedi and secondary at Government Secondary School, Asoama, Sabagreia, all in Bayelsa.
Ugo read law at University of Calabar between 1985 and 1989. He was called to the bar in 1990.
He was appointed into Bayelsa High Court in 2006 and eight years after, became a judge of the Appeal Court.

Hon. Justice Abba Bello Mohammed: He is a most recently appointed judge of the Appeal Court. He was appointed in June 2021 from the FCT High Court.
Bello Mohammed was born on 19 February 1961. He is from Kano State.
He was educated at Tudor Wada Primary School( 1967-1974) and Government Secondary School Dambatta(1974-1979).
He also went to School of Preliminary Studies(1979-81), Institute of Admin, A.B.U. Zaria(1981-1984). He was called to the bar in 1985 and appointed a judge of the High Court of FCT in 2010.

Sign In

Tag: Presidential Election Petitions Court (PEPC)