The ruling All Progressive Congress(APC) and its presidential candidate, Bola Tinubu have vehemently objected to the application made by the electoral body, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to bring some of its ad-hoc staff during the 2023 general elections to testify before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal.

President Tinubu, who is the second respondent in a petition filed by former Vice President and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate Alhaji Atiku Abubakar seeking to overturn his election victory, stated that he had no knowledge of the contents of statements made by witnesses under oath before the court.
Tinubu argued, through his team of lawyers led by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, that the law required such essential comments to be delivered ahead of time to allow other parties time to prepare effectively.
The president, relying on a multitude of determined case laws, said it was not acceptable for Atiku and the PDP, the joint petitioners, to spring a surprise by submitting statements of subpoenaed witnesses midway through the hearing of their case.
As a result, he requested the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) in Abuja to reject the evidence of the five subpoenaed witnesses and not give their testimony any probative value in the case.

The All Progressives Congress, APC, the third respondent in the case, has backed President Tinubu’s stance.
The APC, led by Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, contended that Atiku should have submitted the written statements of the witnesses when the case was filed.

Similarly, Mr. Abubakar Mahmood, SAN, the head of INEC’s legal team, said he was equally opposed to the court admitting the five subpoenaed witnesses to testify in the issue since their utterances were not part of the proof of evidence the petitioners adduced ab initio.
But Chief Chris Uche, SAN, Atiku’s counsel, requested the court to reject all objections and let the witnesses to continue with their testimony.
He added that the grounds highlighted in the Respondents’ objections were misconceived, emphasising that it would not have been able to front-load the written testimonies of the subpoenaed witnesses because they had not been summoned at the time the petition was filed.

Meanwhile, Tinubu and his party, APC maintained that witnesses should be considered as special since their appearance in the matter was based on a summon from the court.
Though Justice Haruna Tsammani-led five-member panel initially temporarily adjourned the matter to give a verdict on the contending issue, the court later reconvened and gave the petitioners the nod to call the witnesses.
The court stated that the judgement will be reserved and delivered at a later date.

Although five INEC ad hoc staff members who participated in the disputed presidential election were summoned to testify before the court, only two of them were able to do so on Thursday, with three others scheduled for Friday.

Source: Sahara Reporters