Election Tribunal: Why INEC Refused To Call Witnesses, And What It Portends For Atiku
The Oasis Reporters
July 30, 2019
The surprising closure and election of the Independent National Electoral Commission on Monday not to call any witness to defend its case in respect of the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, has caught political and judiciary watchers by surprise. Everyone is wondering over the impact that decision would have on the outcome of the case. And also why INEC towed that dramatic turn, as Muhammadu Buhari’s legal team open their defense today, July 30, 2019.
Is there any legal ambushments on the way? Is it just a bluff or a tacit agreement that the petitions of Atiku Abubakar and the PDP are correct in all materials particular?
Atiku and his party are by their petition challenging the outcome of the February 23, 2019 presidential election which INEC declared was won by President Muhammadu Buhari and his All Progressives Congress.
The petitioners had rested their case with 62 witnesses on July 19 after which the five-man tribunal led by Justice Mohammed Garba adjourned further proceedings till Monday for INEC to open its defence.
But when called upon by the tribunal to open his case on Monday, INEC’s lawyer, Yunus Usman (SAN), said it would not be necessary on the grounds that the evidence extracted from the petitioners’ witnesses during cross-examination was in support of the commission’s case.
He said, “We have painstakingly reviewed the evidence of petitioners’ witnesses.
“We have also painstakingly studied the petitioners’ evidence under cross-examination, which supports our defence and our denial in consonance with our pleadings.
“My lords, we do not see the need to waste your lordship’s precious time by repeating what their witnesses have repeated under cross-examination.
“In that circumstance, we will not call any witness to help them prove their case.
“We, therefore, rely on the evidence of their witness under cross-examination.”
As surprising as this move is, the next trajectory that eyes would be focused on, would be how President Buhari’s legal team would react to this approach.
Responding, Buhari’s lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), requested to be allowed to open his client’s case at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday.
APC’s lawyer, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), said his decision on whether or not to call witnesses would depend on the case to be presented by Buhari’s legal team.
Meanwhile, the petitioners’ lawyer, Dr. Livy Uzoukwu (SAN), thanked INEC’s legal team for not calling witnesses.
“I profusely thank my brother and friend for deciding not to call any witness,” he said.
INEC has said that their denial is “in consonance with” their “pleadings”.
But the facts, according to Premium Times resemble the fact that all pleadings and averments contained in INEC response to the PDP/AA petition has been abandoned.
One good reason to support this is that the “petitioners brought in INEC staff, Videos of INEC personnel including Mr Iginni, an INEC REC and The Chairman of INEC to defend the electronic transmission of results”. INEC proffered no response to these or brought witnesses to state the true nature of their position.
Besides, the petitioners brought in INEC staff who testified that they transmitted the results by entering the proper transmission codes that were given to them by the commission on the card readers. There were no witnesses to say otherwise, making it look like INEC abandoned its own case.
INEC should have brought witnesses to debunk the existence of a server and to counter the claims of the Expert witness from Kenya or INEC should have allowed the Kenya Expert access to their server to prove contents therein.
INEC did not tender any documents to the Election tribunal. They front-loaded one document, but did not also tender that same document in court. Not even the collation documents for declaring Buhari as winner.
The Petitioner tendered 48 CDs of Videos, 3 other CDs of the Akwa Ibom REC detailing the planned electronic transmission of results to the tribunal, including the INEC manual, yet INEC did not present any witnesses to counter the petitioners or to defend itself. Rather they threw in the towel and had nothing to say but that the petitioners have spoken for them
INEC in trying to save itself, simply walked away from answering questions such as:
Does INEC use computers, in all its 36 state offices and HQ? Are the computers linked? Is information shared in INEC?
Where are all the data of 84m Nigerian voters stored? Where was Voter accreditation information used by the card readers stored?
What did INEC do with the appropriated funds for Computer and server purchase and maintenance?
The National Assembly elections held at the same time as the presidential elections, yet 4,191 polling units results were cancelled in 14 states, accounting for over 2m votes. The presidential election results in those same polling units were not cancelled. Why?
e. INEC clearly told the world they will electronically transmit results and that they had the equipment and the technical expertise to do the same. Is INEC saying that they were stopped by ‘only’ the not signing of the electoral reform bill? Despite the billions invested in the project?
In the case of INEC ICT expert testifying against Ubah refers.
In his testimony, Mr Agwe, an Assistant Director, said he was in court on the authority of the Director of INEC ICT Department, who was summoned by the tribunal. He tendered documentary evidence, including Smart Card Reader accreditation data for all polling units in Anambra South with accompanying certificate of compliance. In his oral testimony, He said that INEC ICT unit monitored the process centrally in a National Situation Control Room where Presiding Officers transmitted accreditation data from smart card reader to a “back end”, according to a news report published by Premium Times.
a. What is the difference between the back end and a central server?
INEC should have brought witnesses to debunk the server issue as contained in the petition or to state its position. INEC owes Nigerians and indeed the world, an explanation.
It is obvious that if INEC had chosen to present any case, Livy Uzoukwu, SAN and his formidable legal team on behalf of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi would have had a jolly ride cross examining the commission. In order to mitigate what may have seemed as legal impediments, they took a short cut out of the minefield, and may have to exploit other technicalities to retain victory for their principal, as it happened in the Osun State gubernatorial election case. That was where the APC snatched victory from the jaws of defeat at the Supreme Court because majority of the Lord justices drove the case with the flight of a plane through the thicket of technicalities, without looking at the body of evidence spread before it.
Additional reporting :
Premium Times
Punch
The Oasis Reporters In-house analysis.
