The Labour Party and its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, on Tuesday, opened their case at the Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja, where they are challenging the emergence of President Bola Tinubu as the winner of the February 25 presidential election.
The opposition party called its first witness
and tendered documents, including a judgment of the US court in an old
forfeiture case involving Tinubu.
Counsel for the LP and Obi, Jibrin Okutepa
(SAN), stated that documents from number one to four together with receipts
tendered were documents indicating that the Vice President, Kashim Shettima,
accepted his nomination as the vice presidential candidate of the APC.
The witness, Lawrence Nwakaeti, who is a
legal practitioner, disclosed that he was deposed to the witness statement on
March 20.
Part of the documents deposed to by Nwakaeti
referred to the alleged $460,000 forfeiture by Tinubu to the government of the
United States.
One of the grounds on which the LP and Obi
are praying for the court to nullify Tinubu’s victory is that Tinubu “at the
time of the election was not qualified to contest for election to the office of
President as he was fined the sum of $460,000 for an offence involving
dishonesty, namely narcotics trafficking imposed by the United States District
Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Case No: 93C 4483.”
While answering questions during the
cross-examination, the witness admitted that the judgment was not registered in
Nigeria.
He also admitted that there was no
certificate from any US Consular in Nigeria or America in support of the
judgment.
He, however, maintained that “the judgment
speaks for itself.”
But counsel for the APC, Lateef Fagbemi
(SAN), asked him: “As a lawyer, you are aware that these documents are not
registered in Nigeria and there is no certificate attached to the document from
the US?” to which Lawrence replied that there are certificates.
“Is there a certificate from the US
consular?”
“No certificate from the consular, Nwakaeti
replied.
He also said he had no knowledge of a
February 4, 2003, Formal Clearance Report by Legal Attachee from the American
Embassy in respect of the alleged indictment and forfeiture.
When asked by Fagbemi to produce a copy of
the charges against Tinubu, the witness said he had none but maintained that
the forfeiture was from civil proceedings.
“You are aware that all the proceedings were
civil proceedings?”
“Civil forfeiture proceedings,” the witness
replied.
The tribunal, presided over by Justice Haruna
Tsammani, adjourned further hearing in the petition till today (Wednesday).
The petition by the Peoples Democratic Party
and its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, also challenging Tinubu’s
victory also came up before the panel on Tuesday.
The PDP, through its counsel, Eyitayo Jegede
(SAN), tendered before the PEPC copies of election results sheets, printouts of
the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and records of the number of Permanent
Voter Cards, which were collected for the February 25 presidential poll.
The documents, which were admitted by the
panel, covered the 36 states of the federation and the Federal Capital
Territory, Abuja.
Following the admittance of the documents,
the five-man panel of the court led by Justice Harunna Tsammani moved further
hearing in the petition to 2 pm today (Wednesday).
Earlier, the court entertained the case of
the Allied People’s Movement, which also filed a petition to challenge Tinubu’s
victory.
Tinubu’s lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN),
informed the court of a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, which, according
to him, appears to have resolved the same issue raised by the APM in its
petition against Tinubu.
Olanipekun referenced the Supreme Court’s
decision of Friday, May 26, that dismissed the suit filed by the PDP, which
prayed to the court to nullify the ticket that produced the President and his
vice on grounds of double nomination.
Olanipekun sought to know if the decision of
the apex court did not affect the case of the APM, which is also challenging the
outcome of the election on the grounds of using a placeholder, Kabir Masari,
for Shettima.
“We are aware that the Supreme Court gave a
decision on this same matter in the yet-to-be-reported judgment SC/CV/501/20223
and the parties involved were Peoples Democratic party versus INEC and three
others where the apex court resolved all the issues.
“We promise within the next two days that the
Certified True Copies of the judgment of the Supreme Court will be made
available.
“And we will also discuss with the
petitioners whether, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court, there will
still be the need to continue with this petition.”
Responding, counsel for APM, Shehu Abubakar,
however, requested a short time to enable the petitioners to avail themselves
of the judgment to aid their decision.
He said, “Based on the submission of the
learned silk, we shall be praying to adjourn the hearing of this petition to
enable us to apply to the Supreme Court for the copy of the judgment referred
to, to enable us to examine the same and know the effect it has on this
petition.”
The Court granted the request and adjourned
APM’s hearing till June 2.
The Supreme Court had last Friday dismissed
the appeal by the PDP seeking the disqualify Tinubu from running in the
February 25 presidential election over the alleged double nomination of his
running mate, Shettima.
Post a Comment