Legal Affairs
Obi, Labour Party cyber security expert testifies in court
Below is the transcript of what transpired in court between Peter Obi, Labour Party vs APC and INEC
Time: 2:48pm
It’s 2:48pm and the Justices are here.
The court will now sit in the matter of Peter Obi & Labour Party v. INEC, TINUBU, SHETTIMA & APC with suit number CA/PEPC/03/2023.
Justice Ugo welcomes everyone and demands cooperation from everyone ‘for the next two hours.
REPRESENTATION
– Comrade Ladi Iliya represents the Labour Party
– Chris Maigida represents the APC
All other parties are absent.
PETITIONERS (Labour Party) LEGAL TEAM
LEAD: DR LIVY UZOUKWU SAN
– Awa Kalu SAN
– PIN Ikwueto SAN
– Ben Anechebe SAN
– Ikechukwu Ezechukwu SAN
– JS Okutekpa SAN
– Valerie Azinge SAN
– Emeka Opoko SAN
– Peter Afuba SAN
– Rita Chris-Garba Esq
– Prof Madaki Esq
– Chief Olusola Esq
1ST RESPONDENT (INEC) LEGAL TEAM
LEAD: AB MAHMOUD SAN
– Kemi Pinhero SAN
– Ihinai SAN
– Abdullahi Aliyu SAN
– Stephen SAN
– Tanimu Inuwa SAN
– Suleiman Ibrahim SAN
– Chukwudi Enebeli Esq
– Thaddeus Esq
– Hafsat Dasuki Esq.
2ND & 3RD RESPONDENTS (TINUBU/SHETTIMA) LEGAL TEAM
LEAD: WOLE O. SAN
– Emmanuel SAN
– Tami Madaki SAN
– Mike Igbokwe SAN
– Oladipo Opeseyi SAN
– Chief Yomi SAN
– Babatunde Ogala SAN
– Fumilayo SAN
– Faith Adarigofua Esq
– Akintola Makinde Esq
– Feyi Esq
Time: 3:8pm
4TH RESPONDENT (APC) LEGAL TEAM
LEAD: LO FAGBEMI SAN
– Afolabi Fashanu SAN
– Olabisi Soyekan SAN
– Abiodun Owonikoko SAN
– Oluseye Opasanya SAN
– Adeniji Kazeem SAN
– Lawan Yusuf SAN
– Aliyu Sarki SAN
– Anthony Adeniyi SAN
– Dele Badeyon Esq
– Omosanya Popoola Esq
– Bolaji Esq
Recall that the cross-examination of PW8 was not done yesterday.
Dr Livy informs the court that the witness is ready for cross-examination and PIN Ikwueto SAN will conduct proceedings for the Petitioners.
Time: 3:19pm
1ST RESPONDENT CROSS-EXAMINATION
Q. You are a very experienced cyber security and risk expert
A. Yes
Q. Because of that you’ll be reasonably familiar with the cyber security situation in Nigeria.
A. I’ll appreciate if you are exact
Q. If there’s a problem, you’ll be familiar with that
A. Depends
Q. On para 9, you talked about ISO 27001 standard
A. Yes
Q. That ISO certification is not a statutory requirement for organizations by INEC
A. You’re wrong, it is a requirement
Q. Under what law?
A. Under the NITDA Act
Q. Do you know the section that makes it
compulsory?
A. I don’t but what is in my para 8 is the exact copy of the law in that Act
Q. When were you instructed by LP to carry out this survey.
A. March 10
Q. When did you complete it
A. I did a preliminary report which I submitted on 18th March and the final report some time in the middle of May.
Q. Before you started your investigation, you read the petition
As well as the reply
A. You are wrong (he read it but not before the investigation)
Q. Are you suggesting to the court that you completed your work before you read the petition and reply
A. That’s incorrect, I read it some time in the middle of the report.
Q. In Para 18 of your witness statement, you referred to the INEC Publication, you did not speak to anybody before the report was complete
A. I did not
Q. In para 19 of witness statement, you talked about testing of an application before it is deployed
A. That’s correct
Q. I suggest to you that errors can be discovered at the time of testing an application
A that’s correct
Q. Sometimes, some can be detected when the application is deployed
A. Your suggestions is not correct
A. Errors appear at time of testing and the probability of error arising is very small
A. It is not impossible for errors to appear
Q. In para 22, 23, you referred to meta data of IREV portal in relation to 3 polling units
A. I used 3 polling units to show the meta data
Time: 3:35pm
Q. Your point In para 22,23 I’d that the meta data showed some errors
A. I didn’t suggest errors, I provided fact
Q. In respect of those 3 polling units, did you examine the physical forms EC8A
A. I did not have to
Q. Your point In para 22,23 I’d that the meta data showed some errors
A. I didn’t suggest errors, I provided fact
Q. In respect of those 3 polling units, did you examine the physical forms EC8A
A. I did not have to
Q. You can’t tell also if the results of those 3 Forms EC8A were properly collated or not.
A. That was not for me today, I only presented facts. I didn’t see the collation, I cannot answer to that
Q. All you did was on your computer
A. Yes
Q. you’re familiar with Amazon web services
a. a bit familiar
q. The aws security model is a shared model between aws and the client
a. you’re correct this time
q. that means aws guarantees the security of its infrastructure
a. if you’re speaking to that component yes.
Time: 3:37pm
A. There are 3 components Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability. Availability is the responsibility of AWS
Q. You’re familiar with could trail
A. Yes
Q. The cloud trail on application deployed by INEC will tell the availability of INEC infrastructure
A. That’s correct
Q. (He shows him a document Exhibit PCA2) Is there anything the
here about Electronic Collation System?
A. Yes, it is inferred
That’s all for this Respondent.
Time: 3:39pm
2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS CROSS-EXAMINATION
Q. In Para 15,16,18 of your witness statement, you reproduced what INEC gave in its reply to the petition and are given your views to the replies. Was it part of your brief to help Labour party give a reply
A. I’m a subject matter expert, the paragraphs speak to details of my expertise
Q. He asks the question again.
A. They didn’t ask for that and I can’t recal that conversation ever happening
Q. Did you physically inspect any of the BVAS machine
A. No I didnt
Q. did you as a person Interrogate Festus Okoye regarding this document
A. I did not
Q. In para 23, you referred to a LGA in Bauchi State
A. That’s correct
Q. Are you aware the PDP won in that LGA in the election?
A. I’m not aware
Time: 3:50pm
Q. In para 24, you referred to another LGA in Anambra, are you aware LP won there and won the entire Anambra State with over 95%
A. I’m not aware of that
Q. You made reference to metadata, tell my Lords the meaning of the compound word
A. It is in my witness statement. It is the information that describes the actual data.
Q. In para 24, you Exhibit attached is made up of 11 pages
A. You’re not correct. It extends more than 11. There are 23 pages
Q. You’ve given informa in those 23 pgs which are not explained
A. You’re not correct
Q. The information you supplied in these pages, are they decrypted
A. Yes
Q. Explain to decrypt.
A. It means the act of opening what is encrypted is readable. And what is contained there is readable.
Q. You also supplied some links in Para 23,24,26,27
A. That’s correct
Q. You want this honourable court to go and browse,access the links and download the information
A. No, I’m willing to explain
He’s not allowed to explain and there’s arguments between Ikwueto and Wole SAN over allowing him to explain
Q. In your Metadata, how many characters are involved in what you supplied. I suggest that there are 12,025 characters
A. I don’t need to know
Q. All not decrypted
A. They are decrypted.
Q. In your witness statement you only referred to 3 states, Bauchi, Anambra and Rivers.
A. 3 states
Q. can you share pages 8 to 11 of your metadata submission. those pages refer to Benue State which you did not refer to in your witness statement
A. you’re not right, it reads Benue State
Q. In Para 24, you referred to a LGA in Anambra State. are you aware that in that LGA in Umuezechua Primary School 1, Labour Party won there with 117 votes and APC scored 0
A. I’m not aware because it doesn’t touch on my expertise.
Time: 4:4pm
4TH RESPONDENT CROSS-EXAMINATION
Q. There’s always an agreement betwen authorities of AWS & customer
A. Yes, it’s called Service Level Agreement
Q. This agreement will normally contain details of the terms and security features
A. If your security feature mean availability, yes.
Time: 4:20pm
Q. The agreement on security are only known to the parties and 5hey can unlock it at anytime
A. I’m afraid that’s incorrect
Q. But the agreement is known only to the parties
A. The service level agreement is public so you chose the one you want. They do not display it to public
Q. In your witness statement on oath, you attached 12 polling unit results
A. Attached to Exhibit A, yes.
Q. How many of you were involved in this enormous work done
A. Just me
Q. These 12 polling unit results, none of them were original form EC8A they were downloaded from IREV
A. Yes, they are still there
Q. You did not interact with any of the presiding officers who officiated in those polling units
A. No I didn’t
Q. You did not see the hard copy of Forms EC8A
A. I didn’t have to, I didn’t
Q. The attachment to your report, the 4th one, you said…
Said that was an incorrect upload
A. Yes I did, in my comments.
Q. In the process of uploading, when did you determine the incorrect image
A. I’m not sure
Q. Who uploaded it
A. I don’t know who, but it came from the BVAS and I know which BVAS uploaded it.
Q. Have you found out the correct result for that polling unit
A. No, I didn’t have to
Q. Does that result exist
A. I wouldn’t know
Q. You also did not Interrogate INEC on that result or any one attached to your report
A. I did not Interrogate INEC but I interrogated INEC manual
Q. You did not Interrogate any official
A. No
Q. Did you ask those who contracted you, LP, for the results
A. I didn’t
Q. You also did not Interrogate the AWS
A. In some ways I did because I interrogated their server and it gave me this, a picture of a book instead of a result.
Time: 4:22pm
Q. There are 3 items mentioned there
A. There are 3 items mentioned here
Q. Are you aware that there are 176,000 polling units
A. Actually, there are 176,846
Q. And you picked 12
A. With proof of consent
LO FAGBEMI: I’m angry, I’m not asking you any questions again 😂😂😂😂
PIN Ikwueto of LP is clearing the air with re-examination…
Q. Can you please tell my Lords, the links in Para 23, 26, 27, what are those links.
Court: I don’t think that is relevant Ikwueto… You have any other questions?
Ikwueto SAN without any questions now discharges witness.
Time: 4:24pm
The Petitioners will now call another witness who is here on Subpoena.
He approaches the witness box and now takes the oath of truth.
Q. Tell the court your full names
A. EE Esq
Q. Where do you live
A. ABJ
Q. Where do you work?
A. Head of Legal Services, NITDA
Q. You received a subpoena to attend the court
A. Yes, I received a subpoena when I walked into my office this morning.
He’s shown a copy and affirms that it is. Ikwueto SAN now applies to tender the document in evidence.
There’s no objections and The Court:
The Subpoena is hereby admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibits PCT accordingly.
As the court pleases.
Time: 4:39pm
Q. The subpoena commanded you to produce 3 documents. Do you have it?
1. Documents sent by NITDA to INEC requesting Payment for…
A. We don’t have that document in our office
2. Certificate of Clearance issued by NITDA to INEC pursuant to 1 above
A. We don’t have that document.
3. Report submitted by INEC to NITDA on Request to Produce…. (I can’t get the entire thing)
A. They don’t have that document to the best of their knowledge.
_(NITDA DON’T HAVE ANY DOCUMENTS REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONS)
Time: 4:42pm
AB Mahmoud SAN objects to the testimony of the witness.
The court notes that he has not said anything worthy of evaluation or to warrant objections but however allows his objection and takes note of it.
Wole Olanikpekun SAN also objects to based on Para 41 (1) to the first schedule of the electoral act.
The court wonders the objections since he was Subpoened to bring documents to the court. They ask if he be told to go back since the court ordered his presence.
Time: 5:3pm
2ND & 3RD RESPONDENTS CROSS-EXAMINATION
Q. Who’s the head of NITDA
A. His name is Mr Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi, the Dorector General & Chief Executive Officer
Q. You got this Subpoena today
A. Yes
Q. I suggest to you that you don’t have the authority of your DG to be here.
A. The subpoena was addressed to me that is why I’m here
Q. Do you have his authority to come to this court today to come and give evidence
A. I did communicate to him about the summon and he’s aware, I don’t know if that’s what you’re asking
Q. You have an Act, the NITDA Act of 2007
A. Yes sir
Q. Have you read it?
A. Yes sir
Q. Is there any certification in the act described as ISA27001
‘ISO27001 2:2013’
A. The Act does not contain cyber security standard
Q. there’s nothing in your Act that provides for communication between NITDA and INEC
A. Our Act doesn’t mention that.
4TH RESPONDENT CROSS-EXAMINATION
Q. Your supervising ministry is?
A. Communications and Digital Economy
Q. you’re aware that the Minister of Communication and Digital Economy disclosed that there have been 16 million attempts to hack the INEC IT Infrastructure
A. Yes I’m aware.
Q. You’re aware also that the Minister said NITDA is the source of that information
A. Yes I’m aware
Q. You’re aware that INEC is an independent body
A. In conducting the election, yes.
That’s all for the Cross-examination.
Time: 5:8pm
The Petitioners will now call another witness. This time, this witness is not in court by a subpoena.
But the Court will first go on a 5 minutes recess before the witness is called.
Time: 5:29pm
Yunusa Tanko, Spokesperson for the Peter Obi Presidential Campaign will now testify in court..
Q. Tell the Court your name
A. Yunusa Tanko
Q. Where do you live?
A. ABJ
Q. You’ll recall that you filed a witness Statement on Oath in this court
A. Yes
Q. Take a look at this and confirm if that’s the statement (he’s now shown a document)
A. Yes It Is, with my Signature
Q. Do you want to adopt that statement as your evidence in this petition
A. Yes My Lord
Q. I can see you said you’re a politician, do you have any other occupation?
A. I’m an accountant
Q. In Para 1, you stated that you’re a member of the Labour Party
A. Yes, I’m a member of.
The Labour Party and also a member of the Labour Party Situation Room
Q. Take a Look at Exhibits PA1-4, these are the documents you referred to in para 24 of your witness deposition
A. Yes My Lord.
(The Shettima Withdrawal Case)
Q. Take a look at Exhibit PA5, now confirm that this exhibits are those referred to in paragraph 32 of your witness deposition
A. Yes, they are
(Drug case of Tinubu).
Time: 5:40pm
Q. Take a look at these bundles of receipts issued by the 1st Respondent (INEC) for various documents certified and made available to Petitioners and so on.
A. Yes My Lord
Q. These are the receipts you referred to in Para 102(qq)
A. Yes My Lord
The Petitioners now seek to tender the Receipts Issued By INEC for Certification of It’s Documents into evidence.
All Respondents:
They all do not object to the tendering of the documents into evidence.
The Court:
The Receipts Issued By INEC for Certification of Documents are hereby admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibits PCQ accordingly.
As the court pleases..
Time 5:45pm
Q. You also remember these bundle of letters you mentioned in Paragraph 58, letters to INEC
A. Yes my lord
(Now speaking to the denial of documents by INEC)
All the Respondents object to this and will provide reasons later.
The Petitioners also notes that they will reply.
The Court:
The Copies of the 6 Letters are hereby admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibits PCQ1-6 accordingly.
As the court pleases.
Time: 5:55pm
Q. In Para 36, you made reference to a Press Release issued by INEC and signed by Festus Okoye
A. Yes
He is shown Exhibit PCK2 tendered by The Cyber security witness yester and he identifies it.
Q. In Para 20 of your witness deposition, you said you can identify all Forms (listed in the picture attached) and all INEC electoral documents
A. Yes
Respondents remind the court of time and the time keeper notes that he has 5 more minutes.
The Witness is now identifying the INEC documents and Forms already tendered to the court. The witness duly identifies them.
Q. In Para 61, you mentioned 18,088 blurred copy of the IREV results, can you identify them?
A. Yes
He looks at PCE1-4 and Identifies them.
Q. Apart from these documents you identified you also identified other blurred copies duly certified?
A. Yes my Lord.
That’s all for the witness examination in Chief.
The court stands down the proceedings for Cross-examination till tomorrow since it’s 6pm and time is up.
The court now adjourns till tomorrow Friday June 23, 2023 at 2pm for continuation of hearing.
Continue Reading
Relatives of the 13 wedding guests killed in Plateau State have condemned the State High Court’s decision to release 20 suspects on bail.
The victims were brutally murdered on June 12, 2025, when a mob attacked their bus in Mangun district, Mangu Local Government Area.
They were traveling from Kaduna State to attend a wedding in Qua’an Pan LGA before tragedy struck.
According to reports, the group lost their way and entered a volatile community already shaken by recent terrorist activity.
Local youths allegedly mistook them for bandits and launched a deadly assault, leaving 13 people dead on the spot.
Following the killings, security operatives arrested 21 suspects.
In an earlier court sitting, 20 of them were remanded at the Jos Correctional Center while investigations continued.
However, on Wednesday, August 20, Justice Nafisa Lawal Musa granted bail after a motion filed by defence counsel, Garba Pwul (SAN).
This ruling has triggered outrage among the families of the victims, who insist the development is a slap in the face of justice.
Mallam Abdullahi Tahir Balami, a relative of one of the deceased, condemned the court’s action.
Speaking to reporters, he described the ruling as suspicious and raised concerns about possible foul play.
“With this development, we are now questioning the commitment of the Plateau State government to justice,” Balami said.
“It is saddening that suspects in a multiple homicide case can be released on bail.”
Another relative, Mallam Ubale Anguwar Dantsoho, who lost several family members, also expressed anger.
He described the decision as shocking and warned that justice may never be served.
“How can suspects in a murder case be granted bail?” he asked. “It shows that our system is failing us.”
Maryam Usman, widow of the driver killed in the massacre, expressed her heartbreak.
She said she struggled to understand why suspects linked to such a crime would be freed.
“What kind of court is this?” she asked in despair. “Instead of justice, the court dashed our hopes. We no longer believe justice will come.”
Her words echoed the feelings of many families now convinced that the judiciary has abandoned them.
Human rights activists are also calling for urgent intervention from both the state and federal governments to ensure accountability.
The Plateau killings have become one of the most disturbing tragedies in recent months.
The case now highlights the growing tension between grieving families and a judicial system accused of ignoring victims.
The Court of Appeal in Sokoto has upheld the Federal High Court’s decision dismissing former Zamfara State Governor Bello Matawalle’s challenge over the confiscation of over 40 official vehicles seized from his residence after he left office in 2023.
Delivering its unanimous verdict on August 8, 2025, a three-member panel led by Justice A.M. Talba ruled that Matawalle failed to provide credible evidence proving personal ownership of the vehicles.
The court emphasized that the vehicles were government property, not private assets, and rejected his claim that the seizure violated his fundamental property rights.
According to Zamfara State Governor Dauda Lawal’s spokesman, Sulaiman Idris, the vehicles were recovered in June 2023 after Matawalle and his deputy ignored a five-day ultimatum to return them.
Following their refusal, the state government sought and obtained a court order, enabling police operatives to raid Matawalle’s residence and recover the vehicles.
Initially, Matawalle secured an interim ruling from the Federal High Court in Gusau for the vehicles to be returned to him.
He also filed a separate suit claiming the confiscation breached his fundamental rights.
However, the case was transferred to the Sokoto division of the Federal High Court, which dismissed his claims in December 2023, affirming that the vehicles remained state property.
Dissatisfied with the lower court’s ruling, Matawalle escalated the matter to the Court of Appeal.
The appellate court, however, upheld the Federal High Court’s decision, affirming that the police acted lawfully in investigating the alleged misappropriation and that the state government followed due process in retrieving the vehicles.
The court concluded that Matawalle’s claims lacked merit and could not shield him from investigation or potential prosecution.
The leadership crisis tearing the Labour Party apart appears to have reached a turning point as the Federal High Court in Abuja, on Friday, struck out Julius Abure’s case against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), officially affirming that he is no longer the party’s National Chairman.
The court, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1523/2025, dismissed Abure’s suit due to a lack of jurisdiction, aligning with the Supreme Court’s earlier verdict on April 4, 2025 (Appeal No. SC/CV/56/2025), which voided all prior recognitions of his leadership.
However, while speaking on the judgment, Senator Nenadi Usman, the party’s Interim National Chairman, described the ruling as a clear victory for the rule of law.
“This decision removes every lingering doubt about Abure’s status. The chapter is closed. It’s time to put distractions behind us and rebuild the Labour Party into the disciplined, people-centred movement Nigerians deserve”, she said.
Also, INEC’s counter-affidavit in the case further solidified the court’s position, stressing that Abure’s tenure, along with that of the National Executive Committee, had expired in June 2024.
The commission also argued that the controversial March 27, 2024 “Nnewi National Convention” was invalid as it violated the 1999 Constitution, the Electoral Act 2022, INEC guidelines, and the Labour Party’s own constitution.
Senator Usman commended the electoral commission for its “clarity, courage, and institutional integrity” in presenting the facts and urged party members to “respect the supremacy of the Constitution and the authority of the courts.”
With bye-elections on the horizon and the 2027 general elections in sight, this ruling could mark the end of a year-long factional battle that has plagued the party.
The focus now shifts to uniting the Labour Party and preparing for the political challenges ahead.
On August 8, 2025, the Court of Appeal, sitting in Abuja, upheld NNPC Ltd.’s appeal against the Federal High Court’s April 2023 judgement that annulled Senator Ifeanyi Araraume’s removal as non-executive Chairman of the NNPC Board and awarded him ₦5 billion in damages.
The Court of Appeal’s judgement spares NNPC Ltd a massive financial payout and removes a legal risk that could have invalidated all decisions of the Board since 2021.
The Appeal Court agreed to NNPC Ltd.’s position that the Federal High Court’s earlier decision was delivered in error, noting amongst others, that the claim was statute-barred.
This decision of the Court of Appeal secures governance stability for NNPC Ltd., sets a corporate governance precedent in Nigerian law, and upholds the validity of Board resolutions critical to the oil and gas industry’s investment and policy direction.
An Ikeja Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday cleared Miss Comfort Emmason of all charges related to unruly behavior and assaulting the flight crew aboard an Ibom Air flight from Uyo to Lagos.
Magistrate Olanrewaju Salami struck out the five-count charge following the withdrawal of the case by the police prosecution team.
During the hearing, prosecutor Oluwabunmi Adeitan informed the court of new developments that led to the decision to discontinue the case.
She submitted a formal application for its withdrawal, which the court accepted, effectively bringing the matter to a close.
-
Featured4 days agoYour Attacks on Peter Obi Are Petty, Stop It! Chekwas Rebukes Soludo
-
News4 days agoTension in Anambra community as senior police officer shoots kinsman dead
Colleagues, others try cover-up; victim's family fights back
-
News7 days agoAnambra South Bye-Election: APC Chief Rescues Deputy Gov Caught In Vote Buying From Angry Youths
By Chuks Collins, Awka
-
Celebrity/Entertainment1 day agoHow Nigerian TikToker Geh Geh Made ₦45 Million in One Night
-
News5 days agoNigerian visa applicants must provide 5-yr social media history — US embassy
-
Analysis6 days agoSystemic Sabotage: How APC, INEC Colluded To Undermine Amamgbo’s Senatorial Bid
By Arthur Ezechukwu
-
News3 days agoTerrorist Organisation: APC, PDP Members in US, UK, France Risk Deportation
-
Celebrity/Entertainment5 days agoWhy single mothers can’t raise boys into proper men — Jim Iyke
-
News7 days agoBREAKING: Troops arrest Nigeria’s most wanted terror kingpin
-
News2 days agoVandal electrocuted while vandalizing Aba power infrastructure