The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has begged the Presidential Electoral Petition Court (PEPC), otherwise referred to as the Tribunal, to admit its documents marked “Exhibits RAI, RA2, RA6 and RA7″ kicked out by Mr Peter Gregory Obi and the Labour Party (LP), otherwise referred to as the Petitioners, as exhibits.
This was contained in a Certified True Copy (CTC) of INEC’s written address against Peter Obi’s objection to admissibility of documents it tendered before the Tribunal.
The matter was filed in the Court of Appeal holden at Abuja in the matter of the election to the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria held on the 25th day of February 2023, with petition no: CA/PEPC/03/2023, between Mr Peter Gregory Obi / Labour Party and the Independent National Electoral Commission, Senator Ahmed Bola Tinubu, Senator Shettima Kashim and the All Progressive Congress as Respondents .
INEC had tendered a document seeking to disqualify Peter Obi but was vehemently opposed by the counsel to Peter Obi led by Dr. Livy Uzoukwu.
In its argument, INEC insisted that the election tribunal erred when it rejected it and held that there was no material before the tribunal on which it could determine the disqualification of the 1st Petitioner.
In conclusion, INEC urged the Tribunal to overrule all the objections of the Petitioners with regard to the admissibility of Exhibits RAI, RA2, RA6 and RA7, insisting that “the said exhibits are relevant, pleaded, (certified where applicable) and germane to the 1st Respondent’s case”.
INEC wrote as follows:
The Honourable Court, at the close of hearing on the 5th of July 2023, ordered the filing of Written Addresses in respect of the objections raised during the hearing of the petition. The Petitioners have, by a Written Address filed on the 23rd of July 2023 objected to the admissibility of some documents tendered by the 1st Respondent and raised an issue for Determination to wit: Having regard to the Report of the Prehearing session dated 23rd May 2023, provisions of paragraph 41(3) of the Electoral Act 2022 and other relevant provisions of the Act and decided cases, whether it is not right to hold that Exhibit RA1, RA2, RA6 and RA7 are inadmissible and liable to be expunged from evidence?
The 1st Respondent shall by this Written Address proffer argument in opposition to the issues and objections raised by the Petitioners.
RESPONSE TO THE PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS
The Petitioners in paragraphs 3.1 to 3.3 objected to the admissibility of Exhibit RA1 on the ground that the 1st Respondent is not the maker of the document and the document did not emanate from the 1st Respondent. The Petitioners in paragraph 3.4 challenged Exhibit RA2 on the ground that the 1st Respondent concocted the said document. The Petitioners further objected to the admissibility of Exhibits RA6 and RA7 on the ground that it contradicts the Pre-hearing report of the Court to the effect that only certified documents by the 1st Respondent not objected to, could be tendered from the Bar.
On the basis or the above, the Petitioners have urged your Lordships to discountenance Exhibits RAI, RA2, RA6 and RA7.
Argument on Admissibility of Exhibit RA I
We submit with regard to Exhibit RAJ, a letter addressed to the Chairman of the 1st Respondent, that the document is relevant, pleaded by the 1st Respondent in paragraph 19 of its Reply to the Petition listed as No. 9 on the 1st Respondent’s List of Documents, duly certified being a correspondence addressed to the 1st Respondent, a document which is in the custody of the 1st Respondent and tendered by a staff or the 1st Respondent. We submit that a certified true copy of a public document can be tendered without calling the maker of the document or even the public officer in whose custody the document emanated from.
We submit that contrary to the Petitioners’ assertion in paragraph 3.3 of their written address, Exhibit RA1 is not a private document, but rather a public document which has formed part of the records of the 1st Respondent having been addressed to the 1st Respondent and a certified true copy of same is proof of that document. See Bob-Manuel v. Woji (2010) 8 NWLR Part 1196 263 at page 273, paras. A – B where the court held:
“Where a private document is kept in a public place, it becomes a public record of the document. And the document, though a private document, becomes a public document and its proof by tendering a certified true copy thereof is sufficient by virtue of sections 91(2)(b) and 97(l)(e) of the Evidence Act. The averment that the document in question was conveyed and registered in the lands registry at Port Harcourt, is enough compliance that, though, a private document, it became a public document and its proof by, tendering a certified true copy is enough by virtue of sections”.
We further rely on Daggash v. Bulama (supra) at pages 200-201, paras. H-A where this Honourable Court held that:
“Once a public document is certified and signed as required by section 111 of the Evidence Act, such document is admissible on its mere production and it is unnecessary to prove custody or verify it. It is unnecessary to call the Public Officer who certified it, and it may even be tendered from the Bar. In the instant case, exhibit “A”, which is a public document was properly certified; and the election tribunal erred when it rejected it and held that there was no material before the tribunal on which it could determine the disqualification of the 1st respondent.”
We rely on the foregoing submissions and the authorities cited and urge the Honourable Court to discountenance the Petitioners’ submissions in these paragraphs as they are misconceived.
Argument on Admissibility of Exhibit RA2
The Petitioners in paragraph 3.4 of their written address further challenged the admissibility of Exhibit RA2 on the ground that the 1st Respondent cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. We submit that this particular ground relied on by the Petitioners is strange and not contemplated by the Evidence Act or case law. The law is trite that relevancy governs admissibility and is the key to admissibility.
In civil proceedings like this case, for a document to be admissible it must be pleaded so as to make the other party know what to meet at the trial court and it must be relevant. These two requirements must be complied with conjunctively and not disjunctively.
Exhibit RA2 challenged by the Petitioners is a certified true copy or the 1st Respondent’s letter dated 6th July 2022 addressed to the 1st Respondent. The document was duly pleaded by the 1st Respondent, listed on the 1st Respondent’s List of Documents, duly certified being a correspondence addressed to the 1st Respondent, a document in the custody of the 1st Respondent and tendered by a staff of the 1st Respondent.
Argument on Admissibility of Exhibit RA6 & RA7
The Petitioners further objected to the admissibility of Exhibits RA6 and RA7 on the grounds that the exhibits were not part of the documents allowed to be tendered from the Bar pursuant to the Pre-hearing Order of this Court.
We submit in response that the Petitioners’ objection to these documents and particularly the reasons cited are misleading and should be discountenanced. We refer your Lordships to Section 122(2)(m) of the Evidence Act 2011 and humbly urge your Lordships to take judicial notice of the record of proceedings of the 4th of July 2023 when the said Exhibits RA6 and RA7 were tendered and admitted. Your Lordships would mind that contrary to the Petitioners’ submission that those documents were tendered from the Bar, the said Exhibits RA6 and RA7 were indeed tendered through DWI who referenced the cloud trail logs in paragraphs 8, 29(viii) and 44( i) of his witness statement, and who expressly gave evidence that his name and signature were on the cloud trail log.
We submit that counsel owe a duty to assist the court and not to mislead it. 1st Respondent can only deduce that this mistake in the Petitioners’ address was an erroneous glitch on the Petitioners’ part and not a deliberate one and we urge your Lordships to discountenance the said objections to Exhibits RA6 and RA7 together with the authorities relied on therein.
Conclusion
For the reasons in the foregoing paragraphs, we urge your Lordships to overrule all the objections of the Petitioners with regard to the admissibility of Exhibits RAI, RA2, RA6 and RA7 as the said exhibits are relevant, pleaded, (certified where applicable) and germane to the 1st Respondent’s case. May it please your lordships!
—