Time: 3:11pm
The Labour Party legal team just set up a presentation monitor to play a recording of Mahmood Yakubu’s speech for the Judges.
Time: 3:52pm
The judges are here and as usual, the lawyers have to mark their attendance. This process could take 30 mins or more.
Counsel Representation still Ongoing!
LP Legal team is being ably led today by Dr Livy Uzoukwu!
Also here are Awa Kalu SAN, PIN Ikwueto SAN, J.S Okutepa SAN & Paul Ananaba SAN!
For 1st Respondents (INEC) :
Kemi Pinheiro , Steve Adehi, TM Inua, Alhassan Umar ( ALL SAN)
2nd and 3rd (Tinubu and Shett):
Akin Olujimi (lead) , Yusuf Ali, Emmanuel Ukala, Mike Igbokwe (ALL SAN)
There are fewer counsels in court today!
Okutekpa SAN for LP:
2 sets of Subpoena were served on channels, but they will start with one who came with his witness statement on oath which they have filed.
Drama about to start, wear your belts!
One Lucky who came on behalf of Channels TV has been identified and will proceed to the witness box.
He’s now taking an oath of truth.
Q: Your full name
A: Lucky O.I
Q. Where do you work
A. Channels as a senior reporter and editor.
Q. You recall that two sets of Subpoena were served on channels to appear and produce certain videos?
A. Yes my lord
Q. One was issues on 30th May and second on 6th June 23
A. Yes
Q. Do you have copies of those Subpoena
A. Yes, they are here with me
He now presents those copies to the court and Okutekpa SAN seeks to tender the copies of the subpoena addressed to the CEO of Channels TV in evidence.
Time: 4:13pm
The witness, Lucky Isawode , works with Channels Tv as a senior reporter and editor.
He was served subpoena on 30th May and 6th June , 2023.
All respondents have NO OBJECTIONS to the subpoena!
1st Respondent:
No objections
2nd and 3rd Respondents:
No objections
4th Respondent:
No objections.
Time: 4:18pm
Okutekpa SAN for LP: Pursuant to these copies of subpoena, you came with a written statement on oath, what do you wanna do with it?
Witness: Yes, I want to adopt it…
An objection is raised… 2 respondent & 3 respondent objects to the competence of the witness to testify in the proceedings.
Court: The 2 copies of subpoena ad testificandum tendered by the petitioners are hereby admitted into evidence and marked Exhibit PBH1 & 2 respectively.
As the court pleases.
The respondents request that the witness not be allowed to testify since he was not listed and his witness statement not taken. That he is not a competent witness who can testify by the provisions of the law he has read out.
Time: 4:40pm
There was an ensuing argument relying on 4.5.1 of the schedule to the Electoral Act
The respondents say the subpoena was just filed today and the witness wasn’t even listed at all, hence he’s incompetent!
LP then replied, citing cases like Ararume v. INEC and PDP v. Okogbuo LPELR (2019) 489989.
It’s going to be a long day.
Respondents are pulling all their legal arsenals already to this battle.
It’ll be interesting to see how the petitioners (LP) intends to manoeuvre this.
The respondents are now arguing against video presentation saying they weren’t made aware of it.
Time: 4:48pm
The judge jokingly said he wants to watch ‘film,’ so they (respondents) should hurry up.
Time: 4:50pm
Okutekpa SAN for LP: My Lord, if there is any objections that deserves dissmisal, it is these ones raised. He urged the court to dismiss their objections as the witness is most competent.
It is not the law that the only witness that can be Subpoened & admitted is an adversary, he says.
Time: 4:58pm
He says that a subpoena issued against any person, such witness is competent to testify. He refers the court to Paragraph 41(5 &6) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2022.
Time: 5:3pm
Respondents are using arguments to avoid the witness testifying and playing video evidence.
LP is citing cases upon cases.
Time: 5:6pm
The respondents and Petitioners are still arguing over whether the witness should testify or not. It’s going to be a long day today.
Time: 5:9pm
Okutekpa SAN for LP: He finally drew the court attention to FAYEMI V. ONI (2019) LPELR-49291 (SC) where the supreme court held that the practice direction and rules of court cannot override the right to fair hearing.
Surprisingly the judge is not saying anything yet.
Time: 5:29pm
The court have held that the ruling on the objections will be delivered on the final day.
Okutekpa then notes that the FAYEMI case, there was a mistake, that it is 2008 8 NWLR (PT. 1089) and not 2019 as cited before. He apologizes.
Back to witness:
Q. You came with the witness statement on oath, what do you want to do with them?
A. I like to tender and adopt them as my statement
Q. Your were asked to provide recording or live interview of Prof. Mahmoud and Festus Okoye. Where are they?
Okutekpa now applies to tender the flash drive containing the videos as provided by the witness into evidence.
(The whole court is about to watch two people lie to us AGAIN on TV)
Pinhero: My Lord, the colour of the flash is red, Okutekpa supports Chelsea, he should have brought blue, I’m an arsenal fan.
Okutekpa: My Lord, I brought red to show them red eyes.
Court: both of you are losers, you went home with no trophy
😂😂😂
Shots fired !
Akin Olujimi SAN (for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents) objects to the flash drive, that he was supposed to be served and shown the content of the drive before now and not to just throw it on him here in court.
He submits that having not been served ahead of today’s proceedings.
He says it will deprive them of the right to Fair heating since they do not know the content and couldn’t prepare against it.
(Looking for adjournment to go and look at it?)
The court asks him whether this affects the admissibility of the drive. Since it doesn’t, no need
He concedes that he does not have objections and Fashanu SAN have no objections.
we now wait for the court to rule on the drive.
5:35pm
Court: The Court has now admitted the Flash Drive and tagged it Exhibit PBH3
As the court pleases…
Note that the drive above was for one (PBH1), they are now tendering the second with respect to PBH2
Now to objections.
1st Respondent:
No objections
2nd and 3rd Respondents:
No objections
4th Respondent:
No objections
Time: 5:39pm
The Court:
The second flash drive tendered is now admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit PBH4.
As the court pleases.
Time: 5:41pm
Okutekpa SAN:
He now applies that Exhibit PBH3 (first drivel) to be played and that the head of technical and head of INEC server Ikwueto SAN 😄 put on the device and play it.
2nd and 3rd Respondents:
They object to the playing of the drive on the basis that no copy have been.
Time: 5:43pm
Served on the respondents and cannot prepare for it. That they are entitled to be served for them to play it and know the content. And until they are served, they object to it.
Pinhero SAN for INEC:
They are indifferent from their side (for the first time 😂) that the evidence is before the court and see no reason why it should not be played.
4th Respondent:
They align with 2nd and 3rd Respondents, that they should be served to enable them prepare for cross-examination.
Time: 5:51pm
Okutekpa SAN for LP:
He noted that the objection is most misconceived as the drive must be played in open court. He refers the court to PEO Memo…
He noted that they listed it and are not obligated to play it. That it must be played before they even think of cross+examination or not.
Okutekpa refers the court to GEO MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER & ORS. V. NATIONAL DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT (2013) LPELR-20796 (CA) AT 33-34
‘that is a complete misconception of the law regarding audio cassette…it must be played in open court…when that is done, opportunity is given.
Okutekpa SAN notes that they didn’t cite any laws that stops them from playing it. That they have listed it and served on the respondents, hence no need of serving them copies to play…
for cross-examination’ these are excerpts of the case cited about.
The court holds that the case is not in line with the objection.
Time: 6pm
The respondents are still objecting!
They want to know what’s in the clip but the petitioners are saying, “let’s watch the film first and then you can object. Even me, I don’t know what’s in the clip!”
Note: The LP team are not required by law to disclose the content of the recording before the hearing but they can tell the respondents that a tape will be played in court.
The argument continues.
The court clarifies that the objection is not to stop from playing but to stop them from playing NOW until they get copies
The court notes that time is far spent & they don’t intend to stay more than 6pm and advises that they serve the respondents copies for them to come back😫
Okutekpa SAN now asks the court to come back and play. The court noted that if not for time ‘they would have played it as there’s no law that stops it’😤
My take: Since my Lords knew that they could play, why didn’t he talk nau… He was allowing them to argue and prove that they were paid professional fees. 🙄
Adjournment is on the way at this point.
What the court said about the other video:
The court:
We are of the view that the respondents are not prejudiced if the video is played, hence they will play it without the respondents being served. However, due to time constraints, they will stand down the video until tomorrow.
Time: 6:2pm
Court admitted the videos but objects to the 1st one (as applied), being played saying it should actually have been served the other parties
Court is Hereby ADJOURNED Till Tomorrow, Saturday June 10th, 2023 by 2pm!