In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

In The Presidential Election Tribunal

Record Of Proceedings

Mr Peter Obi
Labour Party – – – – – – – Petitioners

and

Independent National Electoral Commission
Sen. Bola Ahmed Tinubu
Sen. Kashim Shettima
All Progressives Congress – – – – – – Respondents

Petition No. CA/PEPC/03/2023

Business of the Day: HEARING (DAY 15) Petitioners to prove their case.

Lead Counsel for the Petitioners handed over the conduct of today’s proceedings to P. I. N. Ikwueto SAN.

Petitioners Counsel informed the court that we were ready to call PW2. we intend to call just one witness and after that we intend to move the application of 2nd June 2023 subject to the convenience of the court.

Witness Information: Petitioners Witness ITX

Q – Question
R – Reply

Examination in chief (conducted by P.I.N Ikwueto SAN)

The Petitioner witness to be called is identified as the 2nd witness listed in our list of witness with code name ITX. He is an ordinary witness of the petitioner.

Q. Tell the court your name?
R. My name is Anthony Chinwo

Q. Where do you live?
R. I live at 7 Katum, Wuse zone 5, Abuja

Q. What do you do for a living?
R. I am a software engineer as well as an architect

Q. You deposed to a statement on oath in this petition, did you sign it?
R. Yes I deposed to one and I signed it

Q. If you see that your witness statement on oath will you recognize it?
R. Yes sir, definitely

Shows witness statement on oath to witness- he confirms it is the one deposed to by him

Q. Do you wish to adopt the statement?
R. Absolutely

Witness statement is so adopted

Cross Examination by 1st respondent (conducted by A.B Mahmoud SAN)

Q. In your para 10 of your statement, you said you read the relevant provisions of the electoral act, as well as the regulations and guidelines relating to the deployment of the technology…
R. Yes sir

Q. In the opinion you gave about the use of the technology is based on your reading of the guidelines?
R. Yes

Q. You didn’t play any role other than voting at the said election?
R. Unfortunately no sir

Q. you are not familiar with any of the application on the bvas device as an individual
R. Not firsthand and not physically, but I’m familiar with the back-end servers

Q. You have not previously as a software engineer developed any software or application meant to be used or deployed in a general election
R. I have made a similar software and application used to collate — (interrupted by 1st resp)

Q. You as an engineer have not developed any software deployed in a general election
R. In my — (interrupted by 1st resp)

1st respondent interjects

Q. You have not developed any software that was deployed in any general elections in or outside Nigeria?
R. No I have not

Q. The Amazon Web Services (AWS) is the most secure web provider of cloud web services. It is used by governments, corporate organizations that are we’ll concerned about security?
R. Yes and it can also be used by individuals

Q. That INEC deployed the AWS, is a clear indication that the 1st resp was concerned about security ,… is that a fair conclusion
R. No it is not a fair conclusion

Q. Mr chinwo, you are not a staff of amazon ?
R. No I am not

Bell rung, time up …

Cross Examination by 2nd and 3rd Respondent (conducted by Yusuf Aliyu SAN)

Q. Architect, we want to confirm that you stand by all depositions of your statement on oath
R. I stand by all 17 paragraphs of my statement on oath

Q. From your statement, you agree that it was only INEC that stated the means for transmission of results of elections conducted by it
R. I agree, INEC made the statement public and we were all aware of what to expect

Q. Confirm to the court what you deposed to in In para 16 of your statement (I am aware that the information or data generated/imputed in the BVAS whether operating online or offline, were transmitted to the INEC servers, including the virtual server hosted on the AWS Cloud Platform)
R. I confirm

Q. You’re not in a position, to tell us the number of software or applications that made the component deployed by inec in the general election of 2023
R. I am not an inec staff, I am not aware

Q. Did you vote during the election?
R. I didn’t vote

Cross Examination by 4th respondent (conducted by Lateef O. fagbemi SAN)

Q. As an architect and software engineer, it was this knowledge and experience that you used in giving this depositions in your witness statement on oath?
R. it is my knowledge as well as my findings from inec irev portal that formed the crux on my deposed statement
S. You did not describe yourself as an architect in your statement?
T. No I did not

Q. You did not give your profile – name, school, your qualifications, work experience
R. No they’re not in my statement

Q. You said you used inec materials to form your opinions
R. Yes, I used publicly available kpi (application programming interface) on the inec website. I used them to collect all the information available about the election.

Q. You also anchored your findings on the provision of the electoral act, the guidelines etc
R. Yes sir

Q. They’re many versions of the electoral act, which one did you base your own
R. I based them on the electoral act 2022, guidelines etc which was modeled after the Kenyan electoral act.

Q. Do you stand by para 11 of your statement (I am aware that for an election at the polling unit, the presiding officer was mandated to electronically transmit the result of the polling unit, direct to the collation system as prescribed by INEC)
R. Yes I do

Re-Examination

Q. Explain the context of your architecture, whether it is software architecture or civil engineering architecture)
R. (overruled by the court as they already understand the context of his deposition)

Petitioners Counsel stated that the motion of 2nd June 2023 was ripe for hearing as all respondent’s have respectively filed their responses to it and that the motion would shed more light and depth on the case of the petitioners;

The motion of 2nd June 2023 – sought the leave of court to move the application of 22nd may 2023 outside the prehearing session

The motion of 22nd May 2023 – bordered on the delivery of interrogatories on the 1st respondent

1st respondent counsel had no objection to the 2 motions being taken together

2nd and 3rd respondent counsel had no objection to the 2 motions being taken together

4th respondent counsel had no objection to the 2 motions being taken together

For the MOTION ON NOTICE filed on the 2nd of June 2023; asking the court for two prayers was predicated on 5 grounds, supported by an affidavit of 3 substantive paragraphs and accompanied by a written address as stipulated by the affidavit of court.
There was also a reply on points of law filed on the 8th of June 2023 in response to the responses of the respondents.

The MOTION ON NOTICE filed on the 22nd of May 2023; asking the court for two prayers was predicated on 13 grounds, supported by a affidavit of 6 substantive paragraphs (also containing one exhibit containing interrogatories delivered on the 1st resp containing 12 questions put to the 1st respondent bordering on the noncompliance to the order of court) and accompanied by a written address as stipulated by the affidavit of court. We have also filed the interrogatories as a separate process.

1st respondent; in response to the application filed on 22nd of May 2023, we filed a counter affidavit on the 25th of May and a written address on the same date

In response to the application filed on 2nd of June 2023, we filed a counter affidavit on the 5th of June 2023 and a written address on the same date.
We respectfully adopt all argument canvassed in both addresses.

2nd & 3rd respondent; in response to the application filed on 22nd of May 2023, we filed a counter affidavit on the_____________ and a written address on the same date

In response to the application filed on 2nd of June 2023, we filed a counter affidavit on the 6th of June 2023 and a written address on the same date.
We humbly adopt he written address in urging my lords to dismiss both applications of the petitioner.

4th respondent; In response to the application filed on 2nd of June 2023, we filed a counter affidavit on the 7th of June 2023 and a written address on the same date.
We respectfully adopt our legal argument in urging the court to dismiss the petitioners application.

Ruling is reserved for tomorrow or the day after that.

Petitioners counsel stated that since we still have time on the clock, we would like to tender the Form Ec40G’s subject to the convenience of the Court.
Granted by the Court
Court will rise for 5 minutes

Counsel for the Petitioners handed over the conduct of proceedings to Prof Paul Ananaba SAN.

TENDERING OF Form EC40G’s IN RESPECT OF THE 6 STATES

BAYELSA STATE

We seek to tender the INEC certified Form EC40G in respect of 4 LGA’s of Bayelsa State.

The 1st respondent (INEC) Counsel objected to the INEC certified Form EC40G’s sought to be tendered by the Petitioners and would file a written address with the reasons for the objection.

The 2nd & 3rd respondent Counsel objected to these documents sought to be tendered by the Petitioners and would address the reasons for the objections in the final address.

4th respondent counsel objected to the admissibility of the documents sought to be tendered and would advance the reasons for the objections in the final written address.

The FORM EC40G’s for 4 LGA’s in Bayelsa State are hereby admitted and marked as Exhibit PG1-PG4.

Petitioners counsel informed the court that we’ve come to the end of today’s session and would continue the tendering of the remaining documents tomorrow.

Adjournment; Adjourned to Friday 9th June 2023 at 3:00pm for continuation of HEARING.

Record of Proceedings by IGWEKAMMA C. OBIORAH ESQ.

~~~

Business of the Day: HEARING (DAY 16) Petitioners to prove their case

Lead Counsel for the Petitioners handed over the conduct of today’s proceedings to J. S. Okutekpa SAN.

Petitioners Counsel informed the court that we were ready to call a 2 (two) witnesses on subpoena. We have their witness statement on oaths which we’ve filed and we have served their statements on the respondents and we’re ready to take the witnesses.

Witness Information: Petitioners Subpoenaed Witness

Q – Question
R – Reply

Examination in chief (conducted by J. S. Okutekpa SAN)

The witness was subpoenaed from CHANNELS TV.

Q. Tell the court your name?
R. My name is Lucky Osawodeh—
S. Where do you work?
T. I work with Channels TV Abuja as a senior reporter and editor

Q. You recall that 2 sets of subpoenas were served on CHANNELS TV to produce two witness to testify
R. Yes I recall

Q. The 1st one was issued on 30th May 2023 and the 2nd one was issued on 6th June 2023
R. Yes they were

Q. Do you have copies of those subpoenas
R. Yes , they’re here with me

Q. Can I have copies of the two ?
R. Here they are

My lord I seek to tender the two subpoenas issued against the chairman / ceo of Channels TV by the honourable court

No objections from the respondents

The copies of the subpoenas ad testeficandum issued against Channels tv is hereby admitted and marked as Exhibit PBH1 & PBH2 respectively.

Q. Pursuant to these Exhibits PBH1 & PBH2, you came with two statements on oath., what do you want to do with these statements?
R. I seek to adopt them

Objection by counsel to the 2nd & 3rd Respondent (by Chief Akin Olujimi SAN).
By Paragraph 4(5) of the first schedule to the Electoral act, the petition must be accompanied by the list of witnesses the petitioner intends to call, as well as the written statement on oath as etc… it was just now that the petitioners served on us the written statement of the witness which was filed today and is contrary to the stipulations of this provision as it was not filed alongside the petition; in summary the witness is not a competent witness who can testify before this court.

My lords, this point has been settled by various decisions of this court; ARALUMEH V. INEC (2019) NPELR 48397 @ pg 33 CA, PDP V. OAOGBUO (2019) NPELR 489899 CA pg 22-28 where it was held that it doesn’t matter whether it was a subpoenaed witness, his statement ought to be filed at the appropriate time with the petition. The latest authority on the point is that ADVANCE NIGERIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. INEC & ORS (unreported) with Appeal no. CA/A/EPT/406/2020 delivered on 17th July 2020 at Pg 43 where the court stated there is no difference between ordinary witness and subpoenaed witness under the electoral act.

My lords, the petitioners cannot say they were not aware as they listed video and audio recordings, CD, DVD etc relating to the election at page 33, paragraph Z of the petition.

In light of the specific provisions of these, the witness is not competent to testify in this proceeding.

Objection by 1st respondent Counsel (Dr Kemi Pinero SAN).

I’m aligning myself with the submissions of the 2nd &3rd resp counsel and will make these additional submissions

To draw my lords attention to para 35 &36 of the petition; in doing so I would urge my lord to juxtapose the Exhibit PBH1 & 2 just tendered this morning. The request in the Exhibit pbh 1& 2 is for the production of the video recording which has been stated in para 35 & 36 of the petition. Pount being that the petitioners were aware they would be requiring these videos amd ought to have filed these with the petition in compliance with Paragraph 4(5) of the first schedule to the electoral act. See the case of BASHIR & ANOR. V. KURDALA (2019) LPELR 488423 CA. Delivered in November 2019; where my lords made an exception was that the only kind of witness that needn’t be frontloaded is a witness which could be classified as an adversary. And the petitioners have not prtrayed the witness to be an adversary. See also the case of AMARCHREE V. INEC (1990) NPELR 48677 CA; the conclusion being that the directives of the first schedule to the electoral act ought to be strictly complied with.

Objection by 4th respondent Counsel (Dr Afolabi Fashalu SAN).

I’m aligning myself with the submissions of the 1st resp, 2nd &3rd resp counsel and will only add that flowing from the same authorities, they’re no distinctions to the kind of witnesses and petitioners ought to have front loaded the statement of the subpoenaed witness.

Reply by Petitioners Counsel (J.S Okutekpa SAN).

If there is any objections to be dismissed by my lords, it is the objections of the respondents. It is not the law that the only witness that can be subpoenaed to testify is the adversary.., a subpoena as we know is an order of court and can be issued against any person and the witness is competent to testify. My submission is that a subpoenaed witness is competent to testify; I refer my lord to LASUN———- (2009) 16 NWLR PT 1163 pg 513 ; TAJUDEEN BELLO & ORS V. ODOFIN (2021) LPEPR 5941 CA where my lords stated that it would be a disservice for a witness on subpoena who had come at the order of the court to be turned back and prevent the witness from testifying. And would also amount to a breach of our right to fair hearing to prevent the witness from testifying in this court. Also my lord, in our petition, particularly in our list of witnesses we listed subpoenaed witnesses; and my submission is that if a subpoenaed witness can testify orally, what harm do we suffer if he reduces his submission into writing to prevent my lords from recording longhand,… it is my submission that a subpoenaed witness can reduce his submission into a statement on oath and can be allowed to adopt his so stated deposition.
My final submission is that no injuries will be suffered and I urge my lord to overrule these objections and to hold that it is technicality taken too far. As my lords need to see the evidence pleaded herein.

Finally my lord see FAWEHINMI V. OONI (2008) 8 NWLR PT 1089 400 @443 (SC) in respect of the fact that similar objections were raised on the admissibility of a witness on subpoena where the Supreme Court held that the rules of court cannot overrule the right to fair hearing.

Ruling on objections to be delivered alongside final Judgement.

Witness statement is so adopted.

Q. You were asked to produce the video recording of the interview with INEC Chairman and Festus Keyamo
R. Yes, they’re here

Q. Where is it contained?
R. In this flash drive

My lord we seek to tender this flash drive produced by the witness

2nd &3rd Resp counsel objects to the tendering of the Flash drive as they were not served

4th Resp counsel objects to the tendering of the Flash drive as they were not served

The Flash Drive is so admitted and is marked as Exhibit PBH3 & 4

The respondents are not in any way prejudiced by the playing of these video recordings but for want of time the presentation and the witness are hereby stood down till tomorrow by 2:00pm

Adjournment: Adjourned to Saturday 10th June 2023 at 2:00pm for continuation of HEARING.

Record of Proceedings by IGWEKAMMA C. OBIORAH ESQ.

~~~

Business of the Day; HEARING (DAY 17) Petitioners to prove their case

Ruling on the Applications of the petitioner filed on 22nd May 2023 & 2nd June 2023 – bordering on the interrogatories served on the 1st respondent and seeking leave to move the earlier motion outside prehearing

The Application of the Petitioners filed on 22nd May 2023 was Seeking:

1. To serve interrogatories on the 1st respondent
2. Deeming interrogatories already filed and served as duly filed and served

Issue for determination as highlighted by the Court – whether the petitioner have satisfied the provisions of the law to warrant the grant of the reliefs sought.

Ruling – by Paragraph 47(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2022, No motion shall be moved and all motions shall come up at the pre-hearing session except in extreme circumstances with leave of Tribunal or court.

The said application of 22nd May 2023 was filed after the close of the pre hearing session and the application of 2nd June seeking leave to move the application outside the prehearing failed to disclose any extreme circumstances on the face of it and that counsel to the Petitioners failed to draw the attention of the court to the application of 22nd May which although wasn’t ripe for hearing but should have done so as it is the obligation of counsel to notify the court of an application which they intend to move.

This application fails and is appropriately dismissed

Lead Counsel for the Petitioners handed over the conduct of today’s proceedings to J.S Okutepa SAN.

Petitioners Counsel informed the court that we were ready to continue with the Examination-in-Chief of PW3 ~ the Subpoenaed Witness

Witness Information: Petitioners Subpoenaed Witness

Q – Question
R – Reply

Examination in chief (conducted by J. S. Okutekpa SAN)

The witness was subpoenaed from CHANNELS TV. He is an ordinary witness

Q. Remember you’re on Oath..
R. I remember

Q. In the witness statement, in para 1 of the two statements on oath, you made reference to an ID card evidencing your position
R. Yes, im with it

My lord, I apply to tender the ID card of the witness and humbly plead for the colored photocopy of the ID card be substituted for the Original so the witness can leave with his ID card to continue with his journalism

No Objections by the Respondents

The colored photocopy of the ID card with staff no. ***** of the subpoenaed witness Lucky _________ is hereby admitted and marked as Exhibit PBH5.

My lord, may I humbly apply that Exhibit PBH3 be played for the court to see; and I apply my Lords for my learned senior P.I.N Ikwueto SAN who is our head technical expert be allowed to demonstrate the video recording in open court.

My lords graciously suspended the time stipulation for conduct of examination in chief of an ordinary witness to accommodate the playing time of the Exhibit PBH3.

EXHIBIT PBH3: A video recording of INEC Chairman, Yakubu Mahmood, giving a press conference addressing Inec commissioners, members of staff and Nigeria at large detailing the training being carried on for adhoc staff of the commission, and assuring Nigerians that there is not going back on the deployment of the Bimodial Voter Accreditation System. He gave a report of the resources being expended by the commission to make electoral materials available for all pooling units in the Country. Wherein he also stated that results from polling units would be transmitted in real time from the polling units to the INEC server after computation of votes at the various centers. (Check YouTube for full video)

My lord, may I humbly apply that Exhibit PBH4 be played for the court to see

EXHIBIT PBH4: A video recording of CHANNELS interview of Tv Host Seun Okinbaloye and Festus Okoye (National Commissioner and Chairman of the Information and Voter Education Committee of the INEC) wherein the national Commissioner highlighted that the failure of INEC in the general elections was as a result of technical glitches. He went on to detail the functions of the BVAS as;
1. Voter accreditation and authentication – through finger print
2. For upload of polling unit results to the IREV portal (by scanning the FORM EC8A and transmitting to the IREV portal
3. *****
Also highlighting that every political party has a right to deploy polling agents to monitor the operations of the vote recording and transmission. In the same interview, Seun tackled him about the promises of the Electoral body and probed if it was a case of over promising and under delivering… etc (check Youtube for full video)

In the same EXHIBIT PBH4 was a CHANNELS TV episode containing a press statement of Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu on his choice of his running mate Senator Kashim Shettima (portrayed by the petitioners to prove the double candidacy of the 3rd Respondent)

Cross examination by 1st Respondent counsel (Dr. Kemi Pinero SAN)

Q. Mr Lucky, you are a very lucky man, I have no questions for you.
R. …

Cross examination by 2nd and 3rd Respondent counsel (Chief Akim Olujimi SAN)

Q. You said in para 10 of your statement that the recording was done by cameramen of your company
R. Yes sir

Q. The cameraman you referred to in these statements is still alive?
R. Yes

Q. All the people that featured in these recordings (Yakubu mahmood & Festus Okoye) are still alive?
R. Yes, they are.

Q. That will be all for the witness
R. …

Cross examination by 4th Respondent counsel (Solomon Umoh SAN)

Q. The inec chairman is still alive and in office ?
R. Yes

Q. That will be all for the witness

Reexamination
None

May we humbly apply that the subpoenaed witness be discharged

Granted by the Court.

Counsel for the Petitioners handed back the reins of today’s proceedings to Dr. Livy Uzoukwu SAN.

Petitioners Counsel informed the court that we would like to continue with the tendering of the remaining documents.

Lead Counsel for the Petitioners handed over the conduct of the remaining segment of today’s proceedings to Peter Afuba SAN.

Form EC40G’s in respect of BENUE STATE

We seek to tender the INEC certified Form EC40G’s in respect of 6 LGA’s of Benue State.

The 1st respondent (INEC) Counsel objected to the INEC certified Forms sought to be tendered by the Petitioners and would file a written address with the reasons for the objection.

The 2nd & 3rd respondent Counsel objected to these documents sought to be tendered by the Petitioners and would address the reasons for the objections in the final address.

4th respondent counsel objected to the admissibility of the documents sought to be tendered and would advance the reasons for the objections in the final written address.

The FORM EC40G’s for the 6 LGA’s in Benue State are hereby admitted and marked as Exhibit PBJ1-PBJ6.

Form EC40G1 in respect of 1 LGA in BENUE STATE

We seek to tender the INEC certified Form EC40G in respect of 1 LGA of Benue State.

The 1st respondent (INEC) Counsel objected to the INEC certified Forms sought to be tendered by the Petitioners and would file a written address with the reasons for the objection.

The 2nd & 3rd respondent Counsel objected to these documents sought to be tendered by the Petitioners and would address the reasons for the objections in the final address.

4th respondent counsel objected to the admissibility of the documents sought to be tendered and would advance the reasons for the objections in the final written address.

The FORM EC40G1 and FORM EC40G for the 1 LGA in Benue State is hereby admitted and marked as Exhibit PBJ7 & PBJ8.

Report certified by INEC in respect of BENUE STATE

We seek to tender the INEC certified report in respect of Benue State.

The 1st respondent (INEC) Counsel objected to the INEC certified report sought to be tendered by the Petitioners and would file a written address with the reasons for the objection.

The 2nd & 3rd respondent Counsel objected to these document sought to be tendered by the Petitioners and would address the reasons for the objections in the final address.

4th respondent counsel objected to the admissibility of the document sought to be tendered and would advance the reasons for the objections in the final written address.

The certified report for Benue State is hereby admitted and marked as Exhibit PBJ9.

Adjournment; Adjourned to Tuesday 13th June 2023 at 9:00am for continuation of HEARING.

Record of Proceedings by IGWEKAMMA C. OBIORAH ESQ.

~~~

Business of the Day; HEARING (DAY 18) Petitioners to prove their case.

The petitioner counsel sought the clarification of the court as to the time stipulation contained in the prehearing report. Wherein it was stated that the petitioner would have 3 weeks to prove their case which would lapse on the 23rd of July … the Court highlighted it as a typographical error and correctly stated it would lapse on the 23rd of June 2023.

Lead counsel to the Petitioners handed over conduct of proceedings to Peter Afuba SAN.

NIGER STATE

Petitioners counsel applied to tender from the Bar INEC Certified Forms EC40G-PU is respect of Niger State; for 10 LGA’s

1. Agaie LGA
2. Agwara LGA
3. Lapai LGA
4. Masheku LGA
5. Uya LGA
6. Pikoro LGA
7. Raffi LGA
8. Shiroro LGA
9. Kwaku LGA
10. Bida LGA

We humbly seek to tender the following as evidence in this Court.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC’s of Forms EC40G-PU in respect of 10 LGA’s of Niger State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDK1-PDK10.

Petitioner Counsel also sought to tender 5 reports duly certified by INEC in respect of Niger State

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the 5 reports and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The Reports of Niger State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDK11-PDK15.

OSUN STATE
Petitioners counsel applied to tender from the Bar INEC Certified Forms EC40G-PU is respect of Osun State; for 7 LGA’s

1) Ejibo LGA
2) Atakomasa LGA
3) Orolu LGA
4) Oriade LGA
5) Iwo LGA
6) Ilah LGA
7) Ishoka LGA

We humbly seek to tender the following as evidence in this Court.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC’s of Forms EC40G-PU in respect of 7 LGA’s of Osun State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDL1-PDL7.

Petitioners counsel applied to tender from the Bar 15 INEC Certified Forms EC40G’s is respect of Osun State; for 8 LGA’s

1. Ejibo LGA
2. Atakomasa LGA
3. Orolu LGA
4. Oriade LGA
5. Irewole LGA
6. Ife-South LGA
7. LGA
8. Ishoka LGA

We humbly seek to tender the following as evidence in this Court.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC’s of Forms EC40G’s in respect of 8LGA’s of Osun State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDL8-PDL15.

EDO STATE
Petitioners counsel applied to tender from the Bar 17 INEC Certified Forms EC40G-PU is respect of Niger State; for 3 LGA’s

1) Iboba Okah LGA
2) Orihowo LGA
3) Uwan west LGA

We humbly seek to tender the following as evidence in this Court.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC’s of Forms EC40G-PU in respect of 10 LGA’s of Niger State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDM1-PDM3.

Petitioners counsel applied to tender from the Bar 12 INEC Certified Forms EC40G1’s is respect of 12 LGA’s in Edo State;

We humbly seek to tender the following as evidence in this Court.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC’s of Forms EC40G1’s in respect of Edo State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDM4-PDM–.

Petitioners Counsel sought to tender reports duly certified by INEC in respect of Edo State.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The REPORTS in respect of Edo State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDM**-PDM***.

SOKOTO STATE
Petitioners counsel applied to tender from the Bar 52 INEC Certified Forms EC40G-PU is respect of Sokoto State; for 5 LGA’s

1. Yabo LGA
2. Tangaza LGA
3. Kudu LGA
4. Kware LGA
5. Wamako LGA

We humbly seek to tender the following as evidence in this Court.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC’s of Forms EC40G-PU in respect of 5 LGA’s of Sokoto State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDN1-PDN5.

Petitioners Counsel sought to tender certified INEC Form EC40G’s in respect of 4 LGA’s of Sokoto State.

1. Gudu LGA
2. Gawabawa LGA
3. Kware LGA
4. Yabo LGA

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC’s of Forms EC40G’s in respect of 5 LGA’s of Sokoto State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDN6-PDN9.

Petitioners Counsel sought to tender certified INEC Form EC40G1’s in respect of 2 LGA’s of Sokoto State.

1. Gudu LGA
2. Wamako LGA

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC’s of Forms EC40G1’s in respect of 2 LGA’s of Sokoto State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDN10-PDN11.

Peter Afuba SAN handed back the reins of today’s proceedings to Dr. Livy Uzoukwu SAN.

Dr. Livy Uzoukwu handed over the conduct of the remaining segment of today’s proceedings to Audu Anuga SAN.

IREV REPORTS

ADAMAWA STATE

Petitioners Counsel seeks to tender IREV portal reports in respect of 21 LGA’s of Adamawa State. Namely;

1. Ganye LGA
2. Mubi North LGA
3. GireiNorth LGA
4. Song LGA
5. Yola North LGA
6. Hong LGA
7. Maiha LGA
8. Jada LGA
9. Michika LGA
10. Shelleng LGA
11. Mayobelwa LGA
12. Numan LGA
13. Madagali LGA
14. Demsa LGA
15. Gombi LGA
16. Guyuk LGA
17. Toungo LGA
18. Yola South LGA
19. Lamurde LGA
20. Gombi South LGA
21. Fufoure LGA

My Lords, we humbly seek to tender the above cited reports

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the INEC certified IREV Reports and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the IREV Reports sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified IREV Reports and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC of IREV REPORTS in respect of 21 LGA’s of Adamawa State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDP1-PDP21.

OGUN STATE

Petitioners Counsel seeks to tender IREV portal reports in respect of 20 LGA’s of Ogun State. Namely;

1) Abeokuta South LGA
2) Obafemi/Owode LGA
3) Ijebu northeast LGA
4) Ado Odo-ota LGA
5) Abeokuta North LGA
6) Ijebu East LGA
7) Ijebu ode LGA
8) Ogun Waterside LGA
9) Remo North LGA
10) Ipokia LGA
11) Ifo LGA
12) Odeda LGA
13) Sagamu LGA
14) Ewekoro LGA
15) Odogbolu LGA
16) Egbado South
17) Egbado North LGA
18) Ijebu North LGA
19) Imekafon LGA
20) Ikenne LGA

My Lords, we humbly seek to tender the above cited reports

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the INEC certified IREV Reports and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the IREV Reports sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified IREV Reports and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC of IREV REPORTS in respect of 20 LGA’s of Ogun State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDQ1-PDQ20.

Petitioners Counsel also sought to tender Generally Blurred IREV Reports (documents certified by INEC but too blur for the Petitioner to see the LGA) in respect of Ogun State

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the Generally Blurred IREV Reports and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the Blurred IREV Reports sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the generally blurred IREV Reports and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC of Generally Blurred IREV REPORTS in respect of 20 LGA’s of Ogun State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDQ21.

EKITI STATE

Petitioners Counsel seeks to tender IREV portal reports in respect of 16 LGA’s of Ekiti State. Namely;

1. Ekiti South West LGA
2. Gbonyin LGA
3. Irepodun LGA
4. Ado ekiti LGA
5. Ijero LGA
6. Ikere LGA
7. Moba LGA
8. Omuo oke LGA
9. Ido osi LGA
10. Ilejemeje LGA
11. Efon LGA
12. Ise/orun LGA
13. Emupe LGA
14. Ikole LGA
15. Ekiti West LGA
16. Oye LGA

My Lords, we humbly seek to tender the above cited reports

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the INEC certified IREV Reports and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the IREV Reports sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified IREV Reports and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC of IREV REPORTS in respect of 16 LGA’s of Ekiti State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDR1-PDR16.

RIVERS STATE

Petitioners Counsel seeks to tender IREV portal reports in respect of 19 LGA’s of Rivers State. Namely;

1) Okrika LGA
2) Omuma LGA
3) Akuku Toru LGA
4) Ahoada West LGA
5) Etche LGA
6) Eleme LGA
7) Bonny LGA
8) TaiLGA
9) Ogu/bolo LGA
10) Ahoada east LGA
11) Opobi/ nkoro LGA
12) Oyigbo LGA
13) Abua-Odual LGA
14) Emohua LGA
15) Degema LGA
16) Andoni LGA
17) Gokana LGA
18) Asari-toru LGA
19) Ogba/ Egbema/ Ndoni LGA

My Lords, we humbly seek to tender the above cited reports

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the INEC certified IREV Reports and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the IREV Reports sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified IREV Reports and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC of IREV REPORTS in respect of 19 LGA’s of Rivers State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDS1-PDS19.

AKWA IBOM STATE

Petitioners Counsel seeks to tender IREV portal reports in respect of 25 LGA’s of Akwa Ibom State. Namely;

1. Etinan LGA
2. Ibeno LGA
3. Ibesikpo asutan LGA
4. Ibiono ibom LGA
5. Ika LGA
6. Ikono LGA
7. Ikot abasi LGA
8. Ikot ekpene LGA
9. Ini LGA
10. Itu LGA
11. Mbo LGA
12. Mkpat enin LGA
13. Nsit atai LGA
14. Nsit ibom LGA
15. Nsit ubium LGA
16. Obot akara LGA
17. Okobo LGA
18. Onna LGA
19. Oron LGA
20. Oruk Anam LGA
21. Udung Uko LGA
22. Uruan LGA
23. Ukanafun LGA
24. Ureue offong/ oruko LGA
25. Uyo LGA

My Lords, we humbly seek to tender the above cited reports

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the INEC certified IREV Reports and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the IREV Reports sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified IREV Reports and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC of IREV REPORTS in respect of 25 LGA’s of Akwa Ibom State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDT1-PDT25.

Adjournment: Adjourned to Wednesday 14th June 2023 at 9:00am for continuation of HEARING.

Record of Proceedings by IGWEKAMMA C. OBIORAH ESQ.

~~~

Business of the Day; HEARING (DAY 19) Petitioners to prove their case.

The Petitioners Counsel informed the Court that we would continue with the tendering of documents and that to handle this segment of the proceedings would be the Learned Silk Audu Anuga SAN.

He informed the court that the documents to be tendered are contained in the 8th and 9th schedule filed by the petitioners; and stated that we would begin with the 8th schedule.

IREV REPORTS DULY CERTIFIED BY INEC

BENUE STATE
Petitioners counsel applied to tender from the Bar INEC Certified iREV Reports in respect of Benue State; for 21 LGA’s

We humbly seek to tender the following as evidence in this Court.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC’s of the iREV Reports in respect of 21 LGA’s of Benue State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDU1-PDU21.

NIGER STATE

Petitioners counsel applied to tender from the Bar INEC Certified iREV Reports in respect of Niger State; for 25 LGA’s.

We humbly seek to tender the following as evidence in this Court.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall advance their reason for objecting at the appropriate time.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC’s of the iREV Reports in respect of 25 LGA’s of Niger State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDV1-PDV25.

EDO STATE
Petitioners counsel applied to tender from the Bar INEC Certified iREV Reports in respect of Edo State; for 17 LGA’s

We humbly seek to tender the following as evidence in this Court.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC’s of the iREV Reports in respect of 17 LGA’s of Edo State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDW1-PDW17.

BAUCHI STATE
Petitioners counsel applied to tender from the Bar INEC Certified iREV Reports in respect of Bauchi State; for 20 LGA’s

We humbly seek to tender the following as evidence in this Court.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC’s of the iREV Reports in respect of 20 LGA’s of Bauchi State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDX1-PDX20.

Also in respect of Bauchi State, we have Certified iRev Reports which are blurred and not legible to the eyes and cannot be traced to any LGA. However we still seek to tender same as evidence in this Honourable court.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The bundle of CTC’s of the Blurred iREV Reports in respect Bauchi State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDX21.

BAYELSA STATE
Petitioners counsel applied to tender from the Bar INEC Certified iREV Reports in respect of Bayelsa State; for 8 LGA’s

We humbly seek to tender the following as evidence in this Court.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC’s of the iREV Reports in respect of 8 LGA’s of Bayelsa State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDY1-PDY8.

Also in respect of Bayelsa State, we have Certified iRev Reports which are blurred and not legible to the eyes and cannot be traced to any LGA. However we still seek to tender same as evidence in this Honourable court.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The bundle of CTC’s of the Blurred iREV Reports marked as ‘Canceled Election’ and ‘No Election’ respectively in respect Bayelsa State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDY9 & PDY10.

GOMBE STATE
Petitioners counsel applied to tender from the Bar INEC Certified iREV Reports in respect of Gombe State; for 8 LGA’s

We humbly seek to tender the following as evidence in this Court.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC’s of the iREV Reports in respect of 8 LGA’s of Gombe State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDZ1-PDZ8.

Also in respect of Gombe State, we have Certified iRev Reports which are blurred and not legible to the eyes and cannot be traced to any LGA. However we still seek to tender same as evidence in this Honourable court.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The bundle of CTC’s of the Blurred iREV Reports marked as ‘Canceled Election’ and ‘No Election’ respectively in respect Gombe State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PDZ–.

KADUNA STATE
Petitioners counsel applied to tender from the Bar INEC Certified iREV Reports in respect of Kaduna State; for 21 LGA’s

We humbly seek to tender the following as evidence in this Court.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC’s of the iREV Reports in respect of 21 LGA’s of kaduna State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PCA1-PCA21.

Also in respect of Kaduna State, we have Supplementary Certified iRev Reports in respect of 2 (Two) LGA’s. We still seek to tender same as evidence in this Honourable court.

1st Respondent opposes the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The CTC’s of the Supplementary iREV Reports in respect of 2 LGA’s of kaduna State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PCA22 & PCA23.

Also in respect of Kaduna State, we have Certified iRev Reports which are blurred and not legible to the eyes and cannot be traced to any LGA. However we still seek to tender same as evidence in this Honourable court.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The bundle of CTC’s of the Blurred iREV Reports in respect Kaduna State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PCA24.

Also in respect of Kaduna State, we have a bundle of Certified iRev Reports which are blurred and not legible to the eyes. However we still seek to tender same as evidence in this Honourable court.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The bundle of CTC’s of the Blurred iREV Reports in respect Kaduna State are admitted and marked as Exhibit PCA25, PCA26, PCA27, PCA28 & PCA29.

INEC Certificate of Compliance for 7 (seven) States

We are applying to tender 6 of those excluding the first one on the list: Akwa Ibom State.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certificates into evidence and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The bundle INEC Certificate of Compliance in respect of 6 states are admitted and marked as Exhibit PCB1-PCB6.

INEC BVAS Reports in respect of 28 (Twenty Eight) States including FCT

We are applying to tender the above as evidence in this Honourable Court.

1st Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certificates into evidence and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd Respondent are opposed to the admissibility of the certified documents sought to be tendered and shall advance reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

4th Respondent objects to the admissibility of the certified documents and shall tender the reasons for the objection at the time of final addresses.

The bundle INEC Certificate of Compliance in respect of 6 states are admitted and marked as Exhibit PCC1-PCC28.

The Petitioners Counsel asked the court for an adjournment and also informed the Court that the INEC Chairman has refused to be served the Subpoena duces tecum which was issued by this Honourable court, however 1st Respondent lead Counsel A.B Mahmoud SAN asked me to give him a copy or to give one to any member of his team, but because I don’t have any extra copy with me in court I intend to send one to him after today’s proceedings and I’m confident he’ll do the needful for us to continue tomorrow.

1st Resp counsel retorted that the position of the Petitioners is untrue as the Chairman is not evading service and that the PDP had recently just served a Subpoena on the Chairman and several other National Commissioners; that we have no opposition to the adjournment but just had to categorically state the true position of things.

2nd & 3rd Resp Counsel has no objection to the Petitioners application for adjournment.

4th Resp Counsel has no objection to the Petitioners application for adjournment.

Adjournment: Adjourned to Thursday 15th June 2023 at 9:00am for continuation of HEARING.

Record of Proceedings by IGWEKAMMA C. OBIORAH ESQ.

~~~

Business of the Day; HEARING (DAY 20) Petitioners to prove their case.

The petitioner counsel informed the court that they were ready to continue the hearing of this petition and that Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu SAN would be the one to lead today’s proceedings. They informed the court that they had one witness in court and would like to begin with him.

Witness Information: Petitioners Witness (PW4)
Subpoenaed witness: Prof. Eric Uwadiegwu Ofoedu

Q – Question
R – Reply

Subpoenaed witness swore on the bible

Examination in chief (conducted by Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu SAN)

Q. What is your name?
R. My name is Eric Uwadiegwu Ofoedu

Q. Where do your live?
R. I live in Awka, Anambra State.

Q. What is your occupation?
R. I am a Professor of mathematics at Nnamdi Azikiwe university

1st resp counsel interjects and informs court that he has just been served with the witness statement of the witness on the stand this morning and hasn’t been able to read through it and from the few paragraphs that he has been able to go through he can tell that he is a star witness of the petitioner; he submits that if petitioners are to continue wit the witness they should stand him down and give him ample opportunity to go through the documents before we continue.

2nd & 3rd Resp counsel aligns with the submission of the 1st resp counsel and asked the court to stand down for a few minutes to afford them the opportunity to go through the statement.

1st resp counsel further interjects and states that he never said a few minutes as posited by Learned Silk Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN and that they should be given at least 48 hours in accordance to the rules

Court: questions 1st resp counsel as to which rules guided this position

1st resp counsel mutters Federal high Court rules and the Prehearing report

4th Resp counsel aligns with the submission of the 2nd & 3rd resp counsel and asked the court that in the alternative the witness can be taken today and be allowed to adopt his deposition and he be then cross examined later.

1st resp counsel stated that he has no objection to the witness being taken in chief today and the cross examination be deferred to a later time.

Petitioners counsel reacted to this objections by first apologizing to the court for the late service and stated that it was a s a result of when the subpoena was issued and when the witness was done preparing his statement, and that in the spirit of fair hearing, we could take the witness in chief today and defer to another time for cross examination or in the alternative we could stand down for a few minutes as the advocates present in this court are the best in Nigeria and would really only require a few minutes to go through the statement.

Ruling of the Court on counsel Submission
Having heard learned senior counsel, the witness will be taken in chief today and the cross examination be deferred till tomorrow 16th June 2023.

Q. What is your occupation?
R. I am a professor of mathematics at Nnamdi Azikiwe University

Q. You were served a subpoena to testify, correct?
R. Yes

Q. On 14th June 2023, you made a witness statement at the registry of this court. Correct?
R. Yes

Q. How can you identify the witness statement?
R. By my signature

⦁ Do you adopt this statement as your deposition in this matter

2nd & 3rd resp counsel objects to adoption of the statement for reasons earlier canvassed

1st resp counsel objects to adoption of the statement for reasons earlier stated

4th resp counsel objects to adoption of the statement for the same reasons earlier canvassed and urged my lords to uphold his objection

Petitioner counsel stated that we too adopt our earlier response and only added that the provision of Order 3 rule 3 (3) of the Federal High Court rules states that a witness who requires a subpoena or summons shall, at the instance of the party calling them, be served with Civil Form 1 (a) in Appendix 6 to these rules before the filing of the statement of such witness.

Ruling is reserved to be given alongside final judgment

Q. Can I cite it?
R. Yes you can

R. Witness went on to make some corrections to his statement

1st Resp objects to the corrections being made but is overruled by the Court

2nd & 3rd Resp objects to the corrections being made but submits to the direction of the Court

4th Resp objects to the corrections being made but submits to the discretionary powers of the Court.

Petitioners Counsel reminded the Court that one of the earlier witnesses called by the Petitioner was allowed to orally amend/correct his statement and that this is no different from that, and went on to urge the court that this is only normal procedure and nothing alien is being done.

Court: probes the nature and method of the corrections being made by the witness but nonetheless allows him to effect those typographical / clerical errors contained in his statement.

Q. Do you now adopt your witness statement as your evidence in chief
R. Yes I so adopt

Q. You made mention, at paragraph 9 (I, II & III), of 3 reports –
i. Report of data analysis from iREV scores investigation from 25th February 2023 Presidential Election
ii. Data analysis report of results from Rivers state
iii. Data analysis report from results of Benue State
R. Yes I did

My lords, we seek to tender these cited reports

1st resp objected to the documents sought to be tendered and stated that reason would be given at the time of final addresses.

2nd & 3rd resp objected to the documents sought to be tendered in evidence and stated that reasons would be given later.

4th resp objected to the documents being tendered and would give their reasons at the address stage.

The cited reports and appendixes attached are hereby admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit PCD1-PCD3 respectively.

Q. In paragraph 5 (B) (b) of your statement, you mad mention of 18,088 blurred polling unit results sheet obtained from iREV
R. Yes I did

My lords, we seek tender the 18,088 blurred polling results sheet obtained from the iREV and duly certified in compliance with Section 84 of the Evidence Act

1st resp objected to the documents sought to be tendered and stated that reasons would be given at the time of final address.

2nd & 3rd resp objected to the admissibility of documents sought to be tendered in evidence and stated that reasons would be given in their written address.

4th resp objected to the documents being tendered and would give their reasons at the address stage.

The Bundle of 18,088 blurred iRev poling unit result sheets attached are hereby admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit PCE1-PCE4.

Q. You said you were issued a subpoena, and in paragraph 3 of your statement, you also referred to a letter dated 20th February 2023 written to you by the 2nd petitioner engaging you to carry out data analysis for the forthcoming 2023 Presidential Election
⦁ Yes, and I have them here

My lords, I respectfully seek to tender the Subpoena and the letter dated 20th February 2023 as evidence in this matter.

1st resp counsel has no objection to the subpoena being tendered, but in reference to the letter dated 20th February 2023, I object and will give reasons at the time of final address

2nd & 3rd resp counsel objects to the letter dated 20th February 2023 sought to be tendered and in respect of the Subpoena they have no objections and will give reasons for objecting at the time of final address

4th resp Counsel had no objections for the letter dated 20th February 2023 but are objecting to the subpoena sought to be tendered and would give reasons at the time of final address

The Letter of the 2nd Petitioner dated 20th of February 2023 and the Subpoena ad Testificandum are hereby admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit PCF1 & PCF2.

According to the earlier ruling of the Court, we apply that the witness be stood down for tomorrow at 9:00 am for cross examination.

Petitioners Counsel also informed the Court that we have an extra witness to call.

P.I.N Ikwueto SAN is to take charge of this segment of the proceedings.

Witness Information: Petitioners Subpoenaed Witness (PW5)
Subpoenaed witness: Arise tv

Q – Question
R – Reply

Examination in Chief (conducted by P.I.N Ikwueto SAN)

Q. Tell the court your name
R. My name is Lummie Advei

Q. What do you do for a living
R. I work at Arise Tv

Q. You were served a subpoena to appear in court today
R. Yes I was

Q. Do you have a copy of the subpoena with you
R. I do

My lords, I seek to tender the subpoena ad testificandum in evidence

The subpoena ad testificandum is hereby admitted and marked as Exhibit PCG.

Q. Do tou have any ID card evidencing your position in your workplace
R. Yes I do and its here with me

My lords I seek to tender the colored photocopy of the ID Card to enable the witness leave with the original and continue his journalism. Thank you my lords

No objections

The colored photocopy of the ID card of the witness is hereby admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit PCG1.

Q. Following the receipt of that subpoena, you filed a written witness statement
R. Yes

Q. Do you adopt same as your evidence in this court?
R. Yes I do

2nd and 3rd Resp Counsel objected to the adoption of witness statement for earlier arguments canvassed.

1st resp counsel also object to the adoption of the witness deposition and reasons will be given alongside other argument in respect of similar applications.

Petitioners Counsel adopts our earlier submissions given in respect of similar argument canvassed earlier before this honourable Court.

Ruling is reserved.

Witness statement is so adopted.

Q. in your statement paragraph 5,6, 7, 8 & 9, you made mention of a flash drive
R. Yes I did

My lords, I seek to respectfully tender the Flash drive as evidence before this Honourable Court

1st resp counsel objects to the admissibility of the Flash drive and will give reasons at the time of final address

2nd & 3rd resp counsel objects to the admissibility of the Flash drive and will give reasons for objecting at the time of final address

4th resp Counsel to the admissibility of the Flash drive and would give reasons at the time of final address

The Flash drive sought to be tendered through the subpoenaed witness from Arise TV is hereby admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit PCG2.

Q. You already told the court you wanted to adopt your statement, please show him the document so he can identify it
R. Yes this is it.

My Lord, may the flash drive marked as Exhibit PCG2 be played and demonstrated in open court.

No objections by respondents as there is already a standing precedent

EXHIBIT PCG2: an interview of the INEC Chairman, Yakubu Mahmood, addressing the Chatham House; wherein he speaks about the need for adoption of the Bimodial Voter Accreditation System (Bvas) and that it would help curb the electoral malpractice menace that has plagued our electoral history. He goes on to speak about the live transmission of results to the iREV portal. He details how polling units agents can crosscheck results on the iREV portal and will find that it is 99.9% accurate etc… (full video on Youtube).

Due to the time constraint of the proceeding, the witness is hereby stood down for cross examination tomorrow.

Petitioner Counsel also informs court a second video will also be played tomorrow.

Adjournment; Adjourned to Friday 16th June 2023 at 9:00am for continuation of HEARING.

Record of Proceedings by IGWEKAMMA C. OBIORAH ESQ.

~~~

Business of the Day; HEARING (DAY 21) Petitioners to prove their case.

The petitioner counsel informed the court that they were ready to continue with the cross examination of PW4 and that P. I. N Ikwueto SAN would be the one to lead today’s proceedings. The witness is in court and we’re ready to proceed.

Witness Information: Petitioners Witness (PW4)
Subpoenaed witness: Prof. Eric Uwadiegwu Ofoedu

Q – Question
R – Reply

Cross Examination by 1st respondent (conducted by A. B Mahmoud SAN)

Q. Tell the court where you were on the election day
R. I voted

Q. And the voting went on smoothly ?
R. Yes
S. You were commissioned to make this report by the 2nd petitioner
T. I was requested to

Q. Were you paid to do that
R. No I wasn’t

Q. So you acted as patriotic Nigerian, a disinterested party
R. yes

Q. Going by the terms of reference which you mention in paragraph 3 of your statement… the primary source of your data was the iREV portal
R. Yes

Q. In your statement, you made reference to Form ec8a’s as well as results uploaded on the iREV, I assume you were referring to the same thing
R. Not really

Q. What did you mean when you said results on the iREV portal
R. I meant the Forms ec8a’s

Q. What is the difference between the form ec8a and the results ion the irev
R. The one before the court is the ec8a while what is on the iREV is a copy of it

Q. The form ec8a is the only document you could view on the portal
R. No

Q. What else could you view
R. Some blurred images that weren’t related to the analysis done e.g result of other elections for senate and House of reps were also uploaded

Q. When you refer to blurred images on the iREV portal you’re not insinuating that the physical images could also be blurred?
R. I didn’t see the physical copies

Q. In all your review, you did not see anything on the portal that would suggest that there is a electronic coordination system
R. Just the iREV portal

Q. Are you suggesting to the court that the portal is capable of collating and tabulating the results of the election
R. It is not capable of doing that

Q. In your statement at page 8, you made reference to polling units results obtained from LP agents
R. Yes

Q. Did you attach them to the report?
R. No I did not, but it was tendered before this court

Q. You are not an election expert
R. It depends on what you mean by election expert

Q. I suggest to you that there was no way you could have undertaken the task in paragraph 3 (c) – determining the compliance with electoral act and INEC regulations and guidelines
R. I can determine compliance

Q. Can you confirm to the court when you concluded your assignment
R. 19th March 2023

Q. Look on page –,Exhibit PCD2, rivers state
R. Looking

Q. What polling unit is that
R. Degema

Q. Where is the precise polling unit
R. Omogho memorial hall, polling unit no. 002

Q. Ward 002, of ward 7

Q. Accredited voters there is how many?
R. 40

Q. There is no over voting correct?
R. —

Time up.

Cross Examination by 2nd & 3rd respondent (conducted by Chief Akin Olujimi SAN)

Q.You will agree with me that votes are cast at the polling unit
Q. Yes I agree

Q. After the votes are cast, you agree that the records are collated and recorded on the form ec8a
R. Yes

Q. Now it is the image of the form ec8a that will be uploaded to iRev, but the hard copy of the form ec8a will be taken to the ward collation center
R. Yes my lord

Q. Now the statutory channel for collations starts from the polling units to ward collation centers to local govt collation center to state collation center then to national collation center
R. Yes I agree

Q. It is part of your claim that some of the results you downloaded from iREV were blurred
R. Yes my lord

Q. The result being recorded and taken to the wards for collation… whether the upload failed or results uploaded being blurred will not change the result of the polling unit
R. It will not change if it is properly used

Q. You will also confirm that iREV is not a collation center and it is not in the line of collation
R. It is not a collation center but it supposed to be a result checker

Q. Now in your report, which covers only two states Rivers state and Benue state
R. Those two were the two I could finish at the point when I was requested to submit it

Q. Do you have any more
R. The documents tendered will speak for themselves

Q. Now the reports cover only two states
R. Not only two states but the two states stand prominent

Q. Did you report on Rivers state
R. Yes

Q. Did you report on Benue state
R. Yes

Q. Did you report on Oyo state
R. No

Q. Asides from Rivers state and Benue state, which other states did you tender
R. The facts are in the document

Q. In your report, you made it clear that you worked only on available data
R. I worked with available data, but as postulated the results were meant to be fully uploaded after the elections

Q. I postulate that if you had all the data your report would be different
R. Yes the result would be different

Q. In your statement at paragraph 2 (b), you listed your practical data analysis experience
R. Yes

Q. You have not claimed to do any analysis for a court case in an election matter like this
R. No, I did not

Q. At paragraph 3 of your statement, you said you were requested on 20th February 2023 by Labour Party to carry out data analysis on an election that had not even been held
R. Yes

Q. In that same paragraph, part of your mandate was to make sure that the results uploaded matched the results as declared; as if labour party expected to lose the election
R. Yes, —

Q. You were also required by that engagement to determine INEC compliance with the electoral act and INEC regulations
R. Yes

Q. I find it strange that after your engagement of 20th February 2023, you were now insisting on being subpoenaed before you could testify
R. At the point of engagement, nobody was talking of testifying in court and I found it as a means to help my students

Cross Examination by 4th Respondent (conducted by Abiodun J. Owonikoko SAN)

Q. In the report you tendered before this court, they’re based on blurred results you downloaded from the irev portal
R. Not just on blurred results

Q. On the exercise you carried out on the blurred results, what mathematical theory did you deploy to find this out
R. There is no theory used to determine if something is blurred

Q. I would be clear to then say that your report in that regard is not based on any expertise
R. Yes

Q. I would also be correct to say that anybody that is not blind would see that it is blurred
R. Of course

Q. What level of numeral literacy would you suggest that a person should have to collate results
R. By what you said, ……

Q. Do you think that to do arithmetic you have to be a professor
R. I do not see the relevance to the case in point

Q. By your report on Benue state & Rivers state as the touch stone of this analysis was a random pick
R. Yes

Q. PDP , LP and APC won a number of states
R. My job is not to know who won and who did not win

Q. Did you say you did not hear anything of the eventual outcome of the elections
R. I heard something

Q. Who won the election in rivers based on what INEC announced
R. Are you talking about who won or which party that won

Court instructs petitioners Counsel to advise his witness to answer the questions put to him

Q. Who won the election in Rivers based on what INEC announced
R. I cant say for now

Q. The two states were won by APC
R. I said, I cant say for now

Q. In your report, there are elements of statistics
R. Actually, I dealt on exact data

Q. What you did was to sample
R. Sampling has to do with—, I worked with exact data as I stated

Q. How many polling units are in rivers state
R. I do not have that answer by heart

Q. How many polling units are there in Benue state
R. Same answer

Q. The total polling units in Benue State & Rivers State do not add up to the 18,000 blurred uploads you want this court to cancel
R. The total polling units in Rivers and Benue state do not add up to the 18,000 and has nothing to do with the 18,000 blurred results

Q. As a statistician you have to be aware of erroneous data sampling
R. I am not a statistician, and I worked with exact data there was no sampling

Q. Your selection of Benue and Rivers State where APC won was random?
R. In choice of states I picked at random

Q. From what you said it was not a paid job
R. Yes it wasn’t

Q. Would it be right to engage your students to analyze results from 2 states where APC won
R. There is no point to engage my students

Q. If your students were to engage on analysis into two states out of 36 and then form a general conclusion from that, would you grade that student a distinction
R. This were the states that had all the data I could use to carry out my analysis

Q. In your report,you did not analyse FORM EC8B, EC8C etc
R. Once it is wrong at the polling unit level it will be wrong upward… so the most important form to analyze is the Form EC8A

Reexamination by P.I.N Ikwueto SAN

Nil

PW4 is hereby discharged

Witness Information: Petitioners Subpoenaed Witness (PW5)
Lummie Advei
Subpoenaed witness: Arise News

Q – Question
R – Reply

Cross Examination by 1st Respondent (conducted by A. B Mahmoud SAN)

Q. You are an experienced broadcaster
R. correct

Q. You’re also familiar with the use of computers and various platforms for broadcasting
R. Yes

Q. You know the difference between transfer and transmission
R. Transfer implies moving data from one designated or known location to another designated location

Q. Transmission doesn’t correctly connote transfer from one place to another
R. Yes

Q. You work with Arise tv
R. Arise news

Q. So when you broadcast you’re actually transmitting
R. Yes

Q. Any number of persons within the transmission zone can actually assess the broadcast if they have their device
R. Yes

Q. So you would agree that there is a difference between transfer and transmission
R. Yes

Cross Examination by 2nd & 3rd Respondent (conducted by Akin Olujimi SAN)

Q. So were you present at Chatham House where the interview was conducted
R. No I wasn’t

Q. The national chairman of INEC, Yakubu Mahmood, is still alive today
R. Yes, as far as I know

No further questions for this witness

Cross Examination by 4th Respondent (conducted by Abiodun J. Owonikoko SAN)

Q. Can you summarize the message of relevance of the evidence you brought to this honourable court
R. That would be that INEC stated they would deploy or use technology in the conduct of the elections

Q. Part of that deployment of technology would include the use of Bvas to accredit voters
R. Yes

Q. You had observed elections in 2019, you know how accreditation was done
R. Yes , Bvas wasn’t used

Q. Will I be right to say you are familiar with the INEC regulations and guidelines for 2023 elections
R. I am not totally familiar

Q. From the recording that was played, we heard the chairman say that copies of the Form EC8A would be snapped and uploaded
R. Yes

Q. That broadcast was made about 17th of January 2023
R. Correct

Q. Between that 17th of January and 25th of February 2023, your station and various other media houses had several interviews about how the election would be conducted
R. I believe they did but my duties are not editorial but technical

Q. Even so, content to be broadcast by Arise tv station get to be viewed by you either then or later
R. Yes

Q. After 17th of january, do you by chance know that the high court …

Objection by petitioners Counsel
As to the relevance of the question being put to him by 4th resp counsel

Q.Are you aware after the chatham house interview, INEC later publicized that it would no long electronically transmit results
Q. I am not aware

Q. Do you know that the Tribune on 23rd February displayed that INEC would no longer transmit results electronically
R. I am not aware

PW5 is hereby discharged.

Petitioners counsel informed the Court that we have another subpoenaed witness PW6.

Witness Information: Petitioners Subpoenaed Witness (PW6)
Subpoenaed witness: AIT News rep – Ijeoma Samuel

Subpoenaed witness is sworn on oath

Examination in chief (conducted by P.I.N Ikwueto SAN)

Q. What is your name?
R. My name is Ijeoma Samuel

Q. Where do you work
R. I work with FAJ*** , the owners of AIT and I have my ID Card with me

My lords, we seek to tender the colored Photocopy of the ID Card of Ijeoma Samuel of AIT to enable her leave with the original and continue with her duties.

No objections by the Respondents

The Colored Photocopy of the ID Card of PW6 is hereby admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit PCH

Q. Your organization was served with a subpoena to attend court today
R. Yes and I have it here with me

Q. Following that subpoena, you came to court and deposed to a witness statement on oath
R. Yes I did

Q. Would you like my lords to adopt this witness statement as your evidence in this suit
R. Yes of course

My lords, we seek to tender the Subpoena and the Witness Statement of PW6.

The 1st respondent objects to the documents sought to be tendered by the Petitioners and would file a written address with the reasons for the objection.

The 2nd & 3rd respondent Counsel objects to these documents sought to be tendered by the Petitioners and would address the reasons for the objections in the final address.

4th respondent counsel objects to the admissibility of the documents sought to be tendered and would advance the reasons for the objections in the final written address.

The Subpoena and Witness Statement on Oath are hereby admitted into evidence and marked as EXHIBIT PCH2.

Witness statement is so adopted

Q. How can you identify your witness statement
R. By my signature, I signed it

Q. In paragraph 9 of your statement, you referenced a program which you anchored titled ‘Democracy Today’ on AIT, and that it’s contained in a flash drive
R. Yes

Q. Do you have the flash drive here
R. Yes I do

My lords, we seek to tender the Flash Drive referenced by the witness.

No objections by the respondents

The Flash Drive referenced by PW6 is hereby admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit PCH1.

My Lord, may the flash drive marked as Exhibit PCH1 be played and demonstrated in open court.

No objections by respondents as there is already a standing precedent

EXHIBIT PCH1: an AIT interview of the INEC Chairman, Yakubu Mahmood, addressing and assuring Nigerians on the credibility of the Bvas machine also highlighting the transmission of results in real time on the election day for the openness and integrity of the process. Etc (full video on Youtube)

Cross Examination by 1st respondent (conducted by A. B Mahmoud SAN)

No questions for this witness

Cross Examination by 2nd & 3rd respondent (conducted by Akin Olujimi SAN)

Q. You said you anchored the program of the clip that was just played
R. Yes I did

Q. It is not part of your duty to handle camera
R. No it is not part of my duties to the handle camera

Q. You said the program was streamed live
R. Yes my lord

Q. The only other role you played, was to go to Facebook to download the video that formed part of the program
R. I used my phone to search for that program, and sent the link of the interview to the office

Q. How did you arrive at the flash drive
R. Its from the office, I sent the link to office and it was put into the flash drive

Q. The national chairman we saw in that video is still alive
R. I know he is alive

No further questions

Cross Examination by 4th Respondent (conducted by Abiodun J. Owonikoko SAN)

Q. The interview shown in that program we just watched was held outside the AIT studio, am I correct
R. Yes

Q. The program you anchored on AIT was done in the studio
R. Yes

Q. An AIT crew attended that program
R. Yes

Q. It was their recording brought back to the studio that was played during your program
R. Yes my lord

Q. Please what is the duration of that program
R. ‘Democracy Today’ runs for 55 minutes

Q. Every such program, a copy of the recording must be kept in the library of the studio
R. Because we stream live we also keep soft copy and hard copy records

Q. But what was just played, you had to source it online in the internet web space
R. Yes

Q. Did you have any challenge making a copy of the video that was just played
R. No,

Q. The versions you keep in the library, do you normally submit it to the NBC
R. Yes, they come in sometimes and we submit a log of our recordings

Q. I’d be right to say that since this was an official order of court, you would have used the one in the library not one sourced on the internet
R. The message I received was “ASAP get this as soon as possible”

Q. You also syndicate news from other news/ media houses
R. Our news is breaking, we have cameras all over the country and do not report second hand news

Q. Did you broadcast the breaking news of 22nd February 2023 where the INEC chairman had now indicated for reasons given that there would be no live transmission of the results on election day.
R. INEC Chairman I covered, he didn’t say there would be no live transmission, he also stated this at the collation center that there would be live transmission and I was there when he said so. I was there.

Reexamination

No reexamination.

PW6 is hereby discharged.

However because of the time constraint and today’s lengthy proceeding, Counsel across all parties besought the court for an adjournment till Monday 19th JUNE 2023 to enable all counsel rest this weekend and be refreshed against the continuation of proceedings on Monday.

Adjournment: Adjourned to Monday 19th June 2023 at 2:00pm for continuation of HEARING.

Record of Proceedings by IGWEKAMMA C. OBIORAH ESQ.

~~~

Business of the Day; HEARING (DAY 23) Petitioners to prove their case.

The petitioner counsel informed the court that they were ready to continue with the cross examination of PW7 which was stood down for today and that P. I. N Ikwueto SAN would be the one to handle this segment of today’s proceedings. The witness is in court and we’re ready to proceed.

Witness Information: Petitioners Witness (PW7) NPEH
Subpoenaed witness: Henreitta Ogar

Q – Question
R – Reply

Cross Examination by 1st respondent (conducted by A. B Mahmoud SAN)

Q. At paragraph 6 of your statement, where you set out the software developing life cycle.., remember that….
R. Yes I do

Q. I suggest to you that you missed out an important component of cycle of the software development
R. I did not miss out on anything

Q. You agree with me that the post production maintenance is an important component of the software development life cycle
R. It is important, but not every company follows that procedure

Q. It is at the post maintenance stage that glitches are cleared correct?
R. No, that’s incorrect

Q. Glitches could appear after deployment stage at the post maintenance stage
R. That it incorrect

Q. Are you aware of what is called personal health status dashboard
R. Yes I am

Q. the Personal Health status Dashboard is not before the court
R. It’s the same information in my report I tendered before this court

Q. AWS adopts a shared responsibility model for security of its services
R. Yes, that correct

Q. By shared responsibility we’re referring to AWS part as well as the customers part
R. that’s Correct, when it comes to security specifically

Q. The report you tendered deal with the responsibility of AWS in terms of its infrastructure and security
R. The reports I tendered was to show the health status of AWS servers in all regions in terms of infrastructure and not security

Q. To know specifically as to what happened to the applications deployed on AWS infrastructure for a customer, you must have assess to a different type of report
R. Not necessarily, the applications are hosted on AWS servers, so if there’s a glitch it’ll impact on the servers

Q. I suggest to you that the reports have nothing to do with the deployed technology of INEC
R. The reports brought to court was to show health status reports of AWS servers

Q. Are you familiar with AWS cloud trail
R. Yes

Q. There is a cloud trail for the INEC on the AWS cloud
R. I don’t work for INEC

Q. There should be a cloud trail for every application
R. There is a cloud trail for every AWS account, that logs every API action made within that account

Q. The cloud trail in respect of the INEC application is not before the court
R. No, I do work for INEC

Q. The cloud trail is the best evidence of what happened in relation to INEC
R. That is incorrect

Q. It is not unusual for glitches to occur on application or software deployed by even technology companies
R. Such glitches would be found out during testing stage, It is highly unusual for glitches to occur in relation to primary functions of an applications during production; after available to the user

Q. Are you are of the E-naira
R. No I’m not aware

Q. Do you know about the glitch on E-naira
R. No I’m not aware

Q. Are you aware of the MTN MOMO PSB glitches
R. No I am not

Q. You were a candidate of the Labour Party in the last election
R. Yes it is contained in my statement

Q. You did not come here on the authority of amazon
R. I am here as an expert witness and not here on the mandate of amazon

Cross Examination by 2nd & 3rd respondent (conducted by Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN)

Q. Give her her resume and employment letter
R. Confirms them as hers

Q. Have a look at your employment letter (PCJ2)
R. I did not tender an employment letter, I tendered an employment authentication letter

Q. That document has no author
R. There is a name, employee resource center

Q. May I suggest to you that employee resource center is a human being
R. It is a department that handles employment verification

Q. That letter is also not signed
R. It is signed by the employee resource center

Q. So there is a signature there
R. Depends on what you mean by signature

Q. So is there a signature there
R. This is an employment validation letter given to employees of AWS

Q. There is no ID card attached to prove you’re a staff of AWS
R. AWS does not give ID cards

Q. There is no appointment letter given to you by AWS
R. The employment verification letter is what is given to employees

Q. This isn’t your first time in court during this petition to witness proceedings
R. No, I’ve been here a few times when documents were being tendered from the bar

Q. You have a twitter handle
R. Yes

Q. Your twitter handle is @Claretta_Ogar
R. Yes, I am here as an expert witness

Q. Some of the things you have covered are on your twitter handle
R. Incorrect

Q. I suggest to you that you downloaded wrong information for this court
R. The reports I tendered are public information

Q. The reports are not your products
R. They are my products because I brought them to the court

Q. You stated that you contested an election to the house of reps on the platform of the labour party and lost
R. Yes it is in my statement

Q. How do you feel about it
R. I am indifferent about it and I’m here as an expert witness

Q. The authorship of these reports are not yours
R. I brought them to court so they are mine

Q. You contested the primary election of Labour party in your constituency
R. Yes I did

Q. Did you win
R. Yes I did

Q. Did you go to court to file an action
R. Yes

Q. You sued INEC because INEC did not put your name on the register on the final list of candidates published
R. Yes that’s correct

Q. Your complaint in the court was that you tried to upload your information on the INEC site but failed because of network issues and could not succeed
R. Yes that’s correct

Q. Would you agree that there was a glitch on the network of INEC at that time
R. I disagree, the network failure could have occurred on the side of the person making the upload

Q. In your complaint in court, you stated that the INEC site crashed
R. Yes

Q. Are you aware that in 2017, the AWS cloud services experienced an outage on Tuesday 28th of February 2017
R. Yes I’m aware

Q. As of 2021, AWS was reported to have suffered more than 20 outages
R. I am aware that is why I presented the cloud health status report

Q. You’re aware that your party, labour party, won the presidential election in 12 states and the FCT
R. I cannot speak to matters that are still in court

Q. Look at paragraph 9 of your statement, the primary polling unit result you spoke of was form ec8a
R. I believe so

Q. In your paragraph 9, what is uploaded are images
R. Correct

Q. You come from cross river, which political party won the election in your state
R. I do not know

Q. Who is the president of the united states
R. Joe biden

Cross Examination by 4th Respondent (conducted by Lateef O. Fagbemi SAN)

Q. You did not conduct any investigation on the application deployed by INEC in the general election of 25th February 2023 in Nigeria
R. Paragraph 9 of my statement says I conducted a preliminary review of the iREV portal

Q. Tell my lords how many votes have been affected/impacted by the glitch you wrote about
R. According to my report, no glitches were recorded on the 25th of February 2023

Q. Are you aware that between a customer of AWS and AWS itself, there is a non disclosure agreement between the parties
R. I am only aware of a Service Level Agreement (SLA) between AWS and its customers

Q. Do you have a copy of these SLA between INEC and AWS
R. The SLA applies to all customers of AWS and I have provided a link to the SLA in my statement

Q. In this agreement, is there a clause about the confidentiality of the application
R. I cannot state categorically

Q. Are you also aware there would also be password protocol defining who can assess and modify the application
R. Which application

Q. The application you’re talking about
R. I do not work for INEC and I do not know what their password protocols are as INEC

Q. The report you downloaded, did you use any password
R. No I did not

Q. You then agree with me that that is an open access information
R. that’s correct, everything in my statement is available to the public and can be verified

Q. You said you don’t have the password
R. I don’t

Q. You’ll agree with me that password protocol would contain how parties (inec & aws) can go into, amend & adjust anything on the application
R. I cannot speak as to the password protocol

Q. Can you on your own, modify it
R. No I cannot

Q. You are not representing Amazon in this case
R. No I am here as an expert witness

Q. You are also not here on behalf of INEC
R. No I am not

Q. In calabar, cross river state, did you file any election petition
R. No I did not

Q. Apart from the outage that occurred in 2021, AWS glitch also disrupted the japan brokers on 2nd September 2021
R. The last outage reported by AWS on the 10th of December 2021

Q. If it can happen then, it can happen again
R. Anything is possible

Reexamination by P.I.N Ikwueto SAN

Q. In the course of your cross examination, you mentioned being familiar with cloud trail for every API action.. please explain what API means for the court
R. API means Application Program Interface; …

Q. No further questions, my lords, may we humbly apply that the witness be discharged.

PW7 is hereby discharged

Lead Counsel for the petitioners informs the court that the bailiff of the court finally succeeded in serving the subpoena and that there are representatives from INEC in Court.

A lady, Mrs Ronkeji Olufumilayo Tairu, is here from the Department of certification and complaints, Legal drafting to represent the INEC Chairman. She’s also present in court to tender the documents listed in the subpoena duces tecum.

Petitioners Counsel informs the court that there are two subpoenas; one dated 30th May and 13th of June 20, 2023

The lady, Mrs Ronkeji Olufumilayo Tairu, stated she is here in respect of the subpoena of 30th may 2023 and stated that Exhibits B,C,D & E are going to be brought from the states and for logistics reasons would not be able to produce them today.

The court inquired as to the documents requested in the subpoena of 13th June; to which the lady responded that there was another representative from the ICT department of INEC to tender those requested documents

The petitioners counsel interjected that before she takes her sit; may we know when they would be available and brought to court as we have till the end of the week to conclude our case

The lady responds that they received the subpoena yesterday and have requested the stated documents from various states in the country and they should be available before the weekend

The petitioners counsel states that that is unsatisfactory as we do not have the time

The 1st resp counsel stated that the subpoena was issued since 30th May and was only served yesterday; that he is confused as to why the petitioners are making a fuss and demanding the documents in such a short time frame.

The petitioners counsel retorted that he wouldn’t want to go back to the events that transpired yesterday, but that the subpoena in question was ready since the 30th May and that they (INEC) have been in the habit of evading service; the bailiff is in court and can be heard from regarding his several attempts to effect service on the INEC Chairman.

The court inquired as to what would be the next direction following their inability to produce the requested documents

The petitioner counsel states that they have no option but to comply with the order of this court; our application before this court is that INEC having finally accepted the subpoena which was ready since 30th May, after frustrating the case of the petitioners should comply with the order of court and provide the stated documents tomorrow.

The court in response to counsel reminds the petitioners counsel that the court cannot give an order that it cannot enforce.

The petitioner counsel reminded the court that they (INEC) were the cause of this situation as they refused to accept service of the subpoenas since the issuing date of the court.

the court blames the petitioners for not adopting and activating the provisions of Section 74 (2) of the Electoral Act

“Any Resident Electoral Commissioner who willfully fails to comply with the provisions in subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a maximum fine of N2, 000, 000 or imprisonment for a term of 12 months or both.”

The court however in passing states that “it is not constituted as a criminal court”.

The ICT representative of INEC, Mr Lawrence Eayode, Deputy director ICT for INEC, stated that he is here in respect of the subpoena of 13th June 2023. that he is here with 2 out of the 5 documents requested in the mentioned subpoena.

He stated that he’s not with the remaining documents; Document C is still a work in progress at the Commission

Document B – they don’t have the document as it not in existence

Document E – they don’t have the document as it not in existence

Adjournment: Adjourned to Wednesday 21st June 2023 at 2:00pm for continuation of HEARING.

Record of Proceedings by IGWEKAMMA C. OBIORAH ESQ (obiorahigweka@gmail.com)

~~~

Business of the Day; HEARING (DAY 24) Petitioners to prove their case.

The petitioner counsel informed the court that they were ready to continue with our case and we’d be calling our next witness PW8 and that P. I. N Ikwueto SAN would be the one to handle this segment of today’s proceedings. The witness is in court and we’re ready to proceed.

Witness Information: Petitioners Witness (PW8)
Subpoenaed witness: Chibuike ugwoke

Q – Question
R – Reply

1st respondent Counsel interjects that he was just served the deposition of the Expert witness running into 8 pages and that he would need time to study the witness’ statement as well as the report to be tendered to enable him properly conduct his cross examination. He further stated that if the petitioners only intend to lead the witness Examination in chief then there would be no problem and we may proceed.

2nd & 3rd Respondent submitted that they were in the same predicament with the 1st respondent and stated that we could commence with the examination in chief and adjourn to tomorrow for the cross examination.

4th Respondent submitted that they were in the same position with the 1st respondent and stated that they could not possibly cross examine the expert witness and needed time to study his deposition and pleaded that the examination in chief alone be taken and then adjourn to tomorrow for the cross examination.

Petitioner Counsel submitted that the court may go on to adopt the position f the respondent s in the matter and that the witness be taken in chief today then stood down till tomorrow for cross examination.

The Court ruled that considering the submission of counsel, the petitioners would take their witness in chief today and matter would be adjourned for tomorrow for cross examination by the respondents.

Witness is duly sworn in.

Examination In Chief (conducted by P. I. N Ikwueto SAN)

Q. Tell this Court your name
R. I am Dr. Chibuike Ugwoke

Q. Dr Ugwoke, you live at No. 3 tampa crescent Abuja
R. that’s correct my lord

Q. What is your occupation
R. I am a cyber security expert

Q. Your in this court on a subpoena
R. Yes I was subpoenaed

Q. Is it here with you
R. Yes it is

My lord, I humbly seek to tender the Subpoena

No objections by the respondents

The stated Subpoena Ad testificandum is hereby admitted into evidence and marked as EXHIBIT PCK

Q. Pursuant to that subpoena you came to this court to depose to a statement on oath
R. That’s correct my lord

Q. That your statement, how can you recognize it
R. By my signature

Q. Is that your statement shows statement to witness
R. He affirms it as his

1st respondent counsel promptly objects to the adopting of this statement for reasons earlier canvassed to save the time of the court and would at the address stage give their argument in support

2nd and 3rd respondent also objects and aligns with submission of counsel to the 1st respondent

4th respondent also objects and aligns with submission of counsel to the 1st respondent

Petitioners Counsel highlights that he had not even asked the witness to adopt the said statement and the respondent s are already jumping at shadows he however urged the court allow the witness adopt his statement for reasons earlier given; that my lords can also give the ruling alongside the final judgement of the matter.

Court reserves its ruling to be delivered alongside final Judgment.

Q. In para 23, 24 & 25 of your statement, you attached copies of what you described at meta data of polling units results
R. Yes I did

Q. Is this the reports you referred to in those paragraphs?
R. That’s correct, this document contains the meta data I referenced in para 23, 24 & 25

My lord, I humbly apply to tender the referenced report in evidence

1st respondent counsel objects to the admissibility of the documents sought to be tendered and would at the address stage give their argument in support

2nd and 3rd respondent also objects to the documents sought to be tendered and aligns with submission of counsel to the 1st respondent

4th respondent also objects and aligns with submission of counsel to the 1st respondent

Petitioners Counsel urged the court allow the report sought to be tendered in evidence for reasons earlier given;and stated that he would respond to their objections in the final address; that my lords can also give the ruling alongside the final judgement of the matter.

Court reserves its ruling to be delivered alongside final Judgment.

The cited Report is hereby admitted into evidence and marked as EXHIBIT PCK1.

Q. In para 26 of your statement, you referenced to materials, press release dated 11th nov 2022 titled “Alleged plot to abandon online transmission of polling unit results to iREV Portal” issued by one Mr… .
R. Yes I did

Q. You attached that document to your statement
R. Yes I did

Please show it to the witness
Identifies it as his document

My lord, I humbly seek to tender the stated press release

1st resp counsel objects to the document sought to be tendered and would proffer reasons at the address stage

2nd & 3rd resp counsel objects to the document sought to be tendered and would proffer reasons at the address stage

4th resp counsel objects to the document sought to be tendered and would proffer reasons at the address stage

The stated press release “Alleged plot to abandon online transmission of polling unit results to iREV Portal” is hereby admitted into evidence and marked as EXHIBIT PCK2.

Q. May we urge my lords for the witness to be stood down for cross examination at 2:00pm tomorrow.

Lead counsel to the petitioners stated that Ikechukwu Ezechukwu SAN would handle the next segment of today’s proceeding.

Petitioners Counsel (Ikechukwu Ezechukwu SAN) stated that we were ready to call our next witness (PW9).

Witness Information: Petitioners Witness (PW9)
Subpoenaed witness: Onoja Loko Sunday

Q – Question
R – Reply

Examination in Chief ( conducted by Ikechukwu Ezechukwu SAN)

Q. Tell the court your full name
R. Onoja Loko Sunday

Q. What do you do for a living
Q. I am a staff of the NGO, Women and Child Rescue Initiative

Q. You came on a subpoena
R. Yes I did

Q. Do you have the subpoena with you
R. Yes my lord

Q. Can I have it
R. Yes my lord

My lord we seek to tender the subpoena in Evidence

No objection by the Respondents

The stated Subpoena Ad testificandum is hereby admitted into evidence and marked as EXHIBIT PCL.

Q. Remember you deposed to a witness statement on oath on 19th June in this court
R. Yes I remember

Q. How can you recognize this statement
R. By my name and signature

Q. Would you like the court to adopt your statement as your evidence in this matter
R. Yes my lord

1st respondent counsel objects to the adopting of this statement for reasons earlier canvassed to save the time of the court and would at the address stage give their argument in support

2nd and 3rd respondent also objects and aligns with submission of counsel to the 1st respondent

4th respondent also objects and aligns with submission of counsel to the 1st respondent

Petitioners Counsel urged the court allow the witness adopt his statement for reasons earlier given; that my lords can also give the ruling alongside the final judgement of the matter.

Witness statement of the witness is so adopted.

Q. In para 2 of your statement, you mentioned your ID card as an election observer
R. Yes my lord

Q. Do you have the card
R. Yes my lord

My lord we seek to tender the ID card of the witness as an election Observer into Evidence and urge my lords to allow us substitute the original for a colored photocopy in its stead.

No objection from 1st respondent

No objection from 2nd and 3rd respondent

No objection from 4th respondent

The ID Card of the witness as an Election observer is hereby admitted into evidence and marked as EXHIBIT PCL1.

Q. This would be all for the witness my lords.

Cross Examination by 1st respondent (conducted by A.B Mahmoud SAN)

Q.The ID you submitted is not accreditation from INEC
Q. No its not

Q. You didn’t play any role as an election official
R. No, I only observed

Q. From your observation, as for the voting and the counting , everything went well
R. Yes my lord

Q. In your para 7 of your statement, yu made reference to a form ec8a of th epoling unit
R. Yes my lord

Q. It was duly signed by the party agents and presiding officer
R. Yes

Q. Your party won in that polling unit
R. I don’t work for any party

Q. You did not handle the bvas machine in that unit
R. No I didn’t

Q. From your observation, the polling unit official went away to the collationa ward with the form ec8a’s that were signed by the party agents
R. Yes my lord

That would be all for this witness

Cross Examination by 2nd & 3rd respondent (conducted by Mike Ogala SAN)

Q. Look at Exhibit PCL, the subpoena you came to court with, kindly identify to the court that the subpoena was to direct to women and children rescue intiative but to you directly
R. Yes my lord

Q. Not only was it directed to you but was also directed to you at your village address
R. Yes my lord

Q. From your observation at the polling unit where you observed the election you can confirm that voting went on smoothly and the results were announced there
R. Yes my lord

Q. You can also confirm that election officials complied with the electoral act stipulated procedures
R. Yes my lord

Q. At the end of the election the results went to the collation center for collation
R. Yes sir, that’s what they told us

Q. Will you be surprised to hear that that result is on the inec irev portal
R. I wouldn’t be surprised

Cross Examination by 4th respondent (conducted by Lateef O. Fagbemi SAN)

Q. No questions for this witness

Reexamination
Nil

PW9 is hereby discharged

Petitioners Counsel sought indulgence of the Court to call our next witness PW10.

Witness Information: Petitioners Witness (PW10)
Q. Subpoenaed witness: Kephas iyah

Q – Question
R – Reply

Examination in Chief (conducted by Ikechukwu Ezechukwu SAN)

Q.Tell this court your name
Q. Kephas iyah

Q. What do you do for a living
R. I am a civil servant

Q. You’re here on a subpoena
R. Yes

Q. Do you have copy pof the subpoena here with you
R. Yes I do

My lord, we humbly seek to tender the subpoena

No objection by respondents

The stated Subpoena is hereby admitted into evidence and marked as EXHIBIT PCM.

Q. Recall on the 19th of this month, you made a statement on oath in this court
R. Yes I recall

Q. Can you recognize the statement
R. Yes by my name and signature

Show the statement to the witness
Identifies it as his statement

Q. Would you like to adopt this statement as your evidence before this court
R. Yes I would

1st respondent counsel objects to the adopting of this statement for reasons earlier canvassed to save the time of the court and would at the address stage give their argument in support

2nd and 3rd respondent also objects and aligns with submission of counsel to the 1st respondent

4th respondent also objects and aligns with submission of counsel to the 1st respondent

Petitioners Counsel urged the court allow the witness adopt his statement for reasons earlier given and that we would reply to their objections at the address stage; that my lords can also give the ruling alongside the final judgement of the matter.

Witness statement of the witness is so adopted.

Having adopted his statement, we have no further questions for this witness

Cross Examination by 1st Respondent (conducted by A.B Mahmoud SAN)

Q. As an inec adhoc staff, you were properly trained
R. Yes

Q. You discharged your responsibilities in the presence pof your presiding officer in accordance to your training
R. Yes my lord

Q. How many units did you supervise
R. I and Mustapha Suleiman supervised 24 units

Q. That was in your ward
R. Yes

Q. Howe many units are in your ward
R. 24
S. Do you know how many wards are ….
T. ****

Q. Do you know how many LGA’s are in your state _ Adamawa State
R. Yes , they are 21 LGA

Q. Asides from the small issue you raised in your statement about the squabble between APC and PDP party agents
R. Yes except for the issue of transmission of result

Q. Asides from the transmission, there was nomother issue
R. Yes

Q. Even this issue you cited was rightfully resolved
R. The squabble between the party agents, yes

Q. So scores of the parties were duly recorded in the polling units you supwrvised
R. Yes my lord

Q. The results were announced
R. Yes my lord

Q. The physical copies of the form ec8a’s were taken to the ward collation center
R. Yes my lord

Q. As a supervisor, it was not your duty to handle the bvas machine
R. correct

Cross Examination by 2nd & 3rd respondent (conducted by Mike Ogala SAN)

Q. You are not here to testify on behalf of INEC
R. Yes my lord

Q. The subpoena that was served on you was not addressed to you through INEC but address to you directly
R. Yes

Q. That is Labour party knows you as an sympathizer that is why they served you directly and not through inec
R. I am not an inec staff but an adhoc staff

Q. Who won the election in Adamawa state
R. It was pdp sir

Q. In the 24 polling units where you worked as supervisor and *** officer, you can confirm that the presiding officers made substantial compliance to the laid out procedures
R. Yes sir

Q. You can confirm that in all the polling units you supervised, accreditation went on smoothly using the Bvas machine
R. Yes my lord

Q. The collation of the results in the form ec8a took place at the ward
R. Yes my lord

Q. Would it surprise you to know that the results of the 24 polling units where you supervised are uploaded to the iREV portal
R. I would not be surprised

No further questions

Cross Examination by 4th Respondent (conducted by Lateef O. Fagbemi SAN)

Q. Apart from inec officials, restriction of movement was on that day
R. Yes my lord

Q. And the restriction was such that party agents were to stay where they were assigned
R. Yes, but certified staff were allowed to

Q. It is only you that could be moving around as the supervisory ***** officer in charge
R. Yes my lord

Q. When it gets to LGA collation agents of the parties, they are to remain there till you officials come to them
R. Yes my lord

Nothing more for this witness.

Reexamination

Nil
Ikechukwu Ezechukwu SAN hands over the reigns of today’s proceeding back to the lead counsel Dr. Livy uzoukwu SAN.

Dr Livy Uzoukwu SAN stated that we would continue with the tendering of documents just provided by INEC and to handle that segment of the proceedings is Peter Afuba SAN.

My lord may we refer you to the schedule of documents filed on the 19th of June 2023.

My lord we seek to tender the CTC of total number of voters and PVC’s collected in respect of ………..

1st respondent objects to the tendering of these documents and would provide reasons for objecting in our final address

2nd & 3rd respondent objects to the tendering of these documents and would provide reasons for objecting in our final address

4th respondent objects to the admissibility of these documents and would adduce reasons for objecting in our final address

Petitioner Counsel stated that we would also respond to the objections in the petitioners final address

The CTC of total number of voters and PVC’s collected … are hereby admitted into Evidence and marked as EXHIBIT PCN1-PCN32.

May I humbly seek to tender from the bar the CTC of Certificate of Compliance in respect of EDO STATE.

1st respondent has no objections to the tendering of these documents

2nd & 3rd respondent objects to the tendering of these documents and would provide reasons for objecting in our final address

4th respondent objects to the admissibility of these documents and would adduce reasons for objecting in our final address

Petitioner Counsel stated that we would also respond to the objections in the petitioners final address

The CTC of certificate of compliance in respect of Edo State are hereby admitted into Evidence and marked as EXHIBIT PCN33.

My lord, may we proceed to the petitioners 11th schedule filed on the 20th of June 2023.

May we respectfully apply to tender supplementary iREV reports for 3 LGA’s of Benue State, they have also been duly certified by the INEC

1st respondent objects to the tendering of these documents and would provide reasons for objecting in our final address

2nd & 3rd respondent objects to the tendering of these documents and would provide reasons for objecting in our final address

4th respondent objects to the admissibility of these documents and would adduce reasons for objecting in our final address

Petitioner Counsel stated that we would also respond to the objections in the petitioners final address

The CTC of supplementary iREV reports in respect of 3 LGA’s of Benue State are hereby admitted into Evidence and marked as EXHIBIT PCN34-PCN36.

May we respectfully apply to tender supplementary iREV reports for 2 LGA’s of Cross River State, they have also been duly certified by the INEC

1st respondent objects to the tendering of these documents and would provide reasons for objecting in our final address

2nd & 3rd respondent objects to the tendering of these documents and would provide reasons for objecting in our final address

4th respondent objects to the admissibility of these documents and would adduce reasons for objecting in our final address

Petitioner Counsel stated that we would also respond to the objections in the petitioners final address

The CTC of supplementary iREV reports in respect of 2 LGA’s of Cross River State are hereby admitted into Evidence and marked as EXHIBIT PCN37-PCN38.

May we respectfully apply to tender supplementary iREV reports for 12 LGA’s of Lagos State, they have also been duly certified by the INEC

1st respondent objects to the tendering of these documents and would provide reasons for objecting in our final address

2nd & 3rd respondent objects to the tendering of these documents and would provide reasons for objecting in our final address

4th respondent objects to the admissibility of these documents and would adduce reasons for objecting in our final address

Petitioner Counsel stated that we would also respond to the objections in the petitioners final address

The CTC of supplementary iREV reports in respect of 12 LGA’s of Lagos State are hereby admitted into Evidence and marked as EXHIBIT PCN39-PCN50.

May we respectfully apply to tender supplementary iREV reports for 1 LGA of Gombe State, they have also been duly certified by the INEC

1st respondent objects to the tendering of these documents and would provide reasons for objecting in our final address

2nd & 3rd respondent objects to the tendering of these documents and would provide reasons for objecting in our final address

4th respondent objects to the admissibility of these documents and would adduce reasons for objecting in our final address

Petitioner Counsel stated that we would also respond to the objections in the petitioners final address

The CTC of supplementary iREV reports in respect of 1 LGA of Gombe State are hereby admitted into Evidence and marked as EXHIBIT PCN51.

We have come to the close of today’s proceedings.

Petitioners Counsel applied to the Court for an adjournment as we had already exhausted the time for today’s session.

No objection by the respondents.

Adjournment: Adjourned to Thursday 22nd June 2023 at 2:00pm for continuation of HEARING.

Record of Proceedings by IGWEKAMMA C. OBIORAH ESQ (obiorahigweka@gmail.com)

~~~

Business of the Day; HEARING (DAY 25) Petitioners to prove their case.

The petitioner counsel informed the court that we were ready to continue with the cross examination of PW8 and that P. I. N Ikwueto SAN would be the one to handle this segment of today’s proceedings. The witness is in court and we’re ready to proceed.

Witness Information: Petitioners Witness (PW8)
Subpoenaed witness: Dr. Chibuike Ugwoke

Q – Question
R – Reply

Cross Examination by 1st respondent (conducted by A.B Mahmoud SAN)

Q. You’re an experienced cyber security expert
R. Yes

Q. I would also be right to say because of that you would be reasonably familiar with the cyber security situation in the country
R. I would appreciate you to be more specific

Q. In paragraph 9 of your statement, you talked about ISO standard 270001
R. Yeah

Q. Is the ISO certification 270001 is not a statutory requirement
R. No it is a statutory requirement

Q. Under which law
R. Under NITDA (National Information Technology Development Agency) Act

Q. Do you know the section of the law that stipulates that
R. I don’t know the exact provision but what I have in paragraph 8 of my statement covers that

Q. When were you instructed by LP to carry out this study
R. I was approached on March 10

Q. When did you complete it
R. I had a preliminary report ready by 17th & 18th of March, but finished the final document in the middle of May

Q. Before you started your report, you read the petition as well as the replies of the respondents
R. I cannot recall

Q. In paragraph 14 of your statement, you stated you read a substantial part of the petition and the replies
R. I said I did, but I’m not sure as to what date

Q. Are you suggesting to the court you finished your work before reading the petition and the replies
R. That would be incorrect and I never inferred that

Q. So when did you read it
R. At some point in the middle of my work

Q. In paragraph 18 of your statement, in reaching your conclusion you did not speak to anyone in INEC concerning the issues you highlighted
R. No I did not

Q. In paragraph 19 of your statement, you talked about testing of an application before it is deployed
R. that’s correct

Q. I suggest to you that errors can be discovered at the point of testing of the application
R. that’s correct

Q. But also sometimes some errors can come up after deployment of the application am I correct
R. Your suggestion is not correct

Q. So errors cannot arise after deployment, is that what you’re suggesting to the court
R. After deployment, the probability of errors arising is negligible

Q. So it is impossible, is that your testimony to the court
R. It is not impossible

Q. In paragraph 22 & 23 of your statement you referred to Meta Data of the iREV portal in relation to 3 polling unit
R. that’s correct – I used 3 polling unit as an example to establish that it is possible to show the meta data

Q. In respect of those 3 polling units, did you examine the physical copies of the Form EC8A’S
R. I didn’t have to examine the physical copies of the form ec8a’s

Q. You cannot tell also if the results from those form ec8a’s were properly collated
R. What do you mean by collated

Q. Calculated by the appropriate polling units officers
R. I did not see the collation result, so I cannot assert to that

Q. Please show Exhibit PCK2 to the witness

Q. You’re familiar with the amazon web services
Q. Yes I am

Q. The aws security model is a shared security model between aws and the client
R. Yes you’re correct this time

Q. That means that aws, guarantees the security of its application to its client
R. that’s not entirely correct

⦁ So aws is responsible for the security of its application
⦁ In respect to security there have 3 components
⦁ Confidentiality
⦁ Integrity
⦁ Availability – aws is responsible for this

Q. You’re familiar with cloud trail
R. Yes I am

Q. The cloud trail of INEC on the aws infrastructure would tell the availability of the applications of INEC on the AWS structure
R. Yes it would

Q. In respect to Exhibit PCK2; is there anything about electronic collation system
R. Yes it is inferred in the last paragraph

That would be all for this witnessCross Examination by 2nd & 3rd respondent (conducted by Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN)

Q. In para 15, 16 & 18 of your statement, you have reproduced what INEC gave it its reply to the petition and you have given your own views on it … have you been engaged by the LP to aid them in replying INEC’s reply to the petition
R. They didn’t ask for that and I cannot recall that conversation ever happening

Q. Did you examine any of the bvas machines
R. No I didn’t

Q. Did you as a person interrogate Festus Okoye, the maker of the document which you have attached in your statement
R. No

Q. In para 23 of your report, you have referred to an LGA in Bauchi state
R. That’s correct

Q. Are you aware that PDP won the presidential election in that state
R. I am not aware

Q. In para 24, you referred to another LGA in Anambra state, are you aware that the LP that invited you here won the Election in that LGA and also in the entire state with over 35% of the votes cast there
R. I am not aware and also not aware of that

Q. You have made reference to Meta data, please tell the court of that compound word Meta data
R. Meta data is the description that describes the actual data

Q. In para 24 of your statement, the Exhibit A attached that is made of 11 pages
R. You are not correct

Q. How many
R. There are 23

Q. You have given information in those 23 pages which are coded
R. Please tell what you mean by coded

Q. Which are not explained
R. You are not correct

Q. The information you supplied in these pages, are they decrypted
R. Yes they’re decrypted

Q. Explain to the court what decrpytion means in your field
R. Encryption is when you conceal data that is not easily accessible. Decryption is then when you remove that encryption to make what you have there readable

Q. In paragraph 23, 24, 26 & 27, you supplied some links
R. that’s correct

Q. By supplying those links you want this court to browse, view and download the information therein
R. No

Q. How many characters are involved in the meta data you supplied
R. I am not aware of the number of characters contained

Q. I suggest to you that you have 12,025 characters listed there
R. I don’t need to know

Q. 12,025 characters all not decrypted
R. I’m sorry, they’re decrypted

Q. In your statement, you only referred to 3 states Bauchi, Anambra and Rivers state, am I right
R. 3 states

Q. Can you look at pages 8-11 of your meta data submissions, those relate to Benue state which you did not reference in your witness statement
R. It reads benue state

Q. In your para 24, you referred to a LGA in Anambra state, a polling unit where LP amassed 117 votes and APC scored 0 ….
R. I am not aware as this does not touch on my expertise

Time is up.

Cross Examination by 4th respondent (conducted by Lateef O. Fagbemi SAN)

Q. There is always an agreement between the aws and the customer
R. Yes there is , an SLA – service level agreement

Q. In this agreement, it would normally contain details of the terms and security features among others
R. That is —

Q. The security features are only known to the parties and they can access and modify it anytime
R. That is incorrect

Q. But the agreement is only known to the parties
R. The SLA is public, you choose the one you want

Q. Do they disclose it to the public
R. They do not display it to the public

Q. Attached to your statement, are 12 polling unit results
R. Yes

Q. How many of you were involved with this report
R. Just me, why should there be many people, I did this work alone

Q. These 12 polling unit results, none of them was the original form ec8a, they were the results you downloaded from iREV
R. Yes they’re the original, downloaded from the iREV portal

Q. You did not interact with any of the polling officer that were assigned to those units
R. No I didn’t

Q. You did not see the original —
R. I did not have to

Q. Look at your attachment to your reports, the 4th one, the image, you stated that to be an incorrect upload
R. Yes

Q. In the process of uploading, when did you discover that incorrect image
R. I’m not sure

Q. Who uploaded it
R. I don’t know who did but it came from the bvas and the reference number is here

Q. Have you found out the correct result for that polling unit
R. No, I didn’t have to

Q. Does that result exist
R. I wouldn’t know

Q. You also did not interrogate INEC on that or any of those results attached to your report
R. No I did not interrogate INEC but I did interrogate the INEC Manual

Q. You also did not interrogate INEC official on that or any odf those results attached to your report
R. No I did not

Q. Did you interrogate any LP agent there from those polling units
R. No I didn’t

Q. Did you interrogate any staff of aws
R. Aws staffs doesn’t keep the data, I interrogate the server which is where the data is kept

Q. You did not attach your interrogation to your report
R. I did, that is the meta data submission

Q. Are you aware that there are 1******* polling units that make up the units for thr presidential elections
R. No they’re 176,846 polling units

Reexamination

No reexamination

PW8 is hereby discharged

Petitioners Counsel sought indulgence of the Court to call our next witness PW11.

Witness Information: Petitioners Witness (PW11)
Subpoenaed witness: Barr. Emmanuel Edet _

Witness is on subpoena duces tecum ad testificandum

Q – Question
R – Reply

Witness is duly sworn

Examination in Chief (conducted by P.I.N Ikwueto SAN)

Q. Tell this court your full name
R. My name is Barr Emmanuel Edet

Q. Where do you live
R. I live in Abuja

Q. Where do you work
R. I work at NITDA (National Information Technology Development Agency)

Q. What work do you do there
R. I am the head of the legal department

Q. You were subpoenaed to come to this court
R. Yes I was subpoenaed to come this court, I found the subpoena at my office

Q. Do you have the subpoena here with you
R. No I don’t, but I have a scanned copy here with me

My lord may I humbly seek to tender the subpoena

No objection from the Respondents

The Subpoena duces tecum ad testificandum is hereby admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit PCG.

⦁ The subpoena that brought you to court requested you to provide the following documents
⦁ *********
⦁ Certificate of clearance issued by NITDA to INEC – not with document
⦁ Report submitted by INEC to NITDA containing certification of review of IT infrastructure to be deployed during in the presidential election – no we do not have that document to the best of my knowledge

1st respondent counsel objects to his evidence as he states doesn’t comply with the provisions of the law. He cited ____ of the Electoral act that stipulates that Petitioners must frontload the list of witness he intends to call in support of their case and that procedure was not followed.

The court inquired as to which evidence he was objecting to

1st respondent replied that he would be objecting to the entire submission of the witness

2nd and 3rd respondent counsel objects to the entire evidence of the witness

Petitioner Counsel stated that the witness who is here on subpoena is not one bound under Paragraph 41 of the first schedule of the Electoral Act; and however when they proffer reasons for their objections we will respond in our reply.

Cross Examination by 1st Respondent (conducted by A.B Mahmoud SAN)

No questions for this witness

Cross Examination by 2nd & 3rd respondent (conducted by Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN)

Q. Who is the head of NITDA (National Information Technology Development Agency)
R. Hashifu Inuah Abdulahhi CCIE, he is the director general

Q.What is his position
⦁ He is the director general, the chief executive officer

Q. You got this subpoena today 22nd June 2023
R. Yes

Q. I suggest to you that you do not have the authority of your Director general to be here
R. It was directed to me as a person and that is why I am here

Q. So you do not have his authority to come to this court and give evidence
R. I did communicate with him about the summons and he did approve that I be here

Q. You have an act of 2007
R. Yes sir

Q. NITDA Act of 2007
R. Yes sir

Q. Have you read it
R. Yes sir

Q. Is there any certification in the entire act, described as ISO 2700:2013
R. The act does not contain cyber security standards

Q. There is nothing in your act that provides for communication between your body and INEC
R. Our Act does not mention any other corporate body

No further questions

Cross Examination by 4th Respondent (conducted by Lateef O. Fagbemi SAN)

Q. Your supervising ministry is
R. The ministry of Communications and digital economy

Q. You are aware that the honourable minister Communications and digital economy stated that there were 16, 000,000 attempts to hack the INEC IT infrastructure
R. I am aware that he made that statement

Q. You are aware that the Honourable Minister said that NITDA was the source of that information
R. I am aware he said so

Q. You are also aware that INEC is an independent body
R. In conducting the election, yes

Nothing more for this witness.

Reexamination
Nil

PW11 is hereby discharged

Petitioners Counsel stated that we have one other witness to call PW12.

Witness Information: Petitioners Witness (PW12)
witness: Yinusa tanko

Q – Question
R – Reply

Examination in Chief (conducted by Dr. Livy Uzoukwu SAN)

Q.Tell this court your name
R. Yinusa Tanko

Q. Where do you live
R. No. 8 Wilfred Olaribi Street, Dutse Alhaji, Abuja

Q. You would recall that you filed a witness statement on oath on the 20th of March 2023 in this court
R. Yes I recall

Q. Take a look at this statement and identify if that’s the statement you filed in court
R. Yes it is my statement

Q. How did you recognize it
R. By my signature and by my initials on it T.U

Q. Do you want to adopt that statement as your evidence in this petition
R. Yes my lords

Q. Now I can see you said you are a politician, do you have any other occupation
R. I am also an accountant

Q. In paragraph 1 of your deposition, you stated that you are a member of the Labour Party
R. Yes I am a member of the Labour Party as well as a member of the Situation Room of the Labour Party

Q. Can we have Exhibits PA1-PA4, now these are the exhibits you referred to in your paragraph 24 of your deposition
R. Yes they are

Q. Take a look at Exhibit PA5, now confirm that that exhibit are the ones you referred to in paragraph 30 of your deposition
R. Yes they are

Q. Take a look at Receipts issued by the 1st respondent INEC for various documents that were certified and made available for the petitioners; these are the receipts you mention in paragraph 102 (qq) of your statement
R. Yes they are

Most respectfully my lords, we seek to tender these receipts into evidence

No objections by the Respondents

The bunch of receipts issued by INEC is hereby admitted and marked as Exhibit PCQ.

Q. In paragraph 58 of your statement, you made mention of 4 letters dated 6th March, 14th March, 16th March and 20th march respectively which the petitioners used in applying for CTC of election documents relating to the presidential election, are these the letters
R. Yes they are

Most respectfully my lords, we seek to tender these letters as evidence in support of our case

1st respondent counsel had no objection

2nd & 3rd Respondent Counsel objected to the documents sought to be tendered and would give reasons at the final address

4th Respondent Counsel objected to the documents sought to be tendered and would give reasons at the final address

Petitioner Counsel stated that we would respond to their objections when we see their reasons for objecting

The bunch of letters referred to in paragraph 58 is hereby admitted and marked as Exhibit PCQ1-PCQ6.

Q. In paragraph 36, you made reference to a press release signed by Festus Okoye, National Commissioner and Chairman Information and Voter Education for the 1st respondent, it was already tendered by another witness and marked as Exhibit PCK2; is that the document you meant
R. Yes it is

Q. At paragraph 20 of your deposition, you stated that you could identify all the FORM EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, EC8D, EC8E and all INEC electoral documents
R. Yes I can

R. Yes my lord, those are the documents

Q. In paragraph 61 of your statement, you identified 18,088 blurred results uploaded on the irev and marked as Exhibit PCE1-PCE4
R. Yes they are

Q. You also stated that you were given blurred results that have already —

We have come to the close of today’s proceedings.

Adjournment; Adjourned to Friday 23rd June 2023 at 2:00pm for continuation of HEARING.

Record of Proceedings by IGWEKAMMA C. OBIORAH ESQ (obiorahigweka@gmail.com)

~~~

Business of the Day; HEARING (DAY 26) Close of Petitioners’ case.

The petitioner counsel informed the court that we were ready to continue with the cross examination of PW12. The witness is in court and we’re ready to proceed.

Witness Information: Petitioners Witness (PW12)
Subpoenaed witness: Yinusa Tanko

Q – Question
R – Reply

Cross Examination by 1st respondent (conducted by Dr. Kemi Pinheiro SAN)

Q. Please confirm to the court where you were on the 25th of February, election day
R. I voted at polling unit 4 – Dawaki, Abuja – where I voted; after voting I moved to the Asokoro situation room of the Labour Party after which I came back to the polling unit to observe the counting and announcing of the results at the polling unit

Q. Would I be correct to say that apart from your polling unit and your situation room, you were not physically anywhere else on that day
R. Yes I was not physically anywhere else except for the polling unit and the situation room

Q. What is your designation with the Labour party
R. I am the chief spokesman of the Labour Party Presidential Campaign Council as well as the National Director of media Labour Party

Q. So it is correct to say that you were not a polling agent or a collation agent for the Labour party
R. No I was not a polling or collation agent

Q. You confirmed to the court that your party filed several suits before the election
R. Yes my lord

Q. Have a look at the CTC of the Judgement from the Federal High Court of Nigeria, with suit no. FHC/ABJ/CS/1454/2022 between ‘LABOUR PARTY v. INEC’ delivered on the 23rd of January 2023; confirm it is one of the suits your party filed
R. Yes my lord

My lord I seek to tender the CTC of the Judgment of the Federal High Court in suit no. FHC/ABJ/CS/1454/2022 between ‘LABOUR PARTY v. INEC’ delivered on the 23rd of January 2023.

Petitioners Counsel Objects to the Document being tendered and will give reasons for objecting at the final address stage

No objection from 2nd and 3rd respondent

No objection from 4th respondent

1st Respondent Counsel stated they would respond to the objection in their final address

The CTC of the Judgment of the Federal High Court in suit no. FHC/ABJ/CS/1454/2022 between ‘LABOUR PARTY v. INEC’ delivered on the 23rd of January 2023 is hereby admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit X1

Q. Please show the witness the 2nd page of Exhibit X1, please read the declarations that were sought by your party
R. Read by the witness

Q. Turn to page 9 of that document; please the response of the court in respect of the reliefs your party was seeking
R. Read by the witness

Q. Please confirm if your party appealed this judgment
R. I am not aware

Q. Please show the witness Exhibit PCE1; look at Polling unit 048, ward 07, LGA02, FCT and also look at Polling unit 070, ward 07, LGA 02, FCT; please tell the court the score of Labour Party in those forms
R. I can confirm that the form is mutilated and I cannot read out what is there and that goes for the second one

Q. Can you see the score of the 2nd and 3rd respondent
R. It is also mutilated and i cannot see it

Q. I suggest to you that the score of Labour Party is 207
R. It is mutilated I cannot make out the score

Q. Can you see the score of APC at 27
R. It is mutilated I cannot make out the score

Q. I suggest to you that the score of Labour Party is 67 in the second form
R. It is mutilated and I cannot make anything of it

Q. Is it your testimony that is mutilated and not blurred, which do you want the court to take
R. It is mutilated and blurred

Q. In the entirety of your 105 paragraphs of your statement, you did not state any figures of unlawful votes
R. Seemingly so

Q. Look at your paragraph 9 of your deposition, you talked about party agents of your political party; confirm to my lords that you had party agents throughout the polling units in the federation
R. We had over 103,000 polling agents

Q. How many polling units in the federation
R. I cannot remember the exact figure

Cross Examination by 2nd & 3rd respondent (conducted by Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN)

Q.

Q. The primary election of the Labour Party to pick ***** was held on 30th May 2022
R. Yes my lord

Q. In paragraph 18 f your statement, you gave the official result of the presidential election as announced by INEC
R. Yes this is the results that was allocated during the election

Q. In the allocation, your party came 3rd
R. Yes my lord

Q. In that allocation, PDP and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar came 2nd
R. Yes my lord

Q. Where you voted, your party won in your polling unit
R. Yes my lord

Q. Can you tell my lords if the results were allocated at your polling unit
R. If the — cut short by counsel

Q. Your party won in all 5 Eastern States and 7 other states in Nigeria
R. Yes my lord

Q. In Anambra state, Mr Peter Obi scored 95.7% at the presidential election
R. I don’t know

Q. I now tell you that he won and scored 95.7% in Anambra state; and I now suggest to you that that is what he scored
R. I have not seen it

Q. Your party won in 12 states; do you want the court to void the votes gotten by your party
Q. That’s not why we are in Court, the results of the elections are still being uploaded up to 4 months after the election

Q. You have a generator
R. Yes my lord

Q. You bought your small generator constant of the fact of the power outages in the country
R. Yes

Q. You have a mobile phone
R. Yes

Q. Sometimes when you want to make phone calls or send text messages, they don’t usually go through for network issues
R. Seemingly so

Q. In paragraph 100, you stated that you could identify INEC forms ; can you tell my lords the number of unlawful votes that were accredited to the 2nd respondent
R. Our expert tendered a well documented report in that regard; I’m not a genius of mathematics

Q. Do you know what your expert presented
R. No I do not know, I am a witness and wasn’t allowed to be in court

Q. Go to paragraph 103, you want the petitioners to be declared winner as the votes scored by the 2nd respondent are wasted votes, can you give us an idea as to the number of wasted votes
R. Those were within the document tendered by the expert

Q. You came 3rd, you want to be declared the winner, what do you want the court to do with the votes of the person who came 2nd in the election
R. In my statement we stated that we wanted our candidate declared winner of the election

Q. Can you show the court where you stated in your statement what you want the court to do with the votes of the person who came 2nd (Atiku & PDP) in the election
R. We are challenging the election results as declared and inadvertently challenging the position of the PDP and Atiku Abubakar

Q. In your paragraph 103, in your alternative relief 4(ii); you want the court to declare that the petitioner scored the majority of the lawful valid votes cast… can you tell the court the number of lawful valid votes scored by Mr Peter Obi and the Labour Party
R. I do not know

Cross Examination by 4th respondent (conducted by Lateef O. Fagbemi SAN)

Q. The report of your expert (PW8 – Dr. Chibuike Ugwoke) which you referred to was his final report
R. Yes

Q. I suggest to you that in giving your deposition, you considered all the documents contained in your deposition
R. I read them

Q. All the exhibits which you came to identify yesterday; you did not open these boxes or envelopes and bring them out
R. I opened the boxes and looked at the envelopes particularly Rivers and Benue state where we won

Q. You did not look into all the envelopes
R. No I did not

Q. As the chief spokesperson of the presidential campaign, I would be right to say that you received information from INEC from time to time
R. All information come to the National Chairman and the National Secretary

Q. You are aware on the 23rd of February, INEC came out to say that they would not be transmitting results electronically
R. I am only aware of the statement of the Inec chairman and Festus Okoye where they stated that transmission of results would be done electronically

Q. Show the witness Exhibit PCQ; those are receipts obtained for CTC of some INEC documents that were tendered here
R. Yes my lord

Q. Please confirm that some of the receipts were obtained on the 6th of April, 31st March and 4th , 5th April and variously like that
R. There’s no 6th of April , only 16th March, 20th March, 15th March, 4th April

Q. What was the receipt of 4th April for
R. Payment for number of registered voters and pvc’s collected

Q. Another receipt
R. 21-03-2023, 20-03-2023, 31-03-2023 etc

Q. You stated you relied on the documents you stated in your paragraph 102 of your witness statement
R. Yes

Q. At page 31 of your statement, paragraph 102; Items L, M, N, O, V, Y, Z, AA, CC, jj, mm, oo and rr were not tendered in this proceedings
R. We were tendering documents but were cut short because of time

Q. These documents were not tendered
R. Yes, we were not able to complete tendering those documents

Q. You mentioned that you also relied on the evidence of forensic experts
R. Yes my lord

Q. Your deposition was made on March 20th, , and you were relying on documents which you later obtained in April; are you aware that the final report of your expert was ready in the middle of May 2023
R. Yes

⦁ You agree with me that the issue which you brought to court was about transmission to iREV and not snatching of ballot boxes etc
⦁ 1st ground – double nomination
⦁ 2nd ground – $460,000 forfeiture

Q. Look at the Supreme Court Judgment between PDP and …..
R. Yes its between the PDP and the INEC & 3 ors

My lord may we respectfully tender the Judgement of the Supreme Court in the Appeal between the PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. INEC & 3 ORS

Petitioners Counsel stated that this procedure is strange and that we would be objecting to the admissibility of the document sought to be tendered

1st respondent has no objections

2nd and 3rd respondent has no objections

4th Respondent stated that he would address the objections raised by the petitioners in their final address

The Judgement of the Supreme Court in the Appeal between the PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. INEC & 3 ORS with Appeal No.**** Is hereby admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit X2

Q. By that judgment the issue of double nomination has been settled
R. No

Reexamination

No reexamination

PW12 is hereby discharged

Petitioners Counsel sought indulgence of the Court to call our next witness PW13.

Witness Information: Petitioners Witness (PW13)
Subpoenaed witness: Peter Emmanuel Yari

Q – Question
R – Reply

Witness is duly sworn

Examination in Chief (conducted by Ikechukwu Ezechukwu SAN)

Q. Tell this court your full name
Q. My name is Peter Emmanuel Yari

Q. Where do you live
R. I live at no. 8 Tudu wada, ***

Q. You’re here on a subpoena
R. Yes my lord

Q. Do you have the subpoena here
R. Yes my lord

My lord may I humbly seek to tender the subpoena

No objection from the Respondents

The Subpoena ad testificandum is hereby admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit PCG.

Q. Pursuant to the subpoena you deposed to a statement
R. Yes I did

Q. How can you recognize that statement
R. By my name and signature

Q. Take a look at this statement; is it yours
R. Yes it is

Q. Would you like my lords to adopt this as your evidence in this case
R. Yes my lords

1st respondent counsel objects to the statement of the witness sought to be adopted and would state the reason for objecting during the final address stage

2nd and 3rd respondent counsel objects to the statement being adopted by the witness and would state the reasons for objecting at the final written address

4th respondent counsel objects to the statement of the witness sought to be adopted and would state the reason for objecting during the final address stage

Petitioner Counsel stated that they would respond to their objections in our reply.

Cross Examination by 1st Respondent (conducted by Sir Stephen Adehi SAN)

Q. what role did you play on election day
R. I played the role pf presiding officer

Q. You were trained by INEC on how t play your role on that day
R. Yes my lord

Q. That training included how to use the bvas
R. Yes my lord

Q. You successfully used the bvas for accreditation of voters
R. No

Q. There was no accreditation
R. Yes

Q. Did they vote on that day
R. Yes

Q. And you successfully counted the votes
R. I counted the votes

Q. Did you record the votes
R. Yes I did

Q. And you recorded it manually
R. Yes I did

Q. The only problem you had was with transmission
R. Yes

Q. In your statement, you stated that the only issue you had was with transmission
R. Yes.. no

Q. Look at your statement, I suggest to you that the only problem you had was the upload to the iREV
R. Yes

Q. After you recorded the votes manually and you couldn’t upload, what did you now do
R. I called my SPO and he told me to carry the results to the ward collation center

Cross Examination by 2nd & 3rd respondent (conducted by Michael Okala SAN)

Q. You said you manually recorded the results
R. Yes I did

Q. I’m guessing all the other party agents signed also
R. Yes they did

No further questions.

Cross Examination by 4th Respondent (conducted by Chief Afolabi Fashanu SAN)

Q. At the end of the exercise, you gave the copies of the results to the party agents
R. Yes

No further questions.

Reexamination
Nil

PW13 is hereby discharged

We have come to the close of the Petitioners Case

4th Respondent Counsel applied to the court to allow us reconvene on the 3rd of July to accommodate counsel that would be traveling for the Sallah break.

2nd & 3rd Respondent counsel agreed with the submission of the 4th respondent

1st Respondent Counsel agreed with the submission of counsel

Petitioners Counsel aligned with the submission of counsel

Adjournment; Adjourned to Monday, 3rd of July 2023 at 9:00am for continuation of HEARING.

Record of Proceedings by IGWEKAMMA C. OBIORAH ESQ (obiorahigweka@gmail.com)

~~~

Business of the Day; HEARING (DAY 27) 1st Respondent to open their Defence.

The 1st Respondent counsel informed the court that the matter today was for defence and for the 1st respondent to open their case. The Counsel informed the court that they have 3 witnesses to call but regrettably 2 of the witnesses are not here in court and only 1 is present at this moment. In the circumstance we’d be applying for this matter to be adjourned till tomorrow morning

Petitioners Counsel stated that he wouldn’t be opposing the application of the 1st respondent.

2nd and 3rd Respondent counsel stated that they have no objection to the application.
4th Respondent counsel stated that they have no objection to the application.

Adjournment: Adjourned to Tuesday , 4th of July 2023 at 9:00am for continuation of HEARING.

Record of Proceedings by IGWEKAMMA C. OBIORAH ESQ (obiorahigweka@gmail.com)

~~~

Cross Examination Questions

For AI1 (as seen in wso in pages 253-256 dated 12 april 2023.)

It is not the duty of the 1st and 2nd Petitioners to conduct elections, record and upload results of the election. Do you agree?

You did not complain to the appropriate authorities of any perceived invalid election or irregularities that marred the election at community hall and open space, akpeyu udo street, i.e. polling units 03-03-01-008 and 03-03-02-20.

You are aware that political parties have their strongholds.

You are aware that Anambra State and Akwa Ibom State are strongholds of the 2nd Petitioner

It would not surprise you then if the 2nd Petitioner wins by overwhelming majority in Anambra and Akwa Ibom State.

Tell this court your duties as a ward collation officer.

Cross examination questions for AZ4 (WSO in pages 293-296)

It is not the duty of the petitioners (1st and 2nd Petitioners) to accredit, records and uphold results of the election.

You did not complain to the appropriate authorities of any perceived invalid or irregularities that marred the election at umuogbuefi p/s 1 polling unit.

You are aware that political parties have their strongholds.

You are aware that anambra state is one of the strongholds of the Labour Party.

It would not surprise you then 2nd Petitioner wins by overwhelming majority in Anambra State.

~~~

Questions for cross examination for ZA and AZ1WSO in pages 261 -278 and wso in pages 312-319)

Tell this honourable court your duties as a party collation officer.

It is true that every political party have their strongholds in Nigeria.

The Southeast region including Anambra and Enugu States is the stronghold of the 2nd Petitioner.

It is therefore not a shock or surprise to you if the 2nd Petitioner wins by overwhelming majority in the states.

It is not the duty of the petitioners to record or upload results of an election, or to conduct election.

It is not on record in your statement that you laid any complaint to any appropriate authority.

It is therefore correct to state that what you stated in your statement are not true or correct; it is an afterthought.

 Read more.

— 

©Copyright 2023 News Band

(If you would like to receive CURRENT NEWS updates from News Band on WhatsApp, or Telegram, or wish to send eyewitness accounts/ reports/ articles, write to elstimmy@gmail.com and we will respond instantly. Follow us on twitter @News Band; like our Facebook page: News Band.)