The All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential and vice presidential candidates, Alhaji Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Senator Kashim Ibrahim Shettima, who are the second and third Respondents in the petition filed by Labour Party (LP) and its presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Gregory Obi, have stated reasons why they objected to the Certified True Copies (CTC) of the documents tendered at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC).
The petitions followed the election to the office of the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria held on 25th February, 2023, with petition no: CA/PEPC/03/2023, wherein the Petitioners tendered a host of documents against which the Respondents indicated their objections. Read Part One of the report below:
Tribunal: Why we objected to documents tendered by Peter Obi/LP — Tinubu/Shettima [P.1]
Part Two
Stating their reason for the objection to the admissibility of documents EC8Bs for Bayelsa, Kogi, Nasarawa, Niger, Ondo, Sokoto, Delta, Ekiti, Oyo, Cross River, Edo and Akwa Ibom States, Tinubu/Shettima stated:
“The Petitioners did not make any complaint with respect to the said States. We accordingly adopt our arguments on the relevance of the said documents and urge this Honourable Court to expunge the said exhibits from its record.”
On the objection to the admissibility of EC8Cs for Bayelsa, Cross River, Ebonyi, Edo, Niger, Ondo, Oyo and Sokoto States, the Respondents said:
“The documents are EC8Cs for Bayelsa, Cross River, Ebonyi, Edo, Niger, Ondo, Oyo and Sokoto States. The Petitioners did not make any complaint with respect to the said States.
“We accordingly adopt our arguments on the relevance of the said documents and urge this Honourable Court to expunge the said exhibits from its record.
“Additionally, the law is well settled that evidence of any fact which is not pleaded in a given case is not admissible.
“The specific pleading by the Petitioners in paragraph 101 of the Petition lends credence to our contention that the Petitioners never evinced any intention in the Petition to make use of or rely on these documents.”
“The Respondents submitted further that the certification falls short of the clear provisions of the law as outlined in section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011.
“The Evidence Act in Section 104 provides thus:
(1) “Every Public Officer having the custody of a public document which any person has a right to inspect shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees prescribed in that respect, together with a Certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part of it as the case may be.
(2) The Certificate mentioned in subsection (I) of this section shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal, and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.
“See TABIK INVESTMENT V GTBANK (2011) LPELR — 3131(SC) where it was held that all the elements stated in section 104 are mandatory and must be complied with. The documents are therefore patently inadmissible and having been wrongfully admitted, ought to be expunged. We submit that this Honourable Court is vested with vires to expunge any document that was wrongfully admitted at the stage of trial.
“In addition to the foregoing, we submit that all the forms EC8As, EC8Bs, and EC8Cs (and such other documents), tendered for polling units, wards and Local Government Areas across the country are inadmissible, as the said polling units, wards and Local Government Areas were not specially pleaded in the petition. They include, but are not limited to Form ECSAS for Ebonyi State (EXHIBITS PP1-PP13), Nasarawa State (EXHIBITS PQ1-PQ13), Delta State (EXHIBITS PR1-PR25) and Sokoto State (EXHIBITS PVI-PV7) and Kogi State (EXHIBITS PWI-PW21); Form EC8Bs for Kogi State (EXHIBITS PAA1-PAA21), Nasarawa State (EXHIBITS PABI – PABII), Sokoto State (EXHIBITS PAE1-PAE21), Delta State (EXHIBITS PAF1- PAF25), Cross River State (EXHIBITS PAL1-PAL18 ) and Akwa-Ibom State (EXHIBITS PANT-PAN31), Ebonyi State (EXHIBITS PAQ1-PAQ12); FORM EC8Cs for Cross River State (EXHIBITS PATI-PAT18), Ebonyi State (EXHIBITS PAUL-PAU10), Rivers State (EXHIBITS PBAI-PBA23) Sokoto State (EXHIBITS PBB1-PBB23); and Delta State (EXHIBITS PBD1-PBD25); Form EC4OG (PU) for Edo State (EXHIBITS PBM1-PBM23); I-REV Report for Edo State (EXHIBITS PBW1-PBW17); as well as Supplementary I-REV Report for Cross River State (EXHIBITS PCH37-PCH39); List of Registered Voters and PVCs collected for 2023 General Elections with respect to Local Government Areas in Ogun State (EXHIBIT PCN5), Akwa – Ibom State (EXHIBIT PCN6), Kebbi State (EXHIBIT PCN 7), Kogi State (EXHIBIT PCN 9), Cross River State (EXHIBIT PCN 10), Enugu State (EXHIBIT PCN 11), Sokoto State (EXHIBIT PCN 12), Ebonyi State (EXHIBIT PCN 16), Nasarawa State (EXHIBIT PCN 17), Delta State (EXHIBIT PCN 18), Anambra State (EXHIBIT PCN 22), Jigawa State (EXHIBIT PCN 25), Edo State (EXHIBIT PCN 27) and Abia State (EXHIBIT PCN 29).
“We also refer to Exhibits PCE-PCE4, which claims to be evidence of specific eighteen thousand and eighty-eight (18,088) polling units in which the petitioners alleged that their votes were suppressed, as per paragraph 60 of the petition due to alleged failure to transmit polling units’ results. We submit that the specific polling units of which these purported 18,088 result belong, ought to have been specifically set out in the pleading. Therefore, failure to set out these polling units renders the said documents inadmissible.
“Also relying on the plethora of judicial authorities, including paragraphs 4(5) and 41(8) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022, I.N.E.C. v. Ray (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 892) 92 @ 136, Ekere v. Emmanuel (2022) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1841) 339 @ 358, we further submit that having failed to specifically list these documents or accompany their petition with same, they stand inadmissible, and we urge the court to so hold. CONCLUSION On the whole, we urge this Honourable Court to uphold our objection and reject the documents affected.”
The response by Tinubu/Shettima was dated July 14, 2023, and signed by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, Yusuf Ali, SAN, and 72 other lawyers. Read more.
—