The All Progressive Congress (APC) has challenged the Labour Party (LP) presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Gregory Obi, that he lacks enough evidence to support his claims in the petition filed at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC).
This was contained in the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the 4th respondent’s reply on Points of Law to the petitioners’ address in response to 4th Respondent’s objection to the admissibility of the petitioners’ documents (exhibits) tendered in evidence from the bar as well as the evidence of Petitioner’s Witnesses in the Court of Appeal holden at Abuja in the matter of the election to the office of the President held on February 25th. 2023.
The case, marked petition no: CA/PEPC/03/2023, was between Mr. Peter Gregory Obi of the Labour Party, as the Petitioners, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Senator Ahmed Bola Tinubu, Senator Shettima Kashim and the All Progressive Congress, as the Respondents.
In its argument, APC claimed that Peter Obi submitted his petition in complete and utter lack of evidence and asked the Court to deal with the acute dearth of evidence before it in proof of the petition.
It further contended that the petitioners’ documents (exhibits) tendered in evidence from the bar as well as the evidence served by the Petitioners to the court does not support its objective, hence, not admissible.
Furthermore, according to APC, Peter Obi failed to call the maker of the public document to come to court and testify on the contents of the document thereby laying the proper foundation for it to be admissible in evidence.
It also kicked against the notion that it failed to specifically point at the exact documents which were improperly certified, saying:
“We submit that a cursory look at the 4th Respondent’s Argument shows that reference was clearly made to the documents listed thereby leaving no one in doubt as to the contested Exhibits. The petitioners’ line of argument is thus, misleading and without substance.
“We submit further that the decision of REGENCY (OVERSEAS) CO LTD VS ARIORI & ORS (2019) heavily relied on by the Petitioners to justify their argument against the 4th Respondent’s submission on the impropriety of the certification of the contested documents is most inapplicable to the instant case.
“This is because in that case the Respondent, in the course of the trial, was able to get the documents so tendered therein properly certified and brought same into conformity with the provision of the Evidence Act. This is not the situation in this case. The record of this Honourable court shows no attempt was made by the Petitioners to rectify the improper certification of the contested documents.”
APC, therefore, urged the Court to discountenance the petitioner’s submission and reliance on the said case, which is unhelpful to them in the circumstance of this case.
It also claimed that the certificate of compliance tendered in respect of “Exhibit PGC2” does not emanate from the person who allegedly produced the said Exhibit and urge the Court to discountenance same for being grossly inapplicable in the petition.
It continued:
Contrary to paragraphs 2.13-2.17 of the petitioners’ written address, the general provision of the practice directions on front loading of witness statement on oath only contemplates willing and voluntary witnesses and not one who has to be compelled by an order of court to testify by way of a subpoena.
It is not logical therefore that a party should prepare witness statement on oath for person(s) who do not have any interest in the petition. Expecting such a witness to depose, sign and adopt the witness statement on oath is beyond human reasoning. It is akin to compelling the doing of the impossible.
What is decipherable or deducible from the above is that a subpoena is only issued on an adversary or unwilling witness to compel him to attend court. This is not the case in this petition, where PW4 and PW7 are petitioners’ party members, workmen or consultants.
Therefore, securing the attendance of such witnesses who would be much willing to present their purported reports in court through subpoena, is most incongruous and an abuse of court process.
We submit contrary to the Petitioners’ argument in paragraph 2.18-2.19 of their written address that the requirement of admissibility of opinion evidence is that same must come from an expert. An expert was defined by section 68 of the Evidence Act to be a person specially skilled in the area on which evidence is given and this cannot be established before a court of law, except by production of qualification of such expert.
It is therefore, preposterous, for the petitioners to argue that the provisions of Section 68 of the Evidence Act does not impeach the evidence of PW7 who, although claimed to be an expert, did not produce her qualification(s) before this Honourable court.
In response to the Petitioners’ argument in paragraph 2.20 of their Written Address, we submit that in as much as documents tendered are meant to assist the court in doing justice, such should not be done in utter disregard to the position of the law. Documents which do not meet the requirement of the law while being tendered cannot be admitted under the auspices of doing justice.
Interest of justice connotes such interests, aspirations and or attempts t0 achieve justice in a given case or situation. The whole goal is the achievement of justice. Justice is fair and proper administration of laws, whereas anything done in the interest of justice is done in pursuance of fairness to all parties in a case without compromising the principles of the law and evidence under consideration which, as of right entitles the successful party to judgment.
That is why justice is said to be a three-way-traffic. justice to the Petitioners: justice to the Respondents: and justice to the court itself. The last one, requires that parties to a legal tussle or their legal representatives should always come to court with an open mind, sincerity of purpose, diligent and coherent with unwavering confidence that the court will at the end, deliver justice according to law and not according to sentiment as being argued by the petitioners herein.
We, therefore, submit that “Exhibit X2” having not been obtained from, and certified by the proper custodian of the document, the European Union itself, cannot be admissible. This Honourable Court is urged to discountenance the Petitioners argument in that respect, as same has no legal basis, but an attempt to appeal to the sentiment which has no place in law. This Honourable court is not a court of sentiment or a philanthropist which grants prayers/claim as the parties want, but a court of facts and law which grants claims that have been proven.
In conclusion, APC urged the court to discountenance the misconceived submissions of the Petitioners and uphold its objections in its entirety.
In its Reply Address in reaction to Petitioners’ final written address filed on 23rd day of July, 2023 but served on 24th day of July, 2023, APC made similar submissions as contained in the reply on Points of Law to the petitioners’ address and reached the following conclusion:
“We submit that there is no evidence before the Court showing that the petitioners won the election under reference. The Supreme Court in Buhari v. lNEC (2008) held that: “The Court of Appeal cannot collect evidence from the market overt, for example from the Balogun market, Lagos; Dugbe market, Ibadan; Main Market, Jos; Central market, Kaduna; Central market (former Gwari market), Minna; Wuse market, Abuja.
“On the contrary, the Court of Appeal, has to wait for evidence, as the court did, in the court building duly constituted as a court qua adjudicatory body. Courts of law being legal and sacred institu dons do not go on a frolic or a journey to collect inculpatory or exculpatory evidence. On the contrary, they deal with evidence before them which are procedurally built on arid legalism.”
“Here, in the complete and utter lack of evidence submitted in denouement that this Honourable Court, being a sacred institution, has no other choice but to deal with the acute dearth of evidence before it in proof of this petition. This s exactly what substantial justice demands.”
—