The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) yesterday mounted tomorrow for listening to of an software by the Peoples Democratic Celebration (PDP) and its candidate within the final presidential election, Atiku Abubakar for permission to examine the server with which the Unbiased Nationwide Electoral Fee (INEC) allegedly transmit the election outcomes electronically.
Of their petition earlier than the tribunal, the PDP and Atiku are claiming that they gained the February 23 presidential election as per the outcomes fed into INEC’s server, a declare the electoral umpire has constantly faulted.
Tribunal’s Chairman, Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, mentioned the PEPT can even, tomorrow, hear the petitioners’ different software for extension of time to regularise one among their processes.
At yesterdays sitting, the tribunal heard about 11 purposes filed by the respondents; 4 by the first respondent (INEC), three by the second respondent (President Muhammadu Buhari) and three by the third respondent – the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The primary INEC’s software moved by its lawyer, Yunus Usman (SAN), was that in search of the dismissal of the petition for being faulty, the petitioners have failed to incorporate the Vice President, Yemi Osinbjo as a celebration.
Usman argued that because the ticket is a joint one, with Osinbajo not resistant to regardless of the final result of the petitions could be, it was improper for the petitioners to not have included him as a celebration.
The second software prayed the court docket to strike out some parts of the petition for being faulty.
Usman additionally moved the third software filed on April 24, during which he prayed the tribunal to amongst others, strike out the petitioners’ reply to INEC’s reply to the petition.
He, nevertheless, withdrew the fourth one, which he mentioned was filed in error.
Lawyer to the petitioners, Livy Uzoukwu (SAN), adopted the counter affidavits and different processes he filed in opposition to the three purposes by INEC.
Uzoukwu prayed the court docket to dismiss the purposes for being incompetent.
Lawyer to the 2nd respondent, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), moved there purposes he filed for his shopper, and prayed the court docket to grant his prayers.
The primary software moved by Olanipekun was the one during which the 2nd respondent prayed the court docket for go away to amend his response to the petition by together with the lawyer’s deal with for service.
The second software is praying the tribunal to amongst others, strike out ordismiss your complete petition for being incurably faulty and vesting no jurisdiction on the court docket.
Within the various, the appliance seeks the hanging out of some itemised paragraphs of the petition.
The third petition moved by Olanipekun prayed the tribunal to strike out 18 paragraphs of the petitioners’ reply to the 2nd respondent’s reply.
Uzoukwu recognized and moved the processes he filed in opposition to the purposes earlier argued by Olanipekun and urged the tribunal to reject them.
Lawyer to the third respondent (APC), Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) additionally moved three purposes.
Fagbemi withdrew the primary one filed on Might 14, during which he sought the hanging out of some paragraphs of the petition, following which the tribunal struck it out.
Transferring the second software filed on Might 15, Fagbemi famous that the petitioners didn't file any counter-affidavit in opposition to the appliance. He urged the tribunal to carry that his software was not opposed.
Responding, Uzoukwu mentioned his shopper selected to file a preliminary objection to question the competence of the appliance, which he argued, was just like the one Fagbemi withdrew.
Ruling, Justice Garba famous that the third respondent’s software filed on Might 15 was served on the petitioners, to which they filed a preliminary objection on Might 20.
The tribunal chairman mentioned it was the selection of the petitioners to not additionally file a counter to the appliance, and famous that the time for them to take action has handed.
He identified that, whereas his software was filed on Might 15 however that the counter-affidavit filed by the petitioners is dated April 24, 2019.
“There is no such thing as a software with that date that we filed. We assumed that there isn't a counter affidavit to our software”, he mentioned.
However, shortly after, Akin Olujinmi (SAN), who took over when Fagbemi stepped out briefly, famous that the identical error in date, which Uzoukwu alter with the permission of the tribunal, was additionally repeated within the physique of the appliance.
At that time, Justice Garba mentioned what the tribunal allowed Uzoukwu to amend because the heading of his counter-affidavit, and nothing extra.
Justice Garba mentioned rulings could be delivered in all of the purposes heard at dates to be communicated to attorneys within the case.
He adjourned the petitioners’ purposes for the listening to until tomorrow. (The Nation)