Since Tuesday, May 30, the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (PEPT) has been hearing petitions challenging the victory of President Bola Tinubu (All Progressives Congress) in the February 25 presidential election.

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Atiku Abubakar; the Labour Party and its candidate, Peter Obi; and the Allied Peoples’ Movement (APM) are the petitioners.

On the other hand, the first to fourth respondents include the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Tinubu, Vice-President Kashim Shettima, and the APC.

According to results declared by INEC, Tinubu, 71, got 8,794,726 votes, 76-year-old Atiku polled 6,984,520 votes and Obi, 61, finished the race with 6,101,533.

This was the first presidential election to deploy the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) — an electronic system for accrediting voters before voting and transmitting results to the INEC server — as well as the INEC Results Viewing Portal (IReV).

Channels Television correspondents Emmanuela Ekele, Friday Okeregbe, and Lucky Obewo-Isawode provide all the latest developments.

4:47 pm: The court adjourns till Tuesday, June 13 for further hearing.

4:31 pm: The court admits the evidence and reserves ruling on the objections till judgement day.

4:27 pm: All of the respondents’ counsel object to the admissibility of the documents.

4:22 pm: The petitioner continues with the tendering of evidence, this time certified true copies of INEC documents Forms (EC40Gs) from six LGAs in Benue State.

4:12 pm: Members of counsel to Tinubu and the APC ask the witness to affirm that the INEC Chairman and Mr Festus Okoye — video clips of whom were played — are still alive. The witness answers in the affirmative.

In the absence of further questions, the witness is discharged.

4:05 pm: Having played the video evidence, the respondents now cross-examine the witness. The counsel to INEC tells the court that he has no questions for the witness.

3:59 pm: Also played in court is the News at 10 bulletin, which shows Tinubu announcing his running mate in Daura.

3:26 pm: The video evidence is on one of the series of consultative meetings with political parties before the elections.

3:25 pm: The video of the INEC Chairman’s pre-election news conference is now being played.

3:21 pm: The petitioner has now called the first subpoenaed witness (Channels TV, represented by Mr Lucky Obewo-Isawode).

The witness was subpoenaed to tender a video evidence of one of the INEC Chairman’s pre-election news conferences which aired on Channels TV.

The petitioner has also applied to the court for the video evidence to be played.

3:10 pm: Before the petitioner (Peter Obi) proceeds with calling his witnesses, the court gives judgement on an earlier application by the petitioner on May 22, ruling that the application be struck out as it was not filed within the required time frame.

2:29 pm: The petitioner is expected to continue with the presentation of evidence as well as call up more witnesses today.

Yesterday, the court was unable to play a piece of video evidence tendered by the petitioner, as the respondents objected to it. When the court finally took a position on the matter, it was too late for the court to play the video evidence.

The court then adjourned till today, when the video evidence will be played.

2:24 pm: The tribunal returns from recess to resume Peter Obi’s petition hearing. The petitioner is physically present in court, while the respondents are represented by their counsels.

12:44 pm: The court has again adjourned hearing on the Atiku vs INEC, Tinubu and the APC till Tuesday, June 13, to enable it to take an hour’s break. When it reconvenes, the court will entertain the case of Peter Obi Vs INEC, Tinubu/Shettima and the APC

12:20 pm: Upon cross-examination by the lead counsel to the second respondent (Tinubu), the witness confirms to the court that she was unable to transmit results she captured with the BVAS machine.

She also tells the court that INEC ad hoc officers were told that the BVAS device could do offline transmission of results, but she does not know how that works.

11:58 am: The petitioner (Atiku) calls a second witness, Sadiya Haruna, a former ad hoc staff member of INEC. She is also a subpoenaed witness from Taraba State.

The respondents also object to the admissibility of the witness statement on oath, as well as her competence to testify, just as they object to other witnesses subpoenaed by the court

The court however advises same, reserving ruling on the objections till the judgement day.

11:44 am: Under cross-examination, the witness tells the court that apart from the BVAS machine failing to upload results, every other aspect of the election was successful.

The witness also says the results she entered into the Form ECA8 were the accurate results from the polls, which she forwarded to the ward collation centre after snapping a photo of the results with the BVAS machine.

Asked if she is aware that once a picture is snapped, the machine stores it, the witness says yes.

Asked if she is aware that once sent, and the image fails to send, it remains pending, the witness tells the court that she was not able to log into the portal to send the result.

11:07 am: The court however advises that the witness’ statement on oath be admitted, while it reserves ruling on the objections till judgement day.

11:01 am: After announcing their presence, the petitioner’s counsel informs the court that he intends to call a subpoenaed witness as the first on his list for the day.

The witness, one Alheri Ayuba, who is a resident of the FCT, a former NYSC member, and an ad hoc staff member of INEC in the February presidential election.

However, the counsel to the second respondent objects to the competence of the witness to testify in the court as she was not in the list of witnesses the petitioner gave to the court.

Both the first and third respondents also align with the second respondent.

Saturday, June 10, 2023

10:36 am: The Tribunal begins the day’s proceedings with the case of Atiku Abubakar vs INEC, Tinubu, and the APC. The PDP Deputy Legal Adviser represents the petitioner (Atiku), while the first to fourth respondents (INEC, Tinubu, Shettima, and APC) are represented by their counsels.

The matter Is for hearing, and the petitioner intends to continue with the tendering of evidences as well as call additional witnesses. The petitioner as at yesterday Friday June 9, had called 16 witnesses to testify in court.

5:26 pm: Counsel to Tinubu submits that having not served him before the proceedings of today, the court should not admit it.

The court however overrules the objection that not being served should not stop the court from admitting the document (flash drive)

5:23 pm: Counsel to Tinubu again raises an objection to the submission of the flash drive, as it was not served on him before the day’s proceedings.

5:20 pm: The witness tenders a flash drive, which he says contains the requested visuals of news conferences by INEC aired on Channels TV.

5:17 pm: The court reserves ruling on the objections till judgement day and asks the petitioner to continue with his examination of the witness.

5:07 pm: Counsel to Obi posits that objecting to the witness statement on oath is like deliberately trying to dodge the consequences of their actions at the polls, by trying to deny the court from viewing the video that ought to be presented by the witness.

4:47 pm: Counsel to Peter Obi maintains that the witness is most competent to testify and urges the court to rule against the objections.

4:34 pm: In a similar vein, the counsel to INEC aligns with the objection raised by the counsel to the second respondent, Tinubu.

They pray for the court to uphold their objections.

4:23 pm: The subpoenaed witness is Channels TV represented by Lucky Obewo-Isawode

Meanwhile, counsel to Tinubu objects to the tendering of the statement on oath of the subpoenaed witness.

He argued that based on the provisions of the Electoral Act, a petition should be filed within 21 days and the documents that will accompany be filed within the same time period.

He informs the court that the witness statement was filed today, and served on them three months after the declaration of results.

He also notes that the witness was never listed in the petitioner’s witness lists submitted to the court, and as such the witness is not a competent witness to testify in this court.

4:04 pm: The tribunal has resumed from its recess and is ready to take the case of Peter Obi vs INEC, Tinubu/Shettima and the APC.

The petitioner is continuing with the tendering of evidence in form of INEC certified documents and witnesses.

Unlike other previous proceedings, the courtroom this afternoon has two giant TV sets, stationed on both sides of the hall.

Levi Uzoukwu leads a team of counsels for the petitioner, while Akin Olujimi leads the legal team representing President Tinubu and the APC

After announcing their presence in court, the counsel to the petitioner informs the court that he is beginning by calling a witness which was subpoenaed. He also informs the court that the testimony will require a team of ICT experts as it involves the use of a recorded material.

12:27 pm: Again, the counsel to the APM applies for adjournment, saying they still have not been able to access the Supreme Court judgement which led to the adjournment last week.

The respondents are not opposed to the application, and the court grants the request, adjourning till Monday, June 19 for further hearing

12:15 pm: The petition of the Allied Peoples’ Movement (APM) challenging Tinubu’s victory is the next to be entertained by the court.

When the court sat last Friday, counsel for the petitioner, Yakubu Maikasuwa, SAN, informed the court that though the previous adjournment was to enable parties to obtain a copy of the Supreme Court judgement on a similar matter, the parties had yet to access the Supreme court judgement.

The lawyer therefore prayed the court for an adjournment till Friday (today) to enable parties to access the judgement and take appropriate decisions.

APM is challenging Tinubu’s electoral victory on the ground of an alleged double nomination of his running mate, Kashim Shettima.

11:54 am: In all, the PDP has called up three additional witnesses, as the lead counsel appeals to the justices for an adjournment continuation till Saturday, as Monday is a public holiday.

The application is granted and counsels to the respondents have no objection. The court has adjourned the petition till 10 am tomorrow, Saturday, June 10 for continuation of hearing

11:48 am: The witness also tells the court that her first contact with the BVAS machine was after her appointment as a presiding officer for INEC.

11:40 am: Under cross-examination, the witness tells the court she arrived at her duty post at 10 am on the day of election, and voting did not start immediately.

She also affirms that the voter accreditation process, voting, sorting and counting of votes went very well at her unit.

She however says she was unable to upload the results after she had successfully entered the figures manually on the Forms ECA8, which was duly signed by herself and the party agents.

11:12 am: The third witness is Obosa Edosa, also an ad hoc staff member of INEC during the presidential election. She served as a presiding officer in Edo State.

10:54 am: The second witness is one Abidemi Abidemi, who is a resident of Suleja Niger State and was an INEC ad hoc staff member.

Under cross-examination, the witness tells the court that everything went smoothly at her polling unit during the elections, and that she personally entered the scores on the Forms ECA8, and party agents signed the forms.

She also tells the court that it was part of her training that unless party agents signed, they should not be given the duplicate copies of the Forms ECA8.

10:04 am: Under cross-examination by the counsel to INEC, the witness says accreditation, voting and the signing of the results by her and the party agents all went well, but the upload of results could not go through.

9:58 am: The petitioner calls his first witness, one Grace Ajagponna, a resident of Kogi State. She is a former National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) member. She was engaged by INEC as a polling unit election officer in the presidential election.

9:40 am: Before the day’s proceedings commences, the President of the Court of Appeal walks into the courtroom and exchanges pleasantries with some of the senior lawyers and leaves.

Friday, June 9, 2023

9:33 am: PDP Deputy Legal Adviser and the APC Deputy Director, Legal Services are representing the petitioner and the third respondent (APC).

Chris Uche (SAN) is leading the Atiku legal team, while Akin Olumuji (SAN) leads the Bola Tinubu/APC legal team.

The day’s proceedings opens with the continuation of the hearing in the case of Atiku Abubakar vs INEC, Tinubu and the APC. The petitioner is expected to present more witnesses in the matter.

2:03 pm: The court is set to resume hearing of the petitions filed by Labour Party and Peter Obi challenging the election of Tinubu.

11:15 am: The court adjourns hearing of PDP’s petition till tomorrow, following objections by the counsel to INEC, Tinubu and APC who requested some time to study the statements of witnesses to be called by the counsel to the petitioners, Chris Uche.

10:54 am: Counsel to INEC, Abubakar Mahmoud, objects to the calling of witnesses whose statements have not been presented to the court, saying he needs time to go through the statements.

10:16 am: The witness in his testimony claims he signed the Form EC8A, when he realised that without doing so, he would not be given a copy of the result sheet.

10:12 am: Ndubuisi Nwobu, the Chairman of PDP Anambra State, steps into the witness box.

10:09 am: Counsel to the petitioners informs the court that despite paying N6,690,000, INEC is asking them to get the remnants of documents needed from their state offices. He promised to get the documents before Friday.

He therefore asked the court for permission to proceed with the calling of their first witness for the day.

9:57 am: Addressing the court, the petitioner’s (Atiku’s) counsel, Chris Uche, tenders certified true copies of INEC election results from 10 LGAs in Kogi State which are available to them.

He also Informs the court that he will tender other documents of the first respondent (INEC) as well as other official witnesses he has subpoenaed.

Counsel to the first respondent (INEC) registers his objection to the admissibility of the documents but promised to give reason when addressing the court. The counsel to the second and third respondents give the same response.

The court subsequently admits the documents.

Wednesday, June 7, 2023

9:28 am: The court resumes sitting with the hearing of the petition by PDP and Atiku.

2:57 pm: The matter is the continuation of hearing, and the petitioner (Obi) is expected to tender more INEC forms. The counsel informs the court that he has Forms EC8B — INEC nomination forms — to tender

He begins with those from 21 LGAs in Adamawa State.

2:27 pm: The tribunal has resumed from the noon break and is set to entertain further hearing in the case of Peter Obi vs INEC, Tinubu/Shettima and the APC.

The petitioner, Peter Obi, Is physically in court.

10:13 am: In the absence of any objections, the petitioner presents to the court the Form ECA8 from 10 LGAs in Kogi State, to be admitted as evidence to prove his case.

Upon tendering the ECA8, the respondents object to it and promise to give reasons when they address the court.

9:44 am: Addressing the court, the petitioner’s counsel says he intends to tender certified true copies of the INEC election results that are available to them.

He also Informs the court that he will tender other documents of the first respondent (INEC) as well as other official witnesses he has subpoenaed.

In his response, the lead counsel to the first respondent (INEC) tells the court that he has no objection to the petitioner’s requests.

The response is the same from the counsel to the second, third and forth respondents: they have no objection to the petitioner’s requests.

Tuesday, June 6, 2023

9:27 am: Eyitayo Jegede (SAN) leads the team of other senior advocates for Atiku Abubakar (petitioner) as the tribunal resumes hearing on the case between Atiku Abubakar VS INEC, Bola Tinubu/Shettima and the APC on Tuesday.

The petitioner Is not in court, but he is represented by his legal team.

Wole Olanipekun leads the legal team of other senior advocates for the second respondent (Bola Tinubu).

When the case came up yesterday, the petitioner called up four witnesses to prove his case. Those four witnesses brought the total number of witnesses called so far by the petitioner to 10.

Today’s proceedings is expected to continue in this stead.

5:34 pm: Tribunal adjourns till Tuesday, June 6 to continue with hearing of the matter of Obi vs Tinubu and others, after the petitioner tenders more evidence from eight states.

3:20 pm: The petitioner begins the tendering of further evidence — certified true copies of INEC results — with that of Ebonyi State. The state has 13 LGAs.

The first to fourth respondents are opposed to this evidence, as in the case with all previous evidence tendered.

2:21 pm: The tribunal is set to take the case of the Labour Party and its presidential candidate Peter Obi vs INEC, Tinubu, Shettima and the APC.

At the last sitting on Friday, the Labour Party presented evidence (certified true copies of INEC results from states). Obi is physically present. The petition is expected to continue with the tendering of evidence at this sitting.

Members of the counsel announce their presence.

12:31 pm: The court has adjourned hearing on this petition till Tuesday, June 6 for continuation of hearing.

The court proceeds on recess to reconvene at 2 pm for hearing of other cases.

12:29 pm: The witness affirms to the court that the results sheet was mutilated after he signed the document.

12:04 pm: The witness tells the court that he signed the results under duress to secure a copy of the results sheet, even though he did not state this in his statement on oath.

11:58 am: The witness tells the court that the BVAS failed at the point when results were to be uploaded.

11:55 am: The fourth witness is one Ibrahim Mohammed Hamza, a resident of Lafia, Nasarawa State.

Shown a copy of the INEC results from Nasarawa state, the witness identifies his signature on the document, but the results sheet he signed during the exercise did not have cancellations like the one presented to him now.

11:19 am: A third witness for the day is Mr Abraham David, also a resident of the FCT.

The witness agrees that Atiku did not score 25 percent of votes in the FCT. He however insists that Atiku is entitled to be returned as the winner of that election, even though he did not score the 25 percent in the FCT.

10:48 am: Under cross-examination, the defense counsel asks the witness if it is his opinion that a winner must score 25 percent of the votes in the FCT, and he says no

He tells the court that his candidate Atiku Abubakar did not score 25 percent of votes in the FCT. Asked if by that calculation, Atiku qualifies to be returned as the winner of the election, the witness answers in the negative.

10:37 am: The second witness for the day is one Alhaji Mohammed Madaki, the current Chairman of the PDP in the FCT. As in the case with the previous witness, the prosecuting counsel calls for the results sheet of the presidential election in the FCT, which the witness Identifies.

10:25 am: The witness tells the court that he was not the one who signed the results sheet.

10:06 am: Under further cross-examination by counsel to the respondents, the witness tells the court he voted during the presidential election in Rivers State, and waited for about 10 minutes before leaving the polling units, but came back to the unit during the counting.

He says the results sheet was filled and signed by the PDP party agent in the unit. He also says he visited other polling units, about 20 of them, and that the polling units did not upload their results. He asserts that the same thing happened in other units in the state.

9:57 am: Under cross-examination, the petitioner’s counsel calls for the results from Rivers State as declared by INEC. The document is presented to the witness to identify if it contained the same results declared by INEC on the day of election, to which the witness answers in the affirmative.

9:53 am: The witness presented to the tribunal his letter of appointment by the PDP to serve as the Rivers State collation officer for the party. The letter is adopted by the court, as counsels raised no objection to it.

Monday, June 5, 2023

9:28 am: The Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Abuja resumes its hearing in the case of the presidential candidate of the PDP and Atiku Abubakar vs INEC, Bola Tinubu/Shettima and the APC.

The first and third respondents — INEC and the APC — are physically represented in court. While the APC is represented by its Director of Legal Services, INEC is represented by National Commissioner May Agbamuche.

Lawyers to both parties announce their presence.

On Friday, the PDP presented three additional witnesses, who were cross-examined by the counsel to the respondents before the matter was adjourned to today.

The hearing for today continues with witnesses presentation. The petitioner says he has four more witnesses to call. He already called 6 witnesses in previous sitting.

The first witness for the day is one doctor Abiye Sekibo of Rivers State, a medical doctor and a businessman.

5:10 pm: Under cross-examination, the witness says he visited most polling units, but was not present at all the 2,964 polling units in the state.

4:53 pm: A third witness is called by the petitioner. He is one Mr Silas Joseph Onu, a legal practitioner who was the PDP state collation agent for Ebonyi State.

4:42 pm: The witness also tells the court that results were changed at the ward collation centres. Asked further if he indicates the results he feels are the actual scores from the field in his witness statement, he says no.

4:26 pm: The second witness called is one Mr Nicholas Msheliza. He tells the court he is a businessman and a politician. He was the PDP Borno State collation officer.

Under cross-examination, the witness confirms to the court that agents of the PDP at polling units performed their jobs “very well” — where they were allowed to do so

4:21 pm: The witness also confirms to the court the results from Niger State as announced by INEC, which he insists he refused to sign to.

However, when asked if he stated the figures he claims were scored by his party at the election, the witness says no.

3:55 pm: Under cross-examination, the witness says he is a registered voter, and he voted during the presidential election. Asked if he is familiar with the process, the witness answers in the affirmative.

The witness also confirms to the court that the PDP has polling agents in all the polling units, who performed their jobs as expected.

3:47 pm: The first witness tells the court he is a former member of the House of Representatives and a businessman. He is a state collation officer for Niger State in the February 25 presidential election.

3:45 pm: The matter is the continuation of hearing of the petitioner (PDP)’s case.

Lead counsel to the petitioner, Chris Uche (SAN), says he has three witnesses to call. The petitioner calls his first witness, one Hon. Sani Idris Kutigi.

3:26 pm: The tribunal resumes from recess.

Now, it will entertain the petition of the PDP candidate, Atiku ABUBAKAR vs INEC, Tinubu and the APC.

12:26 pm: The counsel of both parties request that the matter be adjourned to Monday, June the 5^th. The court obliges the request and adjourns hearing to Monday, June 5, 2023.

The court goes on recess till 3 pm when it will reconvene to continue with the case of the PDP and Atiku vs Tinubu, APC, and INEC.

12:13 pm: Having presented evidences from states, Peter Afuba (SAN) who is one of the Counsel to the petitioner, applied that all the certified true copies of Election results, tendered as evidence in the court be taken as read.

Again, The Counsels to the first, second, thirds and fourth respondents refuse to give their consent,in view of their previous objections to the admissibility of the documents.

11:42 am: Additional evidence tendered by the petitioner are from 8 LGAs in Bayelsa, 31 LGAs in Oyo, and 18 LGAs in Edo.

The Labour Party is also presenting further evidences from 20 LGAs in Lagos state, where they argue that their votes were under counted

The affected 20 LGAs include Apapa, Lagos Island, Lagos mainland, Ikorodu, Amuwo Odofin, Ibeju lekki, Ikeja, Ifako- Ijaye, Kosofe, and Oshodi-Isolo

11:29 am: Tribunal admits results from Kogi, Rivers, Niger, Adamawa, Oyo, Bayelsa and Edo states, tendered by the Labour Party.

10:34 am: Apart from evidence from Rivers and Kogi states, the petitioner is also presenting additional certified true copies of election results from Bida LGA of Niger State, and 21 LGAs in Adamawa State.

10:20 am: It’s the turn of the LP, Peter Obi vs APC, Tinubu, Shettima.

Lead counsel to Obi informs the court that he has a schedule of more evidence which they desire to render before the court.

The counsel is continuing with evidence (election results) from Rivers and Kogi states. He presents certified true copies of INEC elections results from six LGAs in Rivers State as evidence.

Again, counsel to the first, second and third respondents object to the admissibility of the evidences.

However, the court has admitted the documents as evidence, while awaiting the arguments of the respondents who are opposed to the admissibility of the documents.

Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi and National Chairman Julius Abure appear in court for the presidential election petitions tribunal on Friday, June 2, 2023

10:20 am: However, the court has admitted the documents as evidences, while awaiting the arguments of the respondents who are opposed to the admissibility of the documents

10:01 am: The day’s proceedings, presided over by Justice Haruna Tsammani, commences with the petition of the Allied Peoples’ Movement (APM) vs INEC, APC, and President Bola Tinubu.

The APM, in its petition, contends that the withdrawal of Ibrahim Masari, who was initially nominated as the vice presidential candidate of the APC invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy in view of Section 131© and 142 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

But the tribunal adjourned at the last sitting, to enable parties obtain copies of the judgement in a similar matter between the PDP and APC, Tinubu, which the respondents in this matter say have been thoroughly dealt with.

The matter Is again adjourned to next week Friday, June 9, on the ground that the counsel has not been able to obtain copies of the Supreme Court judgement referred to here.

Friday, June 2, 2023

9:26 am: LP presidential candidate Peter Obi and National Chairman, Julius Abure, arrive in court.

At Thursday’s proceeding, the candidate tendered results from 115 local government areas (LGAs) as part of his evidence to back his claims, but the respondents opposed the evidence tendered by the Labour Party candidate. (Channels TV)