Tunde Oyesina 
Presidential Candidates of the People’s Democratic Party(PDP), Atiku Abubakar and that of Labour Party, Peter Obi yesterday in separate submission told the Presidential Election Petition Court(PEPC) sitting in Abuja that they will be calling a total of 150 witnesses to challenge the election of the President-Elect, Bola Tinubu. Out of the 150 witnesses, lead counsel to Atiku, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, said his client will be calling 100 witnesses while counsel to Obi, Dr. Awa Kalu, said his own client will call 50 witnesses . Both Atiku and Obi are separately challenging the February 25 general election wherein the Independent and National Electoral Commission, (INEC) declared Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress(APC) as winner. At the continuation of the pre-hearing session yesterday, Atiku told the court that among those he has lined up to testify in the matter, would include expert witnesses and those he would ask the court to compel to mount the witness box.
He added that he would need three weeks to present his case. “We may not even exhaust the three weeks because the issues are getting narrower”, Atiku’s lawyer, Uche SAN, added. However, Obi on his own, said he would need seven weeks to present his case against Tinubu. According to Awa Kalu: “We seek to use our seven weeks to present our case because of the order of the tribunal directing us to carry out forensic examination of BVAS. “We have agreed that the witnesses classified as star will need 30mins to demonstrate any electronic evidence, excluding the time for demonstration of video evidence. “Parties agreed that the class of witnesses may cross examine for 20minutes each. Five minutes for re-examination , if any .
“In respect of other witnesses, 10minutes for evidence in chief, 10 minutes for cross examination, five minutes for any re-examination. “In respect of the respondents- star witness – 20 minutes for evidence-in-chief, 30 minutes for cross examination and five minutes for re-examination. “In respect of other witnesses, who are not star witness, 10minutes for examination-in- chief , 10minutes for cross examination and five minutes for re-examination”. He, however, applied for a slight modification to the effect that if any respondent calls a witness and another respondent wants to cross examine the same witness, they should do so before the petitioner. In his own submission, lead counsel to INEC, A.B Mahmoud, SAN, told the court that it would only call two witnesses and would only need two days to defend Tinubu’s election.
Tinubu’s lead counsel at the proceedings, Roland Otaru, SAN, further disclosed that his client would call 39 witnesses to defend his election and would need nine days to do so. On its part, the APC, through its counsel, ,Solomon Umoh, SAN, said it would also need two days to call 25 witnesses before the court. Meanwhile, the Court has disclosed its intention to consolidate the three different petitions that are seeking to nullify the outcome of the 2023 presidential election. Consequently, the court noted that it was empowered by Paragraph 50 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, to merge all the petitions and determine them together. However, lead counsel to Atiku pleaded for time to consult his client on the issue. “My lords, we will not say that we have not looked at it but perhaps, it may require consultation with the other petitioners.
“We, therefore, ask for a stand down or an adjournment, so that we can explore the modalities since this is like a marriage which is a union between two consenting adults,” Uche, SAN, added. On its part, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, threw its weight behind the planned consolidation of the petitions. “My lords, my personal conviction is that the provision is mandatory. It clearly stated that if there are two petitions or more that are filed to nullify the same election or return, it must be consolidated, unless the court directs otherwise. “We are happy with the provision of the law and we are also happy with whatever position your lordships will take with respect to this matter,” INEC’s lead counsel, Abubakar Mahmood, SAN, told the court. However, Roland Otaru, SAN, for Tinubu and the Vice President-elect, Senator Kashim Shettima, said he would need time to consult.
“My lords, I will need to consult Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, who is the lead counsel in this matter,” he pleaded. Also, counsel to APC , Umoh, also pleaded for time to consult his client. The Justice Haruna Tsam- mani-led five-member panel subsequently adjourned till Monday for the parties to report the outcome of their consultations on the issue of consolidation of all the petitions. In a related development, the Court has banned bringing in of phones and other electronic gadgets into the courtroom with effect from Monday. Addressing the court, the secretary of PEPC said that the directive is from above and that from Monday, no- body will be allowed to take phone into the court. It would be recalled that INEC had on March 1, announced Tinubu of the APC as winner of the presidential poll, ahead of 17 other candidates that contested the election.
It declared that Tinubu scored a total of 8,794,726 votes to defeat the two major contenders, Atiku of the PDP, who came second with a total of 6,984,520 votes and Mr. Peter Obi of the Labour Party, LP, who came third with a total of 6,101,533 votes. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the election, both Atiku and Obi, while separately claiming that they won the contest, lodged petitions before the court. They maintained that Tinubu was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election. Aside from praying the court to disqualify the President-elect on the basis of his alleged indictment in the United States of America, USA, on a drug-related case, the petitioners, among other things, sought the withdrawal of the Certificate of Return that was issued to him by INEC.
While Atiku’s joint petition with the PDP, was marked CA/PEPC/05/2023,that of Obi and the LP was registered as CA/PEPC/03/2023. However, aside from Atiku and Obi, another petition by the Allied Peoples Movement, APM, is still pending before the court. The APM, in its petition marked: CA/ PEPC/04/2023, said that the withdrawal of Mr. Ibrahim Masari, who was initially nominated as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy in view of Section 131(c) and 142 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. The party argued that there was a gap of about three weeks between the period that Masari, who was listed as the 5th Respondent in the petition, expressed intention to withdraw, the actual withdrawal of his purported nomination, and the time Tinubu purportedly replaced him with Senator Kashim Shettima.
It further argued that Tinubu’s candidature had elapsed as at the time he nominated Shettima as Ma- sari’s replacement. Even though five petitions were initially filed to challenge the return of Tinubu as winner of the election, the Action Alliance, AA, on May 8, withdrew its case, even as the Action Peoples Party, APP, followed suit two days later by also discontinuing further proceedings on its own petition
