The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on Friday in Abuja, seized an opportunity presented at the Presidential Election Petition Court, (PEPC) to explain its reasons for refusing that its own documents be admitted in evidence.
The presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP,) Mr Peter Obi and his party sought to tender the documents as exhibits to establish their petition against the conduct of the Feb. 25 Presidential Election.
INEC had on Thursday, through its counsel, Mr Kemi Pinhero, SAN, objected to the admission of several documents brought to the PEPC by the petitioners for the purpose of tendering them as exhibits in support of their petition.
At Friday’s proceedings, INEC also objected to all the certified true copies of the Form EC8A the petitioners sought to tender from local governments across six states. INEC’s counsel, Pinhero told the court that the electoral body (INEC) kicked against the tendering of certified true copies of the documents, mainly election result sheets, on the grounds that they were strange to the petition.
Pinhero explained that issues were not joined in the local government areas where the result sheets were sought to be tendered, adding that it was wrong for the petitioners to go beyond the areas where the election was disputed.
According to INEC, the local government areas unlawfully smuggled into proceedings of the court are totally strange to the petition and cannot stand in the face of the law.
The Chairman of the Court, Justice Haruna Tsammani, however, held that it was wrong for INEC’S lawyer to attempt to give reasons for his objection now when all parties had agreed during the pre-hearing stage to give reasons at the address stage. The counsel, however, said that he was compelled to offer some explanation following the bashing the commission received in the media that it was objecting to the admittance of its own documents in court.
Meanwhile, the court has admitted as exhibits, Forms EC8A from 21 local government areas of Adamawa, Lagos state, eight local government areas of Bayelsa and parts of Rivers and Niger as tendered by the petitioners.
My Own Submissions On This Very Issue.
Inside the LP’s PETITION,, I could clearly read where they specifically mentioned ELEVEN STATES, and then went ahead to write “AND OTHER STATES”
LP had produced the results in the mentioned 11 states,, and proceeded to continue to produce the results in some “OTHER” additional 7 States, making it a total of 18 States in all..
How can the INEC be expecting Peter Obi to tender only the STATE-LEVEL Collated Results for the States they were disputing, without him tendering all the Polling-unit Results, and all Wards Collated Results, and all the LGAs Collated Results of all the States he intended to dispute..??
How could the INEC be expecting them to present some LGAs inside any state which they are disputing, and then leave out some other LGAs,, yet they were supposed to be disputing the results in the whole of the mentioned states, and including “other states”?
For the Fact that he wrote “And Other States” inside his petition,, he is at liberty to dispute the whole if the 36 States and the FCT… Thus, the 11 mentioned states are sacrosanct..
Any other states he added are at his choice.