The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) heard yesterday that there was no server for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the February 23 presidential election to inspect.
Responding to the request of the PDP and Atiku Abubakar to compel the electoral umpire to allow them access to the server used in transmitting the results of the presidential poll, INEC told the tribunal that no server was used for the election.
President Muhammadu Buhari, his party – the All Progressives Congress (APC) – and INEC urged the PEPT to reject Atiku’s and PDP’s request to be allowed access to INEC’s server and card reader machines.
Buhari argued that granting the request would amount to the tribunal overruling itself, having earlier, in a ruling delivered on March 6, rejected a similar request made by Atiku and PDP.
APC contended that the request amounted to asking the court to make an order in vain, since INEC claimed that the information being sought by Atiku and his party does not exist.
INEC urged the tribunal to reject the request as contained in an application by Atiku and PDP, because “we do not have what they said they want”.
Buhari, APC and INEC made their positions known at the resumed sitting of the PEPT yesterday in Abuja.
Atiku filed a petition before the tribunal, seeking, among others, the nullification of the election won by Buhari, APC’s candidate.
The application was one of the nine heard at yesterday’s pre-hearing session of the PEPT.
Moving the application, the lawyer to Atiku and PDP, Chris Uche (SAN), prayed the court to grant the application filed on May 8.
Uche said the application sought four reliefs, principal among which was “for access or court’s supervised access to the INEC’s server and the smart card readers used for the conduct of the 2019 presidential election”.
INEC’s lawyer, Yunus Usman (SAN), prayed the tribunal to dismiss the application. He drew its attention to the March 6, 2019 ruling in which the tribunal rejected a similar request by the petitioners.
Usman said: “We also attached an enrolled order made on March 6, 2019 by this court. The order refused all the prayers of the petitioners as contained in this application.
“They say we should bring something that we don’t have and we have said what they want does not exist.”
Buhari’s lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) and APC’s counsel, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), argued in a similar vein and urged the tribunal to dismiss the application.
Olanipekun exhibited a copy of the motion ex-parte filed on March 4 by the petitioners in which they prayed for similar reliefs and a copy of the enrolled order of the court made on March 6, extracted from the tribunal’s ruling on the ex-parte motion.
“We urge this court to dismiss this application and not to overrule yourself as being sought in this application,” Olanipekun said.
Fagbemi said: “In praying the court to dismiss the application, we equally urge the court to be wary of making an order that cannot be enforced.
“INEC has said they do not have these materials. More so, no proof is supplied by the applicants that the materials exist.
“Beyond the newspapers report supplied, they did not provide any concrete evidence to prove the existence of the materials they seek to be granted access to.”
After listening to the lawyers, the tribunal’s chairman, Justice Mohammed Garba said the date for ruling would be communicated to them.
Earlier, another lawyer in the legal team of Atiku and PDP, Livy Uzoukwu (SAN), had moved an application in which he prayed the court to strike out the 3rd respondent’s reply to the petitioners’ petition, a request Fagbemi (as lawyer to the APC) objected to and urged the tribunal to dismiss.
The tribunal adjourned further pre-hearing session in respect of the petition by Atiku and the PDP till June 24.
Before hearing the two applications by the petitioners, the tribunal heard seven applications filed in relation to the petition by the Hope Democratic Party (HDP) and its presidential candidate, Ambrose Owuru, challenging the outcome of the last presidential election.
One of the applications filed by the petitioners, through their lawyer, Mr. Oliver Eya, sought an amendment of their petition.
Olanipekun and Fagbemi did not oppose the application, but Usman (representing INEC) urged the court to reject it.
The tribunal also heard the three applications filed by INEC, one by Buhari and two by APC.
The applications by the three respondents sought the dismissal of either the petition or the petitioners’ reply to a respondent’s reply, on various grounds.
The tribunal also reserved rulings on all the applications and promised to inform lawyers when the ruling would be read.
It adjourned further pre-hearing session on the petition till June 20.
No comments:
Post a Comment