The Labour Party and its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, on Tuesday, opened their case at the Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja, where they are challenging the emergence of President Bola Tinubu as the winner of the February 25 presidential election.
The opposition party called its first witness and tendered documents, including a judgment of the US court in an old forfeiture case involving Tinubu.
Counsel for the LP and Obi, Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), stated that documents from number one to four together with receipts tendered were documents indicating that the Vice President, Kashim Shettima, accepted his nomination as the vice presidential candidate of the APC.
The witness, Lawrence Nwakaeti, who is a legal practitioner, disclosed that he was deposed to the witness statement on March 20.
Part of the documents deposed to by Nwakaeti referred to the alleged $460,000 forfeiture by Tinubu to the government of the United States.
One of the grounds on which the LP and Obi are praying for the court to nullify Tinubu’s victory is that Tinubu “at the time of the election was not qualified to contest for election to the office of President as he was fined the sum of $460,000 for an offence involving dishonesty, namely narcotics trafficking imposed by the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Case No: 93C 4483.”
While answering questions during the cross-examination, the witness admitted that the judgment was not registered in Nigeria.
He also admitted that there was no certificate from any US Consular in Nigeria or America in support of the judgment.
He, however, maintained that “the judgment speaks for itself.”
But counsel for the APC, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), asked him: “As a lawyer, you are aware that these documents are not registered in Nigeria and there is no certificate attached to the document from the US?” to which Lawrence replied that there are certificates.
“Is there a certificate from the US consular?”
“No certificate from the consular, Nwakaeti replied.
He also said he had no knowledge of a February 4, 2003, Formal Clearance Report by Legal Attachee from the American Embassy in respect of the alleged indictment and forfeiture.
When asked by Fagbemi to produce a copy of the charges against Tinubu, the witness said he had none but maintained that the forfeiture was from civil proceedings.
“You are aware that all the proceedings were civil proceedings?”
“Civil forfeiture proceedings,” the witness replied.
The tribunal, presided over by Justice Haruna Tsammani, adjourned further hearing in the petition till today (Wednesday).
The petition by the Peoples Democratic Party and its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, also challenging Tinubu’s victory also came up before the panel on Tuesday.
The PDP, through its counsel, Eyitayo Jegede (SAN), tendered before the PEPC copies of election results sheets, printouts of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and records of the number of Permanent Voter Cards, which were collected for the February 25 presidential poll.
The documents, which were admitted by the panel, covered the 36 states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
Following the admittance of the documents, the five-man panel of the court led by Justice Harunna Tsammani moved further hearing in the petition to 2 pm today (Wednesday).
Earlier, the court entertained the case of the Allied People’s Movement, which also filed a petition to challenge Tinubu’s victory.
Tinubu’s lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), informed the court of a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, which, according to him, appears to have resolved the same issue raised by the APM in its petition against Tinubu.
Olanipekun referenced the Supreme Court’s decision of Friday, May 26, that dismissed the suit filed by the PDP, which prayed to the court to nullify the ticket that produced the President and his vice on grounds of double nomination.
Olanipekun sought to know if the decision of the apex court did not affect the case of the APM, which is also challenging the outcome of the election on the grounds of using a placeholder, Kabir Masari, for Shettima.
“We are aware that the Supreme Court gave a decision on this same matter in the yet-to-be-reported judgment SC/CV/501/20223 and the parties involved were Peoples Democratic party versus INEC and three others where the apex court resolved all the issues.
“We promise within the next two days that the Certified True Copies of the judgment of the Supreme Court will be made available.
“And we will also discuss with the petitioners whether, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court, there will still be the need to continue with this petition.”
Responding, counsel for APM, Shehu Abubakar, however, requested a short time to enable the petitioners to avail themselves of the judgment to aid their decision.
He said, “Based on the submission of the learned silk, we shall be praying to adjourn the hearing of this petition to enable us to apply to the Supreme Court for the copy of the judgment referred to, to enable us to examine the same and know the effect it has on this petition.”
The Court granted the request and adjourned APM’s hearing till June 2.
The Supreme Court had last Friday dismissed the appeal by the PDP seeking the disqualify Tinubu from running in the February 25 presidential election over the alleged double nomination of his running mate, Shettima.
In this article