--Advertisement--
Advertisement

INEC chairman responds to Atiku’s subpoena, sends representative to court

Mahmood Yakubu, INEC chairman Mahmood Yakubu, INEC chairman

Mahmood Yakubu, INEC chairman, has honoured a subpoena served on him by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar.

Atiku and the PDP had subpoenaed the INEC chairman to tender some sensitive documents before the presidential election petition court.

At the court session on Thursday, Chris Uche, the petitioners’ counsel, told the court that Yakubu is represented by Morenikeji Tahiru, deputy director, certification and complaint, legal drafting and clearance department.

Tahiru said she had four out of the 11 documents itemised in the subpoena dated May 26, 2023.

Advertisement

She presented item one which includes form EC8D series and EC8A.

EC8D series are presidential election results from all 36 states and the FCT while EC8DA is the final declaration of result.

Tahiru also submitted item seven which is the certified true copy of BVAS report in Rivers state.

Advertisement

Item 11 which is accreditation data from BVAS machines used across all states of the federation was also tendered.

Lastly, the INEC director tendered form EC9 which is the INEC form submitted to the commission by Bola Tinubu, Nigeria’s president.

Although Tahiru was called to present the documents, she was not identified as a witness — an act which the respondents’ counsel frowned against.

Abubakar Mahmoud, INEC counsel, opposed the admissibility of the documents in evidence. According to him, “many of those documents are not relevant”.

Advertisement

He also said the documents have not been paid for by the petitioners.

Other respondents also objected to the admissibility of the document but reserved their arguments for the final address.

Responding to Mahmoud’s claim of non-payment, Uche said his clients already paid N6.7 million for the certification of the documents.

Meanwhile, earlier at the court session, Samuel Oduntan, the petitioners’ 21st witness, was cross-examined by the respondents’ lawyers.

Advertisement
Add a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected from copying.