•We’ll only accept printout from BVAS used in Kogi, Sokoto, Rivers — INEC


President Bola Tinubu yesterday opposed the tendering in evidence, of information that were extracted from the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, BVAS, machines that were used for the conduct of the 2023 presidential election.

Tinubu, through his team of lawyers led by Wole Olanipekun, SAN, challenged the admissibility of certified copies of printouts from the BVAS, which were brought before the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, sitting in Abuja, by candidate of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Atiku Abubakar.



Though Atiku’s legal team was led by Chris Uche, SAN, however, the documents were tendered from the Bar by a member of the team, Prof. Eyitayo Jegede, SAN.

While the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, said it was also opposed to the admissibility of the documents, except for printout of data from BVAS it deployed to three states- Kogi, Sokoto and Rivers, on its part, the APC, which was cited as the 4th respondent in the matter, threw its weight behind its candidate, Tinubu.

All the respondents said they would adduce reasons behind their objections, in their final written addresses.

Meanwhile, Jegede, SAN, told the court that the documents he tendered, were duly certified by INEC after all the necessary fees were paid.

Despite the objections, the Justice Haruna Tsammani-led five-member panel, went ahead and admitted the documents from the BVAS into evidence and marked them as Exhibits PT 1 to PT 33.

Among other documents that Atiku equally tendered before the court on Wednesday, were results of the presidential election from Abia, Bayelsa, Kaduna and Ogun states.

Atiku’s lawyer told the court that the certified results, which were contained in Forms EC8A, were downloaded by INEC from its I-Rev portal.

However, INEC’s team of lawyers led by Mr. Kemi Pinhero, SAN, opposed the admissibility of the downloaded election results.

Likewise, counsel that handled the session for President Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima, Mr. Emmanuel Ukala, SAN, as well as the lawyer for the APC, Niyi Akintola, SAN, equally raised objections against the tendering of the results in evidence.

The Justice Tsammani-led panel admitted results of the presidential election from Abia state and marked them as Exhibits PJ, PJ1- PJ 16, even as it also marked their certification receipt as Exhibit PJ-17.

More so, the court also admitted in evidence, results of the presidential election from eight Local Government Areas in Bayelsa state and marked them as Exhibits PK 1 – 8, with the certification document marked as Exhibit PK-9.

As regards results from 23 LGAs in Kaduna state, the court marked them as Exhibits PL-1-23, while results from Ogun state were marked as Exhibits PM 1- 20.

The respondents further told the court that they would only allow the admittance in evidence, of results from five LGAs in Kogi states, which they listed as; Olamaboro, Ofu, Omala, Okehi and Ajaokuta.

Notwithstanding the position of President Tinubu and the other respondents in the matter, the court admitted bundles of Forms EC8E series from 23 LGAs in Kaduna state and marked them as Exhibits PN 1-23, even as it marked the ones from Kogi state as Exhibits PT 1- 23.

The court admitted and marked as Exhibits PQ 1- PQ 20, Forms EC8C from Kaduna state, while another 40 copies of Forms EC40G from the state were also admitted as Exhibits PR 1 to PR 40.

It further admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits PS 1 to PC 10, copies of Form EC 40G from Ogun state, thus, taking the total number of exhibits the PDP candidate has tendered before the court, to 337.

The development came on a day the candidate of Labour Party, Mr. Peter Obi, persuaded the court to adjourn further proceedings on his own petition against the presidential election, till Thursday.

Obi, through his team of lawyers that were led by Prof. Awa Kalu, SAN, told the court that two of his key staff members, suddenly fell ill.

He said the indisposition of the duo, who were described as part of the engine room of his legal Secretariat, affected his plan to tender vital documents before the court to prove his allegation that the presidential election was rigged in favour of President Tinubu of the APC.

“My lords, our plan for today’s proceedings was to start with the presentation of our documents, but unfortunately, we had some unexpected development.

“The unexpected development concerns the sudden illness of two of our key staff, for which reason I am constrained to ask for an adjournment till tomorrow.

“It is with the greatest humility and apology that we make this application. I assure my lords that we will be here tomorrow morning and we will proceed with vigour,” Prof. Kalu, SAN, pleaded.

Obi’s lawyer told the court that he had before the sitting commenced, informed President Tinubu’s lead counsel, Wole Olanipekun, SAN, about the development.

In his response, President Tinubu’s lawyer, Olanipekun, SAN, told the court that he was not opposed to the request for an adjournment.

Likewise, Mr. Abubakar Mahmood, SAN, who appeared for INEC, as well as counsel for the APC, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, said they were equally not opposed to the request.

However, the respondents prayed the court to minus a day from the three weeks that was originally slated for Obi to present his case.

In a brief ruling, Justice Tsammani acceded to the application and adjourned the petition till Thursday.
It will be recalled that Obi and the LP had indicated their decision to call a total of 50 witnesses in the matter.

Specifically, Obi, who came third in the election, is in the joint petition he filed with the LP, contending that Tinubu was not the valid winner of the presidential election.

The petitioners, in the case marked: CA/PEPC/03/2023, equally maintained that President Tinubu was not qualified to participate in the presidential contest.

According to the petitioners, as at the time Tinubu’s running mate, Kashim Shettima, became the Vice Presidential candidate, he was still the nominated candidate of the APC for the Borno Central Senatorial election.

The petitioners further challenged Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the presidential election, alleging that he was previously indicted and fined the sum of $460,000.00 by the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Case No: 93C 4483, for an offence involving dishonesty and drug trafficking.

On the ground that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices and non- compliance with the provision of Electoral Act, 2022, the petitioners argued that INEC acted in breach of its own Regulations and Guidelines.

Both Atiku and Obi are seeking the nullification of the presidential election and the withdrawal of the Certificate of Return that was issued to President Tinubu by INEC.

Source:https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/06/presidential-tribunal-tinubu-apc-oppose-tendering-of-evidence-from-bvas/

Whoever read the novel should please summarize in two sentences.

If I should deduct from the subject, I can easily tell some unscrupulous losers are just desperate to waste time, energy, electricity and human resource, for a baseless course!

A glaring certainty that, it would end in another round of defeat.

Case should be thrown out and Peter and Atiku should be heavily fined for submitting baseless and fictional petitions.

We taya

What are the thieves scared of?

G

HacheNoire:
Whoever read the novel should please summarize in two sentences.

If I should deduct from the subject, I can easily tell some unscrupulous losers are just desperate to waste time, energy, electricity and human resource, for a baseless course!

A glaring certainty that, it would end in another round of defeat.

Case should be thrown out and Peter and Atiku should be heavily fined for submitting baseless and fictional petitions.

Dear the thing tire me.

But why will APC reject the results directly from bvas, are they not inec properties ?

Samunique:
Dear the thing tire me.

But why will APC reject the results directly from bvas, are they not inec properties ?

BVAS was not used nationwide. Moreover, prior to election, the court had already trashed the opinion of mandating BVAS.

Legally and constitutionally, it’s invalid.

They rejected BVAS, rejected IREV result transmission. Rejected electronical voting.Rigged the presidential election then start rejecting calls for review of the judicial processes instead asking for people to accept a fraudulent election. They rejected live transmission of court proceedings.

It is mainly APC Senators that voted against any meaningful process that will better our electoral hence democratic journey. Yet they called themselves progressives Nothing new! APC have been a criminal enterprise. They have incorporated INEC into it. What a country.

HacheNoire:


BVAS was not used nationwide. Moreover, prior to election, the court had already trashed the opinion of mandating BVAS.

Legally and constitutionally, it’s invalid.

But if they successfully trashed the opinion of mandating BVAs then where else would the evidences come from?

phorget:




But if they successfully trashed the opinion of mandating BVAs then where else would the evidences come from?

Hard copies of results.

HacheNoire:


BVAS was not used nationwide. Moreover, prior to election, the court had already trashed the opinion of mandating BVAS.

Legally and constitutionally, it’s invalid.

What sort of nonsense talk is this?

udemzyudex:


What sort of nonsense talk is this?

That’s what you reading.

What are they after of?

They have no right to dictate for anyone.

HacheNoire:



That’s what you reading.

That's why I call it nonsense.

You must be joking! BVAS is compulsory!

HacheNoire:


BVAS was not used nationwide. Moreover, prior to election, the court had already trashed the opinion of mandating BVAS.

Legally and constitutionally, it’s invalid.

[quote author=HacheNoire post=123501980]

Hard copies of results. [/quote
So EC8 and 40 forms are what? Remove sentiments so you stop appearing like a zombie. The INEC and APC are opposing 30 other exhibits (though including BVAS and IREV) from other states and saying they would go with only 3 states. They felt PDP and LP would be coming to attack with these 3 states alone and prepared well with their manipulations, but boy!, what they're seeing is above them!

AGREED. IT WAS NOT PART OF INEC'S SUBMISSION .

HacheNoire:


Hard copies of results.

But the results are still the ones been challenged, dont you think the best is to look through the origin which the BVAs might serve the purpose.
If BVAs are considered non essential in this case then I totally see no case, the allocutional statements by the defendant not to grant access to the use of BVAs gives rooms for opinion manipulation already, BVAs should serve side by side with the purported hard copy results thereby giving room for a comparision.

phorget:




But if they successfully trashed the opinion of mandating BVAs then where else would the evidences come from?

Stop wasting your time with diabolical people who don't mean well for us because of their bellies, bigotry, tribalism or ethnicity.

A zombie will always be a zombie.

HacheNoire:


BVAS was not used nationwide. Moreover, prior to election, the court had already trashed the opinion of mandating BVAS.

Legally and constitutionally, it’s invalid.

. Did the court trashed your brain too? Sorry to ask

HacheNoire:


BVAS was not used nationwide. Moreover, prior to election, the court had already trashed the opinion of mandating BVAS.

Legally and constitutionally, it’s invalid.

who be this one? What was used for accreditation then if not BVas? Except in areas that yakubu mahmoud had prepared for rigging.

HacheNoire:


BVAS was not used nationwide. Moreover, prior to election, the court had already trashed the opinion of mandating BVAS.

Legally and constitutionally, it’s invalid.

Biko which court?

I really cannot fathom this rejection by INEC. How can Inec reject its own document? Document you collected money for and released to the political parties yet you come to the tribunal and reject the same document.

Nigeria is a big joke.

Splendid235:
I really cannot fathom this rejection by INEC. How can Inec reject its own document? Document you collected money for and released to the political parties yet you come to the tribunal and reject the same document.
Nigeria is a big joke.

Just imagine! Big costly joke I tell you. They are messing with the wrong generation.

Really!?

Splendid235:
I really cannot fathom this rejection by INEC. How can Inec reject its own document? Document you collected money for and released to the political parties yet you come to the tribunal and reject the same document.

Nigeria is a big joke.

You can only imagine!

"...the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, said it was also opposed to the admissibility of the documents, except for printout of data from BVAS it deployed to three states- Kogi, Sokoto and Rivers, on its part, the APC, which was cited as the 4th respondent in the matter, threw its weight behind its candidate, Tinubu".

You will accept printout of data from BVAS from three states and reject same for other states?
What a people!