The Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) accepted two video flash drives on Friday as proof of Peter Obi’s case against President Bola Tinubu through a witness who had been subpoenaed.

In the petition with the reference number CA/PEPC/03/2023, Mr. Obi and his Labor Party (LP) contest the results of the election that put President Tinubu in office.

President Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima, and the All Progressives Congress are the respondents, along with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) (APC).

The court accepted two video flash drives that were presented by a Mr. Obi and his Party witness who had been subpoenaed.

Jubrin Okitepa will preside over the proceedings, petitioners’ attorney Levi Uzoukwu announced to the court at the petition’s resumed hearing.

He added that software engineering will also be necessary for the proceedings.

Lucky Obowo-Isawode, a reporter and editor for Channels TV, was the subpoenaed witness that was called.

Two subpoenas, dated May 30 and June 6, were served on the TV station to produce the video footage, the attorney told the court.

He said that the video clips were excerpts from an interview with Mahmood Yakubu, the chairman of INEC.

Festus Okoye, National Commissioner and INEC’s Chairman of the Information and Voter Education Committee, is the subject of the second.

For INEC, Kemi Pinhero, Akin Olujimi, and Afolabi Fashanu are the respondents’ attorneys. President Tinubu and Vice President Shittema are represented by Akin Olujimi. 

While none of them opposed the witness, they did take issue with his adoption of his sworn statement.

Mr. Olujimi, speaking on behalf of the second and third respondents, objected to the adoption of his sworn witness statement.

He claims that doing so violates an Electoral Act provision.

“It is settled that election petition must be filed within 21 days after the announcement of the election.

“The documents sent out must be accompanied by the petition, list of witnesses and their statements.

“The witness statement was filed today, three months after the announcement of the results,” he said.

He continued by saying that he had looked through the petition’s pages but had not noticed the witness’s name. 

“The wwitness s not competent to testify before this court, this point have been settled in the decision of this court,” he said.

Mr Pinhero aligned with the submission by Mr Olujimi.

“The petitioners were aware of the videos and ought to have filed it along with the petition as required by the law,” he said. 

He urged the court to disregard the adoption and uphold the objection in order to do so.

Mr. Fashanu, speaking on behalf of the APC, agreed with the other respondents’ attorneys’ arguments.

He continued by saying that for the purposes of compliance, there is no distinction between a witness who has been subpoenaed and a regular witness.

He therefore pleaded with the court to uphold the objection and reject the adoption as meritless.

The objections of the respondents, according to Mr. Okitepa, should be dismissed if there is anything. 

“A subpoena we know is an order of the court issued against a person .

“It is not a witness in control of the petitioner or respondent and is competent to testify.

“If a subpoenaed witness can testify orally what injury would we suffer? I submit, none. It will rather quicken the hands of justice,” he said.

“No injury should be suffered, I therefore urge the court to overrule the objection, you need to see the video,” he added. 

He told the court that the evidence the subpoenaed witness brought were live interviews with INEC chairman and Festus Okoye.

The videos flash drive were tendered and admitted in evidence and the counsel prayed that it should be played.

Mr Olujimi objected that it should not be played because the flash drive was not served on them.

He claimed that they did not know what was on the flash drive and that they needed to know in order to be ready.

“Having not served us before the proceeding, it would not be in the interest of fair hearing,” he said.

Mr. Olujimi was supported by Mr. Fashanu from the APC, and Mr. Pinhero from INEC stated that the video could be played because it had already been admitted as evidence.

The five-member panel, presided over by Justice Haruna Tsammani, put off playing the videos and continuing to hear the petition until tomorrow.