Connect with us

Politics

Atiku Petition: Myself, Other Party Agents Signed Nasarawa Results Under Duress, Witness Tells Court

Published

on

 

During the proceedings at the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) in Abuja, Mr. Ibrahim Hamza, a witness, came forward on Monday to testify that he had been compelled under pressure to sign the presidential election results in Nasarawa state.

 

Mr. Hamza, the 10th Petitioners’ Witness (PW-10), testified before Justice Haruna Tsammani-led five-member panel at the PEPC, providing details about his role as a state collation agent for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) during the presidential election held on February 25.

 

In his testimony, Hamza revealed that officials from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had informed him that he would not receive a copy of the election result unless he signed it, putting him under duress to comply.

 

He said “Myself and other agents of the party signed the result under duress. They threatened that we would not be issued a copy unless we signed the results.”

 

During his testimony, the witness informed the court that there were a total of 3,256 polling units in Nasarawa state, emphasizing that the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) had agents present in all the units and wards across the state.

 

When presented with a copy of the presidential result from Nasarawa state, which had already been submitted as evidence, the witness alleged that it had been tampered with. He maintained that the version he had signed was a clean and unaltered copy.

 

According to the witness, based on the result presented in court, the Labour Party emerged as the winner of the presidential election in Nasarawa state, securing a total of 191,361 votes, which accounted for 35.40% of the total votes cast.

 

Hamza further informed the court that there was a system failure in the uploading process of the election results by INEC after the election took place.

 

Earlier in the court proceedings, Alhaji Mohammed Madaki, the Chairman of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), disclosed that based on the “purported results” published by INEC, the PDP’s candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, did not secure the constitutionally required 25% of the votes from the FCT, Abuja.

 

Led by Mr. Eyitayo Jegede, SAN, counsel for Atiku Abubakar and the PDP, the witness identified Exhibit PC-37, which was the election result from the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), already presented as evidence in court.

 

During cross-examination by Mr. Abdullahi Aliu, counsel for INEC, the Chairman of the PDP in the FCT reiterated that according to the law, it was mandatory for a presidential candidate to secure at least 25% of the votes in the FCT to be declared the winner of the election.

 

Asked if he was aware that going by his position on 25% votes in the FCT, his candidate, Atiku, was not qualified to be declared winner of the presidential election, the witness, said: “Yes, by the purported result published by INEC, he is not entitled to be returned as President.”

 

He told the court that the normal practice was that copies of the presidential election are snapped at polling units and uploaded to INEC’s I-Rev portal.

 

Alhaji Madaki told the court that PDP had agents across all the polling units, adding that agents of the party also signed result of the presidential election from the FCT.

 

While being cross-examined by President Bola Tinubu’s lawyer, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, the witness, told the court that there were a total of 2, 822 polling units in the FCT.

 

Also responding to questions from counsel for the All Progressives Congress, APC, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, the witness said he has lived in the FCT for over 35 years.

 

He told the court that he personally wrote his witness statement on oath at a business center and took the same to his lawyer for examination.

 

When he was presented with a document to read before the court, the witness, said he could not see the letters without his reading glasses which he said broke Sunday night.

 

Asked to tell the court the meaning of “conscientiously” that was contained in his statement, the witness, replied: “Honestly, I cannot remember.”

 

When he was asked if he was aware that there are a total of 176, 606 polling units across Nigeria, the witness, said he was not aware.

 

Shortly after Alhaji Madaki was discharged by the court, the ninth witness, PW-9, Mr. Abraham David, who mounted the box, told the court that he served as an agent of the PDP in the FCT, during the election.

 

The PW-9, told the court that Atiku, being the presidential candidate of his party, scored only 15% of votes in the FCT.

 

Asked under cross-examination, if he was aware that Atiku did not secure up to 25% votes in the FCT and therefore, going by argument of his party, not qualified to be returned as winner of the presidential poll, Mr. David, said: “I agree that having not score 25%, he is not entitled to be returned as President. Even Tinubu too did not also score 25%.

 

“If it was not wrong to return Tinubu who did not score 25%, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar can also be returned. The person that was returned by INEC did not score 25% in the FCT,” the witness insisted.

 

The witness informed the court that he personally visited approximately 15 polling units in the FCT during the presidential election. He stated that while he witnessed the collation process, the results were not transmitted to INEC I-Rev as mandated by the law.

 

The witness further alleged that the collation of the presidential result in the FCT took around three days, during which he claimed that INEC officials compromised the integrity of the electoral process.

 

When asked to provide the names of the INEC officials involved in the alleged electoral malpractice, the witness stated that he did not know their names.

 

Recall that one aspect of the joint petition filed by Atiku Abubakar and the PDP to contest the results of the presidential election was their claim that President Tinubu of the APC failed to obtain at least one-quarter of the votes cast in the FCT, Abuja.

 

The petitioners argued that out of the total votes cast in the FCT, which amounted to 478,652, President Tinubu received only 90,902 votes, accounting for 18.99% of the total votes.

 

“The Petitioners shall contend that to be declared duly elected, a candidate, in addition to obtaining not less than a quarter (25%) of the votes cast in at least two-thirds of all the States, must also receive at least one quarter (25%) of the votes cast in the FCT, Abuja, this being an additional requirement introduced by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the said Constitution having clearly distinguished the FCT, Abuja as a separate entity by specific and express mention,” they added.

 

During the Monday proceedings, the panel led by Justice Tsammani heard the testimony of Dr. Abiye Sekibo, a former Minister of Transportation and a prominent member of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in Rivers state, Dr. Sekibo who appeared as the 7th Petitioners’ Witness (PW7).

 

During his examination-in-chief, Dr. Sekibo presented a letter of appointment issued by the PDP, appointing him as the Coordinator for the Presidential Election. The letter was admitted as evidence and marked as Exhibits PU.

 

Dr. Sekibo also identified Exhibit PC-32, which had already been submitted to the court, as the result of the presidential election from Rivers State as announced by INEC..

Under cross-examination, the witness insisted that Atiku won the presidential election in Rivers state, even though he accused President Tinubu and the APC of instigating violence that scared electorates away from many polling units.

 

Dr Sekibo, who told the court that he voted in his Local Government Area, Okirika, further alleged that the results of the election were not uploaded across about 6000 polling units in the state.

 

He said: “I was in my Local Government Area on the election day and I voted. I was verified, using the BVAS device.

 

“The accreditation took less than five minutes and I was thereafter given the ballot and I voted. I stayed for a while at my polling unit, for about 10 minutes before I left.

 

“Thereafter I left to see what was going on and came back to my unit when they started counting. I was there when they finished and unfortunately, the result could not be uploaded.

 

“The result sheet was filed in my presence and signed by party agents. I also witnesses results being collated in more than polling units at different times. There are more than 6000 polling units in Rivers state.

 

“In almost all the polling units, having concluded the election they could not upload. This happened across the entire state.”

 

Asked if he was aware that the 20 polling units he visited, out of the over 6000 polling units in the state, amounted to about 0.5%, the witness, said: “I will leave the calculation for mathematics”.

 

Asked to mention the names of the agents that harassed voters and stopped uploading of the results, he said; “I don’t need to know their names. But by their actions, one could know who sent them”.

 

On the alleged violence on the election day, Dr. Sekibo, said: “I received calls from our members that were asking to be rescued. We immediately responded and started heading to Obio/Akpor after I got the call, but we were blocked.”

 

When questioned about his presence at any of the Local Government Areas (LGAs) where members of his party were reportedly attacked, the witness clarified that he was not physically present at those locations.

 

During the cross-examination conducted by Prince Fagbemi, SAN, counsel for the APC, the witness acknowledged that the agents of his party whom he had claimed were attacked during the election were still alive.

 

Asked why he did not mention names of perpetrators of the violence in his statement on oath before the court, the witness, said: “I didn’t have to. What they were doing in the field showed who they were. By the action they carried out, we knew whose interest they were protecting.”

 

Asked if he was aware that in the 2023 elections, votes were not based on political party lines, as the PDP, won the presidential election in Katsina, Dr Sekibo, replied: “The PDP won the governorship election in Rivers State and we are saying that we also won the presidential election. I am not from Katsina”.

 

The witness stated to the court that he was not the individual who signed the results of the presidential election in Rivers state.

 

However, the court then adjourned the proceedings, with further hearings scheduled to take place on Tuesday.

Politics

Ondo Election Legal Battle Intensifies As PDP’s Ajayi Files Appeal

Published

on

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in the 2024 Ondo State governorship election, Agboola Ajayi, has filed an appeal against the December 2 ruling of the Federal High Court in Akure.

The court had dismissed his lawsuit challenging the eligibility of the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Lucky Orimisan Aiyedatiwa, and his running mate, Olayide Owolabi Adelami.

Ajayi, in his notice of appeal dated December 7, 2024, alleged that Justice T.B. Adegoke erred in dismissing his case, which was marked FHC/AK/CS/99/2024.

READ MORE: Davido Spotted With Burna Boy’s Mother At Tony Elumelu’s All White Party

The PDP candidate’s initial lawsuit raised concerns over discrepancies in the certificates submitted by Aiyedatiwa to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Ajayi argued that these discrepancies violated electoral laws and called into question Aiyedatiwa’s qualifications to run for office.

Key Allegations in Appeal

Ajayi presented multiple grounds for his appeal, accusing the Federal High Court of failing to properly evaluate the evidence before it.

He claimed that: “Unexplained Certificate Discrepancies: Ajayi stated that the trial court failed to address “unexplained and irreconcilable differences” in the names on Aiyedatiwa’s certificates.

According to him, “The 1st Respondent submitted different certificates with different names that were not the same. Throughout the dispute before the trial court, the 1st Respondent never presented a Deed Poll to explain the irreconcilable differences.”

Failure to Grant Reliefs: He criticized the court for dismissing his reliefs despite what he described as compelling evidence.

Ajayi argued, “The lower court failed to properly evaluate the evidence presented before it, which was essentially documentary. The refusal to grant the reliefs in the face of credible evidence on record occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice.”

Neglect of Documentary Evidence: Ajayi contended that the court neglected its duty to evaluate critical statutory documents, which he said were central to proving his case.

He added, “The court was called upon to examine and evaluate the documentary evidence but failed to do so, instead relying on extraneous matters without giving appropriate consideration to whether those assertions were correct.”

Standing to Sue: The PDP candidate argued that the trial court erred by dismissing his legal standing to challenge Aiyedatiwa’s nomination. He noted, “The issue of nomination and sponsorship of a candidate is both intra- and inter-party affairs of an interested party in an election, as in this instant case.”

Ajayi is asking the Court of Appeal to overturn the High Court’s judgment and grant the reliefs he sought at the trial court.

These include an order invalidating Aiyedatiwa’s candidacy due to the certificate discrepancies and setting aside the December 2 ruling.

Specifically, he requested, “An order allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Akure, Ondo State, delivered on the 2nd of December, 2024, by Hon. Justice T.B. Adegoke.”

“An order granting the reliefs sought by the appellants as plaintiffs before the trial court.”

Ajayi also faulted the court’s interpretation of Section 29(1)-(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022. He argued that the provisions were given a “narrow and restrictive” reading, which ignored the broader intent of the law.

The appeal is the latest development in the heated political contest between the PDP and APC in Ondo State.

Legal experts believe the outcome of the case could significantly impact the governorship race.

 

Continue Reading

Politics

Adeleke Congratulates Ghanaian President-Elect, Mahama

Published

on

 

Osun State Governor, Senator Ademola Adeleke has congratulated the newly elected president of Ghana, John Mahama.

This was gleaned in a government house statement in Osogbo on Monday in which Gov Adeleke described President Mahama as “a true democrat and a genuine friend of Nigeria”

Gov Adeleke stated, “we have been sharing deep thoughts about the true essence of democracy and the imperative of respect for people’s will as the bedrock of virile democratic state.

ALSO READ: Midterm Scorecard: Adeleke Appreciates Osun Residents, Assures On More Democratic Dividends

“All through his days in the opposition, he adopted the best of democratic model with unbending faith in the capacity of voters to decide and the necessity of the system to accept the voters’ will as expressed without any equivocation. His faith in the electorate amidst hard work of electioneering campaigns paid off with a resounding victory at the polls.

“I further commend the ruling party for conceding defeat without attempting any electoral hijack. This was a demonstration of electoral maturity worthy of emulation by actors within the Nigerian space.

“I rejoice with my dear brother as our dreams come true by the grace of God and the people. As he prepares to return to the State House, I have no doubt that he will take Ghana to greater heights.

“I call for a closer, more robust relationship between Nigeria and Ghana. Both countries must deepen cooperation under mutual respect and opportunities. Our brotherly relationship should extend to the sub-national level for the benefits of citizens and residents of our dear nations.”

Continue Reading

Politics

SERAP Urges Akpabio, Abbas To Assess Human Rights Impacts Of Tax Reform Bills

Published

on

 

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has urged Nigeria’s Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas “to urgently assess the human rights impacts of Nigeria’s reform bills currently being discussed by the National Assembly including on Nigerians living in poverty.”

According to the SERAP said, “any discussion and consideration of the tax reform bills must ensure full compliance with provisions of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended] and the country’s international human rights obligations and commitments.”

The call was contained in a letter dated December 7, 2024, under the signature of its deputy director Kolawole Oluwadare, in which the SERAP stated, inter alia, “The assessments should be transparent, include public participation, and shape the provisions and measures that are ultimately passed. The outcome of any such assessments should be widely published.”

ALSO READ: Like America, Like Ghana: Opposition Defeats Ruling Party In Presidential Election

The SERAP urged Akpabio, and Abbas “to pass a resolution directing Mr Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice to hold Nigeria’s state governors to account on their spending of trillions of naira of revenue derived from taxes including VATs collected by their states since 2015 and to ensure the recovery of any proceeds of corruption.”

The letter, read in part: “SERAP urges you to ensure the inclusion in the tax reform bills of transparency and accountability mechanisms to ensure that any revenue derived from taxes covered under the bills are not mismanaged, diverted or pocketed by politicians, their family members and close associates.

“SERAP notes that Nigerian authorities have the discretion to develop laws on taxation most appropriate to their circumstances.

“However, the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended] and human rights and anticorruption treaties to which the country is a state party impose limits on the discretion of the authorities in the development of any such laws.

“Our preliminary review of the provisions of the tax reform bills shows that the bills contain some provisions that are antithetical to human rights and the rule of law.

“For example, section 28(2)(c) of the Tax Administration bill among others, requires financial institutions including banks to provide to tax authorities ‘the names, addresses, or any other information of new or existing customers.’

“Under section 28(4), financial institutions must make ‘additional disclosure” about their customers ‘if it is required by a notice signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the relevant tax authority.’

“These provisions, especially the phrases ‘any other information’ and ‘additional disclosure’, if implemented, could be used unjustifiably or arbitrarily to restrict the right to privacy of customers.

“The risks of violations of human rights are illustrated by the absence in the bills of sufficient safeguards against abuse of access to personal data of customers.

“The provisions also give little or no consideration to data protection, thereby increasing the risks of misuse by public authorities of a customer’s personal details including their home address.

“Another troubling provision of the tax reform bills is section 57 of the Tax Administration bill which grants broad, extensive and intrusive powers to tax authorities which may be misused to undermine Nigerians’ human rights.

“In particular, section 57(1) provides that ‘an authorised officer of the relevant tax authority shall have free access to all land, buildings, places, books and documents, in the custody or under the control of a person, public officer, or institution, for the purpose of inspecting the books or documents.’

“Such official will also have free access to ‘any property, process or matter which the officer considers necessary or relevant for the purpose of collecting any tax.’

“Under subsection 2, ‘the relevant tax authority shall take immediate possession of [any] removable media and the related removable equipment or computer used to access the stored documents on the media in order to prevent the accidental or intentional destruction, removal or alteration of records and documents.’

“Section 57(5) seems to pre-empt the nature of any judicial authorisation required for tax official ‘enter any private dwelling’ by prescribing that such authorisation will ‘be valid for a period of three months from the date of its issue or such lesser period as the judicial officer considers appropriate.’

“Under subsection 6, the tax official is required to ‘produce the written authorisation and evidence of identity “on first entering the private dwelling’. The official will only produce such evidence subsequently if they consider it reasonable to do so.

“These provisions are broadly worded and could be misused to violate Nigerians’ human rights.

“The provisions also do not contain any special safeguards which means that the broad, extensive and intrusive powers granted to tax authorities could be arbitrarily exercised without any accountability.

“Section 57 also does not contain any explicit provisions that would allow the court to examine the lawfulness or necessity of any authorisation before or after any entering.

“The provisions of section 81 of the Tax Administration bill essentially oust the jurisdiction of the court in pending tax matters by stating that ‘the pendency of a legal proceeding shall not affect the performance of the duties or obligations of any taxable person under this Act or any other tax law.’

“The provisions could be misused to infringe the rights to equality and the right of access to courts, denying the right of an effective remedy to any aggrieved party.

“Several other provisions of the tax bills lack mechanisms for effective oversight and accountability, as required by the rule of law in a democratic society, thereby increasing the risks of abuse of power or arbitrariness. The provisions could be misused to violate Nigerians’ right to property and fair hearing.

“The tax bills also do not seem to contain provisions for a fair balance between the authorities’ powers to collect taxes and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights.

“The absence of provisions in the tax bills on meaningful judicial oversight and review and accountability procedures would also undermine the rights of Nigerians including to privacy and disproportionately affect disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups.

“Under human rights law, states including Nigeria are required to make the promotion and protection of human rights central to their tax systems. Nigeria needs a rights-based tax system that works for the people and not the politicians, their family members and close associates.

“The country also needs transparent, democratic and rights-aligned tax reforms to unlock the maximum available resources for the full realisation of human rights.

“Furthermore, there are credible reports that several state governors continue to divert or mismanage the revenue derived from taxes, impeding the funding of public goods and services that are crucial for the progressive realisation of human rights.

“In many states, millions of Nigerians continue to be denied access to essential public services such as water and basic sanitation while millions of children of school age roam the streets.

“SERAP is concerned that growing reports of corruption in the use of tax revenue and other public resources continue to disproportionately affect poor Nigerians and other most vulnerable segments of the population.

“SERAP is concerned that the opposition by some state governors against the tax reform bills may be politically motivated and reduce the tax payable to the national treasury. State governors should constructively engage in good faith in the processes to adopt a national tax system for the country.

“We would be grateful if the recommended measures are taken in the consideration of the tax reform bills.

“If the offending provisions of the tax reform bills including those outlined above are not addressed and brought in conformity with human rights standards and safeguards, SERAP shall take all appropriate legal actions to compel you and other members of the National Assembly to comply with our request in the public interest.

“SERAP notes that the tax reform bills, if properly aligned with human rights standards, would enhance the ability of the Federal Government, states and local governments to fulfil their human rights obligations and adequately fund public services essential for human rights.

“However, without transparency and accountability, revenue derived from taxes may not be spent to combat poverty and fund development as well as provide essential public goods and services for Nigerians.

“The National Assembly has the constitutional responsibility to conduct and publish human rights impact assessments of the tax reform bills to ensure that proposed reforms best protect, advance and fulfill people’s human rights.

“SERAP also urges you to revise and repeal several of the provisions of the bills, particularly the Tax Administration bill.

“SERAP urges you to include provisions in the tax reform bills that will ensure that Nigerians have access to all relevant data and information on fiscal policy and government revenues, including from the corporate sector.

“According to our information, members of the National Assembly are currently discussing Nigeria’s tax bills which primarily aim to ‘provide uniform procedures for a consistent and efficient administration of tax laws in order to- (a) facilitate tax compliance by taxpayers; and (b) optimise tax revenue.’

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2022. Biztellers, powered by Alphaxristi.