The Presidential Election Petition Court has accepted two video clips presented by the Labour Party and its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, as evidence in their petition against the conduct and results of the presidential election held on February 25.

During the hearing on Friday evening, the petitioners’ lawyer, Jubril Okutekpa, SAN, informed the court that they had issued a subpoena to Channels Television to produce the recordings found on two flash drives.

During the proceedings, Okutekpa revealed that two separate subpoenas, dated May 30 and June 6, had been served on Channels Television stating that a representative from the TV station had been sent to present the requested evidence.

The five-member panel, headed by Justice Haruna Tsammani, accepted the subpoenas as evidence and designated them as Exhibits PBH-1 and PBH-2.

One of the flash drives contains video clips of an interview featuring the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mahmoud Yakubu, prior to the general elections assuring that the election results would be transmitted electronically in real-time.

The second flash drive consists of a press conference delivered by Festus Okoye, a national commissioner of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), where he reaffirmed the commission’s dedication to electronically transmitting the election results.

To present the video clips’ content in the courtroom, Lucky Obese-Alawode, a senior reporter and editor from Channels Television, was called to the witness box.

However, the respondents in the petition strongly opposed the petitioners’ action.

Akin Olujinmi, SAN, the counsel representing President Bola Tinubu, raised concerns about the competence of the witness, stating that his statement had not been filed alongside the initial petition.

Referring to Paragraphs 4 (5) and (6) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2022, Tinubu’s lawyer argued that the law clearly stipulates that a petition must be filed within 21 days following the declaration of the election result.

He asserted that the petitioners should have included all the necessary documents and a list of witnesses supporting their case when filing the petition.

Tinubu lawyer said “A petition which fails to comply shall not be accepted, that is what the law says. My lords, it was after the proceeding started today that the statement of this witness was served on us.

“This is over three months after the declaration of the result of the election was made. This witness was not listed by the petitioners, and his statement was not attached to the petition. To that extent, he is not a competent witness who can testify before this court”

He further argued that the petitioners were well aware of their intention to rely on the aforementioned video recordings when they initially filed the petition, yet failed to include them in the list of their documents.

Supporting Olujinmi’s objection, Kemi Pinhero, SAN, the lawyer representing INEC, expressed agreement that Obi and the Labour Party should have listed the proposed evidence in their petition.

However, the petitioners’ counsel, Okutekpa, SAN, argued that the witness was indeed competent to testify as the subpoena served on Channels Television was a court order that he had no control over.

Despite the objections raised, the panel decided to admit the two flash drives as evidence and designated them as Exhibits PBH-3 and PBH-4.

Subsequently, when the petitioners’ counsel requested for the video clips from the flash drives to be played in the courtroom, the respondents expressed their disagreement, with the exception of the electoral commission, which remained indifferent.

Olujimi reiterated that his client had not been provided with a copy of the flash drive.

He further argued that playing the video clips without his clients being aware of their content could potentially deprive them of the right to a fair hearing.

He said, “This case is not hide and seek. We are entitled to be served with a copy so that we can know the content and be able to prepare. Until we are served, we will oppose allowing it to be played.

Solomon Umoh, SAN, the counsel representing the All Progressives Congress (APC), expressed his view that playing the content of the flash drives without prior service on the respondents would be an ambush on their part.

In his ruling, Justice Tsammani, the chairman of the five-member panel, stated that the respondents’ objection was not based on prejudice against playing the video clips, but rather on the lack of prior service.

However, due to time constraints, Justice Tsammani adjourned the proceedings to Saturday afternoon, June 10, to allow for the video clips to be played in the courtroom.