Former Vice President and candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Atiku Abubakar, who is seeking to nullify the election of President Bola Tinubu, closed his case on Friday before the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, sitting in Abuja.
Atiku, who called a total of 27 witnesses and tendered several documentary exhibits in evidence before the court, said his decision to close his case was in view of the fact that he had exhausted the days that were allocated for him to present his case against Tinubu.
“My lords, at this point in time, may we humbly inform your lordships that this will be our last witness,” Atiku’s lead counsel, Chief Chris Uche, SAN, told the court.
Continuing, Uche, SAN, said: “Having exhausted the days allocated to us, pursuant to the pre-hearing report and Paragraph 46(5) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022, we most humbly apply to formally close the case for the petitioners.”
The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, told the court through its lawyer, Mr Kemi Pinhero, SAN, that all parties had previously met and agreed to postpone the Respondents’ opening of defence until after the upcoming Sallah celebration.
Confirming the development, the head of President Tinubu’s legal team, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, pleaded with the court to allow the Respondents, beginning with INEC, to file their response to Atiku’s petition on July 3.
“My lords, all of us took into consideration some salient factors, especially the fact that some of us will love to travel to celebrate with our families and loved ones.
“Moreover, there are likely to be two public holidays next week. We will therefore plead your lordships to adjourn the case till after the Sallah celebration.
“We also want to assure your lordships that on our part, we will not exceed the days allotted to us.
“We will start and close out the case the same week,” Olanipekun, SAN, added.
Following the Petitioners’ counsel’s no-objection stance, the five-member panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani adjourned the case until July 3 to allow INEC to file its response to the petition.
Mr Mike Enahoro-Ebah, Atiku’s star witness, was discharged from the box, prompting the adjournment.
Enahoro-Ebah had, in the course of his testimony, tendered before the court, certified copies of the academic qualifications of President Tinubu, which were admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit.
Tinubu’s certificate of service from Mobile Oil Nigeria Plc, which formed part of his work records, was also admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit by the panel, as was a copy of his Guinean passport.
Enahoro-Ebah told the court that he applied and obtained Form EC9, which contained the affidavit of personal particulars that Tinubu submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, in aid of his qualifications to contest the presidential election.
He told the court that his lawyer in the United States of America, USA, also wrote to various schools that the second Respondent, Tinubu, claimed to have attended, and obtained more information about him.
The witness told the court that among the documents he obtained from the USA was Tinubu’s purported certificate from Chicago State University, which he said belonged to a female.
The witness also presented to the court a transcript issued in 1977 by South West College, which he claimed established that the Tinubu who attended Chicago State University was a female.
Mr Enahoro-Ebah told the court that whereas the forwarding letter from his lawyer in the USA, which contained Tinubu’s details, came on November 1, 2022, it was not until April 2023 that he received a copy of the notorised judgement on criminal asset forfeiture proceedings that involved the 2nd Respondent.
Furthermore, he told the court that documents he obtained from INEC showed that the National Youth Service Corps, NYSC, certificate Tinubu submitted in support of his qualifications bore the name Adekunle.
Despite strong objections from the INEC, President Tinubu, and the All Progressives Congress, APC, the court admitted all of the documents in evidence and labelled them as Exhibits PDE-1 through PDE-5.
More so, the witness, said he had, in 2022, instituted a direct criminal complaint against Tinubu before a Chief Magistrate Court in Abuja.
He told the court that the Chief Magistrate Court had declined jurisdiction to entertain the case.
Dissatisfied with the action of the court of the Magistrate, the witness, said he wrote a petition to the Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory.
A copy of the court process was admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit by the panel.
Asked if he inquired from the Guinean embassy if the second Respondent (Tinubu) denounced his purported citizenship.
The witness, said: “My lord, I did not have to because the former President of Guinea, Alpha Conde, admitted the issuance of the passport.”
Following insistence by Tinubu’s lawyer, Chief Olanipekun, SAN, that the said passport that was tendered in evidence, expired in 2020, the witness, said: “My lords, the data page indicated that it expired, but citizenship does not expire.”
Asked if he was aware that the judgement from the US District Court was not registered in Nigeria, the witness said he was only aware that the verdict was “adequately notorised.”
The witness said he was not aware of any letter the US Consulate in Nigeria wrote to the Inspector General of Police on February 4, 2003, stating that there was no warrant of conviction against Tinubu in the USA.
Asked if he was aware that Chicago State University had on June 27, 2022, issued a public notice, where it stated that the 2nd Defendant not only attended the school but graduated with honours, the witness, said he was not aware of such a letter, insisting that his case at the Magistrate Court bordered on forgery.
The panel admitted in evidence, the said public notice from Chicago State University, which was tendered by Tinubu’s lawyer, and marked it as exhibit XX2.
When he was shown the document from the US Court that he tendered and asked to confirm to the court if there was an arraignment, plea, or trial that involved the giving of evidence, the witness said: “My lords, there was a plea to forfeit after his admission of guilt, but no conviction.”
Asked if, as a lawyer, he would be happy to be scandalised by anyone, the witness, replied: “Because I don’t want to be scandalised, that is why I will not be involved in the forgery of documents.”
Answering questions from counsel to the APC, Prince Fagbemi, SAN, the witness admitted that the said forfeiture judgement from the US had no certificate signed by a police officer but that of a licenced detective.
He said there was also no fingerprint or picture on the court document.
