₦airaland Forum

telleyway:
Thanks again comrade for your time and updates. I will advise that going forward, let Obidient family ignore these APC agents that are here to make sure the thread is derailed at all cost. They opposed life court sessions and are here on nairaland to do same.

Olaolex:
You are doing a great job sir. God bless.

JasonScoolari:
The fool dey follow me... Up and down. 🤣

Shantyken:
So garfield1 was right

IamV:
Okutekpa SAN now asks the court to come back and play. The court noted that if not for time 'they would have played it as there's no law that stops it'.

IamV:
Okutekpa SAN notes that they didn't cite any laws that stops them from playing it.
That they have listed it and served on the respondents, hence no need of serving them copies to play.

The court clarifies that the objection is not to stop from playing but to stop them from playing NOW until they get copies.

The court notes that time is far spent & they don't intend to stay more than 6pm and advises that they serve the respondents copies for them to come back.

IamV:
Okutekpa SAN:

He noted that the objection is most misconceived as the drive must be played in open court. He refers the court to PEO Memo.
He noted that they listed it and are not obligated to play it. That it must be played before they even think of cross+examination or not.
He refers the court to GEO MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER & ORS. V. NATIONAL DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT (2013) LPELR-20796 (CA) AT 33-34

'that is a complete misconception of the law regarding audio cassette.
it must be played in open court.
when that is done, opportunity is given for cross-examination.

[ The court holds that the case is not in line with the objection ]

IamV:
Okutekpa SAN:

He noted that the objection is most misconceived as the drive must be played in open court. He refers the court to PEO Memo.
He noted that they listed it and are not obligated to play it. That it must be played before they even think of cross+examination or not.
He refers the court to GEO MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER & ORS. V. NATIONAL DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT (2013) LPELR-20796 (CA) AT 33-34

'that is a complete misconception of the law regarding audio cassette.
it must be played in open court.
when that is done, opportunity is given for cross-examination.

[ The court holds that the case is not in line with the objection ]

IamV:
Okutekpa SAN:

He now applies that Exhibit PBH3 (first drivel) to be played and that the head of technical and head of INEC server Ikwueto SAN , put on the device and play it.

2nd and 3rd Respondents:

They object to the playing of the drive on the basis that no copy have been Served on the respondents and cannot be able to prepare for it. That they are entitled to be served for them to play it and know the content. And until they are served, they object to it.

Pinhero SAN for INEC:

They are indifferent from their side (for the first time).
That the evidence is before the court and see no reason why it should not be played.

4th Respondent:

They align with 2nd and 3rd Respondents, that they should be served to enable them prepare for cross-examination.

IamV:
The Court:

The second flash drive tendered is now admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit PBH4.

^{As the court pleases.}

M4A1carbine:
Error that has been rectified instantly, with the Court acknowledgement is making you happy? Us this the defense you are hoping on?

Chai!! .. Lamidi Garfield1 Apapa...give us tangible sceneries, your points are stale as rotten Amala...spits

IamV:
Note that the drive above was for one (PBH1), they are now tendering the second with respect to PBH2.

Now to objection;

1st Respondent:
No objections

2nd and 3rd Respondents:
No objections

4th Respondent:
No objections

IamV:
The Court:

The Court have now admitted the Flash Drive and tagged it Exhibit PBH3.

As the court pleases.

IamV:
Akin Olujimi SAN (for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents) objects to the flash drive, that he was supposed to be served and shown the content of the drive before now and not to just throw it on him here in court.

He submits that having not been served ahead of today's proceedings ,it will deprive them of the right to Fair heating since they do not know the content and couldn't prepare against it.

(Looking for adjournment to go and look at it?)

The court asks him whether this affects the admissibility of the drive. Since it doesn't, no need.
He concedes that he does not have objections and Fashanu SAN have no objections.

we now wait for the court to rule on the drive.

IamV:
Pinhero: My Lord, the colour of the flash is red, Okutekpa supports Chelsea, he should have brought blue, I'm an arsenal fan.

Okutekpa: My Lord, I brought red to show them red eyes.

The Court: both of you are losers, you went home with no trophy !

IamV:
Back to witness:

Q. You came with the witness statement on oath, what do you want to do with them?

A. I like to tender and adopt them as my statement.

Q. Your were asked to provide recording or live interview of Prof. Mahmoud and Festus Okoye. Where are they?

A. They are here.

Okutekpa now applies to tender the flash drive containing the videos as provided by the witness into evidence.

(The whole court is about to watch two people lie to us AGAIN on TV)

IamV:
The court have held that the ruling on the objections will be delivered on the final day.
.

Okutekpa SAN then notes that the FAYEMI case, there was a mistake, that it is 2008 8 NWLR (PT. 1089) and not 2019 as cited before. He apologizes.

IamV:
Akin Olujimi SAN stands up again and the court asks 'So that's all we will do today?'

He noted that the provisions of Paragraph 41(5&6) noted by Okutekpa is totally irrelevant. He also noted that the FAYEMI case did not decide the point which was noted by him.

Pinhero SAN stands again.
But he has resumed his seat as the point he was about to raise was merely a friendly comment, not a legal battle.

Fashanu SAN [/b]stands again.
He noted that the FAYEMI case is far from the case as it is a preelection matter and states that the act of Okutekpa SAN is a professional misconduct to mislead the court.

[ [b]The court vehemently calls him to order that such statements are wrong for him to mention and he's addresses. ]

Okutekpa SAN stands to object what Fashanu SAN was saying and he [ Fashanu SAN] orders Okutekpa SAN to sit down, in his words are on basis of seniority at the bar and once again.

[ Again,the court calls him to order that his statements are unhealthy. ]

IamV:
He finally drew the court attention to FAYEMI V. ONI (2019) LPELR-49291 (SC) where the supreme court held that the practice direction and rules of court cannot override the right to Fair Hearing.

IamV:
He noted that it would aid justice to allow the witness and that a subpoena witness can present his statement.
The court have power to order that his evidence can even be taken whether by affidavit or by other means and he be allowed to testify and do the video and odd we go.

He urged the court to overrule the objection and hold that this is technicalities taken too far which they are doing to escape punishment when the video is not seen.

How do you see all the arguments? The objections and responses?
This is the legal battle!

IamV:
He noted that the court held it as a disservice for a witness who
AMAKIRI V. INEC cited, the court held that it is a breach of fair hearing to not allow a witness on Subpoena to testify.

He continues, that in their petition, they listed in Witness List, 'SUBPOENA WITNESSES'.

IamV:
He further noted that a subpoena issued against any person, such witness is competent to testify. He refers the court to Paragraph 41(5 &6) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2022.

He noted that the witness is before the court on Subpoena and submit that, by the LASU V. OWOYEMI (2009) 16 NWLAR PT 1163 513; TAJUDEEN BELLO V. ODOFIN (2021) LPELR-55941 (CA) AT 15-16

Okutekpa - My Lord, they know it, they know it, they didn't want to cite it.

Court - It was cited here yesterday, so even if they didn't, we have it.

IamV:
Okutekpa SAN:

My Lord, if there is any objections that deserves dismissal, it is these ones raised. He urged the court to dismiss their objections as the witness is most competent.
It is not the law that the only witness that can be Subpoened & admitted is an adversary, He says.

garfield1:
He is losing so far

IamV:
4th Respondent:
He aligned with the object of the other Respondents and noted that there's no distinction between Subpoened witness and ordinary witness for the purpose of compliance. AMAKRI V. INEC (2019) LPELR-48697; OMIDIRAN V. ETE (2011) 2 NWLR (PT. 1232) PG 14 71.

[ The court noted that there are no needs for the repetition of things already said. Since he adopted and he's still citing same cases that they cited. ]

He rounded up and urged the court to refuse adopting the witness statement.

IamV:
1st Respondent:

They align themselves with the objection of the 2nd and 3rd Respondent on 3 points:

1. They drew the courts attention to para 35 and 36 of the petition and urged the court to juxtapose it with the Exhibit PBH1 & 2 tendered by the witness.
That the request of the Exhibit is for the production of video recording in line with para 35 and 36. Since they knew this, the Petitioners ought to have filed the Statement

2. They invite the attention of the court to KASHIRU & ANOR. V. KUDULA & ORS. (2019) LPELR-48423 (CA). He noted that the court made only one exception to witness that could be taken if not listed, that is, if the 'witness is an adversary' and the witness before the court have not been proven to be an adversary.

His last authority was AMADI V. INEC (2019) LPELR-486777 (CA) and noted that the Provisions of the Electoral Act are to be ahead to.

Sarcastically,the court noted that they are wasting time listing Livy and Ananaba who were counsels in the case as 'they want to watch film' referring to the witness demonstration.

IamV:
He states that the latest case he is aware on the issue is
- ADVANCE NIGERIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. INEC & ORS. (unreported case: CA/A/EPT/406/2020 deliver 7th July 2020) pg 35-43

Where this same court held that there's no dichotomy between an ordinary witness and a Subpoened witnesss.

He noted that the Petitioners listed videos and audio recordings relating to the elections, so they knew that they were going to subpoena a witness, they ought to have provided his statement-WSO.

He urges the court to uphold his objection.

IamV:
He went ahead to refer the court to cases to back his argument:

- ARARUME V. INEC (2019) LPELR-48397 (CA) 33
- PDP V. OKOGBUO (2019) LPELR-489989 (CA) 22-28

He said it was held that it matters not that a witness is Subpoenad one, the documents must be accompanied with petition.

IamV:
He noted that it was after the court sat that the Petitioners forced on them the witness statement which was filed today 9th June 2023. Clearly about 3 months from the declaration of the results and not along with the petition.

They request that the witness not be allowed to testify since he was not listed and his witness statement not taken. That he is not a competent witness who can testify by the provisions of the law he has read out.

IamV:
He reads the provision and states that Paragraph 6 makes what is not accompanied to the petition not to be accepted.

Correction: Paragraph 4 (4 -6) of the 1st Schedule.

IamV:
Their objection is rested on the provisions of Paragraph 4 and 5 to the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act.

It is settled that a petition must be filed within 21 days against the result of an election. The document that should accompany a petition are in Para 4&5.