Inibehe Effiong, a legal practitioner and social critic, has urged people not to panic over objections to the admissibility of documents by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, at the ongoing hearings at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, saying that it is a distraction. Effiong was quoted as saying that the objections to the admissibility of documents by INEC at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal are a distraction.
Effiong asserted that the documents that were contested by the INEC had been lawfully certified, and he added that the Court will act on them.
On Thursday, the legal expert asserted, via a post on his verified Twitter handle, that “the Electoral Commission’s neutrality is a mirage, especially in electoral litigations.” He made this claim in reference to a specific type of legal dispute.
He claimed that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had essentially coordinated its defence strategy with that of the other respondents, which included the All Progressives Congress (APC).
He wrote that people shouldn’t get too worked up about objections to the admissibility of documents brought forward by INEC before the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal. It does not come as a surprise to me that INEC has such a rogue and embarrassing attitude. These are public documents that have been properly accredited. They will be given consideration by the Court. It’s a nuisance to deal with.
Because INEC is the creator of the documents that they’ve certified, known as the Form EC8 series (polling unit and collation results), they are not supposed to raise any objections to the admissibility of those documents, in the ordinary course of events.
“I have always maintained that INEC’s purported neutrality is nothing more than a mirage, particularly with regard to electoral litigations.
“The documents have been admitted, despite the fact that the Respondents will state the grounds for their objections in their final addresses.
In most cases, the tribunal will examine the documents and make decisions based on what it finds.
There is no reason to be concerned so long as the documents have been properly certified, as long as that is.
“Essentially, INEC has coordinated their defence strategy with that of the other Respondents, which includes Tinubu, the APC, and Shettima.” They are, as they always are, operating in perfect harmony with one another.
On Wednesday, it was reported that President Bola Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC), and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had raised objections to the admission of certain documents that Alhaji Abubakar Atiku, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), wanted to tender in evidence.
At the resumption of the hearing of the petition filed by Atiku and the PDP challenging the election of President Tinubu at the Presidential Election Petition Court in Abuja, the counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Chris Uche, SAN, stated that the team had prepared a second schedule of documents to be tendered. The petition is challenging the election of President Tinubu.
Some of the documents that the petitioners submitted as evidence were certified true copies of Form EC8A that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had downloaded from its Result Viewing Portal (IREV). These copies were submitted by the petitioners through Mr. Eyitayo Jegede, SAN.
The Form EC8A was completed for eight local government areas in Bayelsa, 23 local government areas in Kaduna State, 20 local government areas in Ogun State, and 23 local government areas in Kogi State.
Sheets known as Form EC8As are utilized in the process of accumulating results at the polling unit level.
However, counsel for INEC, Mr. Kemi Pinhero, SAN, raised an objection to the admissibility of all documents relating to Kogi, with the exception of those pertaining to five Local Government Areas: Olamaboro, Ofu, Omala, Okehi, and Ajaokuta.
He stated that the reason for this was due to the fact that the five local governments, whose documents he did not object to, were specifically pleaded in the pleadings of the petitioners.
Pinhero also raised an objection regarding the legitimacy of the documents relating to the BVAS, with the exception of the states of Kogi, Rivers, and Sokoto.
