Tribunal turns down PDP’s request for more time

652

A petition of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP requesting more time to conclude their case has been turned down by the Presidential election Petition Tribunal in Abuja.

This was after PDP lawyer, Chris Uche asked for more time from the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal to conclude their case.

Friday was initially the last of the ten days allocated to the party to make their case, but after receiving a heap of documents to be tendered as an exhibit from INEC, the PDP has now admitted that it will need more time to go through the papers.

However, lawyers to President Muhammadu Buhari and the All Progressives Congress (APC) objected to the admissibility of the documents with a promise to give reasons for their objection in their final address.

The Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Mohammed Garba noted their objections but admitted the documents as exhibits.

Responding to the petition of the PDP, Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Mohammed Garba said it cannot approve the request of the party but will continue with proceedings till later in the day to enable the petitioners to conclude their case.

The documents presented by the PDP include Expert Report of INEC’s Electoral Information Systems as revealed by Whistle Blowers Website,  Downloaded documents from the website, Certificate of Compliance and Executive Summary for the 11 states under review.

This is to justify their petition challenging President Muhammadu Buhari’s victory at February 23, 2019 election.

The PDP then went to called its 59th witness, David Njoga, an ICT expert from Kenya who claims to have obtained data from INEC server.

Under cross-examination, lawyers to President Buhari and the APC disagreed with the witness on the ground that the website where the witness obtained his data does not belong to INEC.

The PDP also tendered Forms EC8 a and EC8 B which are result sheets from seven local government areas in Kano State.

Lawyers to INEC, President Buhari, and the APC objected to the admissibility of the documents.

The chairman of the tribunal, however, admitted the documents as exhibits having noted the objection of the respondents.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *