PEPC: Presidential election results wrongly computed – Dino tells court

Hearing in the petition filed by the Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar and his party, challenging the declaration of Asiwaju Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the February 25 presidential election continued on Friday with the petitioners calling their 22nd witness, Sen. Dino Melaye.

Led in evidence by the lead counsel to the petitioners, Chief Chris Uche (SAN), Melaye told the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) in Abuja that the final result of the presidential election was wrongly computed and announced by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The witness said he walked out of the national collation centre before the end of the process as the national collation agent of the petitioners when he discovered the fraudulent activities going on at the centre.

According to Melaye, who is one of the star witnesses of the petitioners, he declined to sign the final result sheet in protest to the fraudulent activities in the collation of the results of the presidential election.

Under cross-examination by counsel to INEC, Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), said, some agents of the petitioners also refused to sign the result sheets of the presidential election in their various collation centres across the country in protest to the gross malpractices in the conduct of the election.

The witness said the results brought to the national collation centre by state electoral officers were at variance with the results recorded in the state.

Melaye said one of his grouse in his three statements on oath deposed to before the court was the refusal of INEC to transmit the election results (Forms EC8As) electronically to its portal.

He said his depositions in his statements were based on his personal experience and information from the party agents across the country, which were life feeds through information technology of what was happening in the field.

The witness alleged that there was a device mechanism that INEC used to quarantine the presidential election results.

Answering questions from Chief Akin Olujinmi (SAN), counsel to President Tinubu, the witness said the failure of INEC to transmit results from Form EC8A to its I-ReV is an infringement of the law, even as he told the court that the result captured in Form EC8A cannot be changed even though not transmitted electronically.

Also at the proceedings on Friday, the petitioners’ counsel tendered two sets of documents produced by INEC, following a subpoena on its chairman, Prof Yakubu Mahmood on May 26, 2023.

The documents are the certified true copies of Forms EC8A series (Polling units results) from 13 Local Government Areas of Nasarawa state.

The second documents are Forms EC40G and Form EC40G(2), which were summaries of polling units where elections were cancelled or disrupted.

The respondents, through their counsel, objected to the admissibility of the documents and promised to give reasons for their objection at the address stage.

The court, however, admitted the documents as exhibits and adjourned till Monday for further hearing of the petition.

Atiku Abubakar and his party, in their joint petition numbered, CA/PEPC/05/2023 with INEC, Tinubu and APC as respondents, are challenging the declaration of Tinubu as the winner of the February 25 presidential election on the ground on gross violation of the Constitution, the Electoral law and INEC’s guidelines for the conduct of the election.

Meanwhile, the 4th witness called by Peter Obi and the Labour Party in their petition challenging Tinubu’s election, Mr. Eric Uwadiegwu Ofoebgu, who claimed to be a Professor of Mathematics at the Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka told the court earlier that, he did not know the winner of the last presidential election in Rivers and Benue states.

Ofoegbu said, although he was engaged to analyse election results from both states, he cannot say who won in the states.

Under cross examination by counsel to the APC, Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN), the witness said the number of polling units in Benue and Rivers states were not up to the 18, 000 blurred polling unit results sheets which he identified in his report and prayed the court to void.

On why he focused on two states won by the APC, the witness said the states were chosen randomly and that he restricted himself to only Rivers and Benue because of time limitation.

Under cross examination by Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), counsel to INEC, Ofoegbu said he was not paid for the job he did for the LP and Obi, saying that he voted on February 25 without any trouble and that, he saw his engagement by the petitioners as an opportunity to gather data for the benefit of his students, adding that his primary source of his data was the INEC Results Viewing (I-ReV) portal.

The witness however admitted that the I-ReV portal is not capable of collating and tabulating election results.

He said, he also worked with copies of polling unit result sheets (Forms EC8A) in the custody of the petitioners’ agents.

On how he came about his finding that INEC did not comply with its regulations and Electoral Act while not being an election expert, the witness said he was able to reach such conclusion even though he was not an expert in election issues.

The witness, who claimed in his report, that there was over voting in the two states he analysed, however said there was no over voting in respect of polling unit 007, ward 007 in Degema Local Government Area of Rivers State when he was confronted with a copy of the result for the polling unit.

Under cross examination by lawyer to President Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettma, Akin Olujinmi (SAN), the witness said he agreed that votes are cast at the polling unit and that at the end of voting, votes are counted and recorded in Form EC8A.

The witness, who said it was the image of the Form EC8A that is normally uploaded to I-ReV and that, he worked with the only available results when he conducted his analysis, told the court that his report will be different if he gets more materials to work with.

On why he insisted on being subpoenaed to tender a report he claimed to have willingly produced for the petitioners, the witness said: “I did not know it will end up in court. I accepted to do the job because I saw it as a means of helping my students.”

The petitioners also called their sixth witness, Ijeoma Osamor, a staff of Daar Communication Plc, through whom the petitioners tendered a video recording of a presentation made on November 2, 2022 by the INEC Chairman.

Mahmoud, Olujinmi and Owonikoko objected to the adoption of the witness’ written statement on the grounds that it was not filed along with the petitioners’ petition as required under the Electoral Act.

When played in court, the video revealed the INEC Chairman promising that BVAS will be deployed for accreditation, incident forms will not be used and that polling unit results will be uploaded in real time for citizens to monitor the results.

The court adjourned till Monday, July 19 at 2pm for further hearing in the petition.