The Presidential Election Petition Court sitting in Abuja on Saturday struck out an application filed by the flagbearer of the Labour party, Peter Obi, which sought to extract answers from the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, regarding its claim that ‘technological glitches’ prevented electronic transmission of the 2023 presidential election results.
Obi’s lawyer, P.I Ekweto SAN had earlier adopted his interrogatory application which among other things wanted INEC to disclose who restored the alleged “technical glitches” the electoral umpire said happened on election day, among other things.
Part of the prayers was that the application be moved and heard outside the pre-hearing session which concluded on May 22.
He had urged the court to grant his application in the interest of justice.
But INEC counsel, Oluwakemi Pinheiro SAN, had urged the court to dismiss the application, saying it was a waste of time.
APC’s lawyer, Olanrewaji Akinsola also asked the court to dismiss the application for being filed out of time.
Exposed!! Popular Abuja doctor revealed how men can naturally and permanently cure poor erection, quick ejaculation, small and shameful manhood without side effects. Even if you are hypertensive or diabetic . Stop the use of hard drugs for sex!! It kills!
Part of the questions asked by Obi in the application includes,
“What time was the technological glitches fixed and or repaired?
“What was the exact time of the occurrence of the technical glitch which prevented the e-transmission of the results of the Presidential Election on 25th February 2023?.”
Ruling on application on Saturday, the panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani said for such application to be granted, the petitioners have to satisfy the requirements of the law.
The judge held that for a motion to be moved or heard after its pre-hearing session, the petitioner must place before it the “extreme circumstances” that made him to file the application.
He added that the application has to be filed within the timeline stipulated for such application.
The judge held that it was a fact that the motion of the petitioners was served after it had concluded it’s pre-hearing session on May 22.
“This court is bound by record on proceedings.
“The law is established that it is the duty of a party to call the attention of the court over the pendency of an application,” Justice Tsammani said.
He said it was clearly wrong for the petitioners’ lawyers to blame the court on the development when they filed their applications after the pre-hearing session and failed to bring it up at the time.
“Accordingly, this application fails and is accordingly struck out,” the judge said in an unanimous ruling.
