Atiku doubles down questioning integrity of PEPC judgment, says it’s a ‘pre-determined manipulation by the APC’
By Jeph Ajobaju, Chief Copy Editor
Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has poured cold water on the explanation given by Tinubu Presidential Legal Team (TPLT) as to how the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) was printed on the letterhead of the TPLT.
TPLT Coordinator Babatunde Ogala explained at the weekend that “on collecting our own copy, we immediately scanned and water-marked with the inscription – ‘Tinubu Presidential Legal Team ‘TPLT’’ before circulating the scanned soft copies to the lawyers in our team.”
Atiku countered on Monday that “further examination and expert analysis show that the documents are not scanned and that the TPLT inscriptions are not watermarks but computer default header which usually originates from an author of a document.”
This latest disclosure builds on facts and allegations already in the public domain, including alleged infiltration of Tinubu and his henchmen into the ranks of the PEPC Justices and up to the Supreme Court. Others include:
- Allegation Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Kayode Ariwoola secretly met with Tinubu in London before the PEPC began sitting in Abuja. Both Tinubu and Ariwoola denied the charge.
- Reportera.com published last month allegation former Works and Housing Minister Babatunde Fashola, a Tinubu loyalist, was writing the judgment of the PEPC to be delivered on September 6.
- Fashola denied the allegation and petitioned Inspector General of Police (IGP) Kayode Egbetokun, another Tinubu loyalist, to investigate the claim.
- Reportera reacted by doubling down on the story, insisting on its veracity. Reportera publisher Nnamdi Ibezim lives in the United States.
- Police have confirmed arrest in Abuja on August 10 of Nnamdi’s brother, Chike. Nnamdi accused the police of arrest by proxy.
- Other critics also said Chike was arrested in Nnamdi’s stead, which is against the law that a person cannot be arrested or charged to court for a crime committed by someone else.
- PEPC Chairman Justice Haruna Tsammani and some of his fellow Justices when reading out the judgment in a live broadcast on September 6 repeated several expressions used at the hearing and at final address by Tinubu’s lead counsel Wole Olanipeku.
- Allegation of Tinubu’s Guinean citizenship, a dual citizenship status which, if proven, constitutionally disqualifies him from being President, was not examined by the PEPC, claiming Atiku did not “frontload” the particulars before pre-hearing.
- However, Atiku stated this allegation in his original petition filed before pre-hearing (the petition is in the public domain), and in the petition asked the court to order Tinubu to present his two (Nigerian and Guinean) passports at the PEPC.
- Tinubu’s lawyer Olanipekun foot dragged on providing the Guinean passport until after the commencement of hearing, a tactic the PEPC allowed him to play to enable him claim the passport ought to have been “frontloaded” before pre-hearing and was being “smuggled” into the proceedings at hearing.
- Olanipekun did not explain the reason for his objection during hearing, saying he would delay doing so until final address. He eventually explained his reason for his objection to the evidence at final address when the time was too late and too short for Atiku’s lawyers to respond to it in full detail.
- This was the same tactic Olanipekun used over the witnesses and documents presented by the petitioners, including Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP).
- Olanipekun objected to nearly all the witnesses and the documentary evidence the petitioners presented at hearing without explaining the reasons at the time. He said he would explain the reasons in his final address. When he came up with his reasons for the objections at final address, the time was too late and too short for the petitioners’ lawyers to respond to them in full detail.
- Tsammani and other Justices, quoting Olanipekun verbatim, used the words “frontload” and “smuggle” during delivery of the judgment to justify why they rejected the evidence of the Guinean passport.
- The Justices encouraged and enabled the respondents, including the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), to delay or refuse the release of documents to the petitioners.
- Then the Justices proceeded in the live broadcast of the judgment to give copious legal precedents and authorities to justify why they rejected witnesses and documents for being incompetent or for coming too late.
- In their language and tone during the live broadcast, the Justices spoke like defence lawyers for the respondents – Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC), and the INEC – and were hostile to the petitioners and their lawyers.
- Tsammani announced on the first day of pre-hearing the PEPC would not tolerate legal “technicalities” being used by any counsel to prevent the delivery of justice.
- But it was Tsammani himself who led the other Justices to encourage and to enable the use of “technicalities” by the respondents’ legal team, led by Olanipekun.
- Every incontrovertible evidence presented by the petitioners to disqualify Tinubu was conveniently rejected by the PEPC. As noted by Emmanuel Ogebe, a human rights lawyer with US Nigeria Law Group in Washington, who flew to Abuja to witness the proceedings in person. See https://www.thenicheng.com/mechanical-versus-dynamic-justice-the-beatification-of-snatch-and-grab-itocracy/
- The INEC legally has the discretion to decide the mode of conducting the election. But evidence on tape was presented to the PEPC where INEC Chairman Mahmood Yakubu repeatedly told Nigerians and the world BVAS would be used and polling unit results transmitted live to its IReV.
- On February 25, however, only two of the three elections conducted simultaneously – for the Senate and the House of Representatives – were transmitted live from polling units to the IReV. The e-transmission of the result of the presidential ballot was halted midway.
- The petitioners alleged the INEC deliberately crippled the IReV, manually manipulated results from polling units, and rigged the election for Tinubu.
- At the PEPC, the INEC claimed a “technical hitch” prevented it from fully transmitting the result of the presidential vote live to its IReV – and that, in any case, it has the legal right to decide whether or not to use BVAS and IReV.
- To date, the INEC has failed – at the PEPC or outside – to fully explain the “technical hitch.”
- In essence, the INEC deceived Nigerians by failing to deliver on its promise and also failed to explain or apologise for it.
- A PEPC interested in truth and justice should have at least reprimanded the INEC for lying to Nigerians. As argued by critics, including former Nigeria Bar Association Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL) Chairman, Monday Ubani. See https://www.thenicheng.com/ubani-faults-inec-for-abandoning-its-own-guidelines-says-pepc-ought-to-have-issued-a-reprimand/.
Atiku says TPTL watermark claim on PEPC judgment self-indicting
Atiku disclosed on Monday he and the PDP have “meticulously examined the scandalous inscription of the header of TPLT” on the Certified True Copies (CTC) of the PEPC judgment in circulation.
Atiku said through an X (a Twitter) statement he issued through PDP National Publicity Secretary Debo Ologunagba that:
“The knee-jerk admission by the Tinubu Legal Team that it ‘scanned and watermarked’ its copy of the judgment with the inscription, ‘Tinubu Presidential Legal Team ‘TPLT’’ is self-indicting and lends credence to widespread public insinuation of pre-determined manipulation by the APC.
“The rush by the TPLT in admitting that it imprinted on the CTC of the judgment smacks of a desperate attempt to dispel public scrutiny and ward off the possibility of more revelations regarding the issue.
“The PDP and indeed majority of Nigerians are not satisfied with the claims by the Tinubu Legal Team.
“This is especially as further examination and expert analysis show that the documents are not scanned and that the TPLT inscriptions are not watermarks but computer default header which usually originates from an author of a document.
“The PDP demands that the Tinubu Legal Team should explain show what obviously is a default header on its computer system should be accepted as a watermark.
“The Tinubu Legal Team should also disclose to Nigerians what specific time on Friday, September 8, 2023 they received their CTC; what time specifically was the ‘watermark’ imprinted on the document, the identity of the electronic devise with which the ‘watermark’ was made as well as the PDF used in the said watermarking process for independent analysis.
“The PDP demands that the All Progressives Congress (APC) should come clean on the issue especially given its notoriety for manipulations.”
Cover of the 798-page certified true copy (CTC) of the PEPC judgment, with the inscription of TPLT letterhead at the top left corner.
__________________________________________________________________
Related articles:
How PEPC ab initio ‘locked down’ judgment in favour of Tinubu
US court hears Tinubu’s alleged CSU certificate forgery case tomorrow
Tinubu has 2 CSU certificates and “either ‘A’ or ‘B’ is fake (if not both)”, lawyer tells US court
__________________________________________________________________
Special privileges accorded to TPLT
Atiku at the weekend had alleged the “inscription on the CTC” suggests the tribunal accorded special privileges to Tinubu’s legal team, per reporting by TheCable.
“It is very clear that there are many questions begging for answers, including why the PEPC came to the decision to avail the respondents, especially the Tinubu Legal Team, to have a first receipt of the CTC of the judgement before the plaintiffs,” Atiku said in a statement he issued through his Media Aide Phrank Shaibu.
“Nigerians want to know why the PEPC confers special privileges to the Tinubu Legal Team by making them have a first custody of copies of the PEPC judgement, even though it was more urgent for the petitioners who needed the document in order to cause an appeal to the Supreme Court within 14 days including weekends.
“In the course of delivering its judgement, the PEPC had spoken of the petition it was ruling upon in a vexatious and denigrating language as if it was a crime to bring a case of electoral banditry before the court.”
Shaibu said the inscription at the top left-hand corner of the 798-page document is neither a monochrome nor a metadata.
“It is actually a HEADER, meaning that except for a valid explanation, the Tinubu Presidential Legal Team is the originator of the document. For the purposes of clarity, a header is text that is placed at the top of a page, while a footer is placed at the bottom of a page.
“Typically, these areas are used for inserting information such as the name of the document, the chapter heading, page numbers, creation date, and the like.
“On the other hand, watermark is a faint design made in some paper during manufacture that is visible when held against the light and typically identifies the maker of the document.”
By challenging Tinubu’s victory, Shaibu stressed, Atiku is making a last-ditch effort to “salvage our country and deepen our democracy.”
TPLT insists original CTCs have no watermark
Ogala, TPLT Coordinator, in his explanation described the controversy over the watermark as mischievous.
“After the delivery of judgment in the 3 (Three) election petitions by the Court of Appeal on September 6, 2023, the Court directed its registry to make physical copies of same available on September 7, 2023,” he said.
“Accordingly, the Tinubu Presidential Legal Team applied for a certified true copy of the said judgment and paid the prescribed fee. Lawyers for PDP were present at the registry at the same time to collect the same judgment.
“In fact, the representative of the PDP collected the first copy that was made available by the registry. On collecting our own copy, we immediately scanned and water-marked with the inscription – ‘Tinubu Presidential Legal Team ‘TPLT’’ before circulating the scanned soft copies to the lawyers in our team.
“The certified true copies issued to us and other parties in the petitions by the registry do not contain the said inscription and any insinuation to the contrary is untrue.
“Counsel to the petitioners will also appreciate the fact that the insinuations being circulated in some quarters are untrue, unkind, unfair, and unfortunate, as they have the same certified copies of the judgment as we have.”
 was printed on the letterhead of the TPLT.){kind=link}