Kogi Tribunal: Ododo, APC to open defence as SDP, Ajaka close case
The three-member tribunal, chaired by Ado Birnin-Kudu, fixed the date on Friday after SDP and Mr Ajaka, the petitioners, closed their case.
Governor Usman Ododo of Kogi State and his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), will on April 15 open their defence at the state’s governorship election tribunal sitting in Abuja against the petition filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and its candidate, Murtala Ajaka.
The three-member tribunal, chaired by Ado Birnin-Kudu, fixed the date on Friday after SDP and Mr Ajaka, the petitioners, closed their case.
The petitioners closed their case after calling 25 witnesses as against 400 witnesses they initially proposed to present to prove their petition.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is also expected to offer its defence in the matter with two witnesses.
It would be recalled that the SDP and its governorship candidate in the 11 November 2023 poll, are challenging Governor Ododo’s victory in the election.
In the petition, INEC, Mr Ododo and APC are listed as 1st to 3rd respondents respectively.
Friday’s hearing
When the case was called on Friday, INEC, Ododo and APC’s lawyers opposed the move by Jibrin Okutepa, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), to lead the witness, Edidiong Udoh, a Digital Forensic Expert, in evidence.
Chief Kanu Agabi, a SAN; Alex Iziyon, a SAN; and Emmanuel Ukala, also a SAN, who appeared for INEC, Mr Ododo and APC, respectively, argued that the petitioner did not list the name of the witness in their proof of evidence and that the witness’ statement on oath was not front-loaded alongside the petition.
They also contended that the petitioners only served the reports of the witness’ analysis report on them 20 minutes before the commencement of the proceedings.
But Mr Okutepa insisted that the forensic expert was listed on page 56 of the petition as item 10, adding that his statement was also front-loaded.
He, however, admitted that the report was served on the respondents a few minutes to the proceedings.
The lawyer, therefore, prayed the tribunal to allow him to lead Mr Udoh in evidence and stand down the matter for 30 minutes for the respondents to study the report.
Forensic analyst’s testimony
Mr Udoh, who described himself as a digital forensic expert living in Port Harcourt in Rivers State, begged the tribunal to allow him amend paragraph 7, line 3 of his statement on oath, which he submitted on 12 January, before adopting it.
TEXEM Advert
“The particular words that I used were not proper. I said, ‘There was some very suspicious software.’ I applied to change it to ‘there was no suspicious software used,’” he prayed.
But Messrs Agabi, Iziyon and Ukala disagreed with Mr Udoh’s oral application.
“If this kind of amendment is permissible, then there is no kind of amendment that cannot be permissible,” Mr Agabi said.
The judge asked them to reserve their objections for their final written addresses.
Messrs Iziyon and Ukala, who backed Mr Agabi’s submission, agreed to raise the objection at the appropriate time.
While giving evidence, Mr Udoh said he had 12 certificates in support of his qualifications.
And when Mr Okutepa sought to tender the certificates of the witness as exhibits, the respondents’ lawyers objected.
They queried why the counsel only sought to tender photocopies of the certificates without supporting the documents with the original copies.
The witness responded that he forgot to come with the original certificates.
“The originals were mistakenly left in my office in Port Harcourt but I have them,” Mr Udoh said.
Although the tribunal refused to admit the photocopies, the petitioners’ lawyer pleaded, insisting that the certificates were personal documents and that they could be admitted.
The tribunal chairperson, Justice Birnin-Kudu, admitted the documents and urged the counsel for the respondents to reserve their objections till the final written addresses.
While being cross-examined, the witness was asked if he was the only one that worked on the report, and he said seven other experts worked on it with him.
His attention was drawn to the fact that he did not signify the names of these experts in the report and that their signatures were not also included.
Mr Udoh responded that his name and signature were on the report because he was the team leader.
“Eight of us conducted the analysis. As digital forensic experts, our qualifications are identical.
“I signed the report as the team lead. The reason I did not include their name is because I was the team lead,” he said.
The witness was also asked if he knew the meaning of BVAS machine and what it contained.
He said BVAS machines were designed to store information on accredited voters and registered voters and any other information.
The respondents’ counsel asked if such information included Form EC8A and he said, “yes, it may include it.”
The respondents’ lawyer then asked if all the snap shots of BVAS Machine that were included in his report contained Form EC8A.
Mr Udoh said the snapshots were only for accredited voters and registered voters.
He said INEC guidelines provide what BVAS should contain and Form EC8A is one of them.
When asked if he examined the ballot papers and if his findings on the ballot papers were contained in his report, he responded in the negative.
He, however, confirmed that INEC gave him the voters register but that he could not remember the number given to him.
A major discrepancy observed during the hearing was that figures reflected in the witness’ report conflicted with the figures contained in SDP’s petition.
But he said he did not depend on the petition to write his report.
The witness, who was said to have used the word “dactylography” in his report, was asked if he knew its meaning.
Mr Udoh said he knew the meaning as a fingerprint expert.
His attention was then brought to his curriculum vitae, as tendered, which did not contain the certification in dactylography.
When asked if he knew that there was a certificate for experts in dactylography, he said he did not know.(NAN)
