By Gladys Echeruo
Abuja –
The ongoing trial of the PDP and Atiku Abubakar’s petition against the INEC’s conduct of the presidential election heard from a subpoenaed witness who testified that they were able to transmit the results of the Senatorial and House of Representatives election on February 25th successfully.
Presidential Election Petitions Court
The appointment letter of the INEC presiding officer for Polling Unit 017, Ward 3 in Abia North Local Government Area, was presented at the court hearing, identified as EOF and accepted as evidence.
During his testimony, the witness emphasized that he and other individuals received training on result transmission procedures. He explained that he recorded the sorted and counted votes on the designated form EC8A, which was signed by party agents and the police. He also took a snapshot of the form but was unable to transmit it using BVAS technology. As a result, he had to deliver the form manually to the ward collation centre.
During cross-examination by INEC’s counsel, the witness acknowledged that he also received training on offline transmission, which entailed uploading an image of the result sheet even when there was no network. He went on to explain that in their training, the process would automatically be finalized once the BVAS device regained network connectivity.
Under cross-examination by the lawyers representing Bola Tinubu and the APC, the witness conceded that there were no issues that arose at his polling unit. He also expressed satisfaction with the process, as the presence of police officers helped to ensure their safety during the exercise.
When questioned further, the witness verified that the Labour Party emerged as the winners in the election held at his polling unit.
Before the witness summoned to appear in court could testify, there was a delay caused by objections raised by the respondents regarding the lack of front-loaded statements. This led to a heated argument between the petitioner’s counsel and the respondent’s counsel.
The Justices presiding over the case opted to withhold their ruling on the issue until the final judgment, instead of deliberating and deciding on the matter immediately as earlier planned. GMTNews
