The ongoing court case between Dr Livy (Labour Party lead Lawyer) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has taken an interesting turn. Dr Livy, representing the Labour Party (LP), has accused INEC of withholding crucial documents needed to support their case against the declaration of Bola Tinubu as the winner of the election. As the courtroom exchanges intensify, the demand for transparency and the production of the complete set of documents becomes a critical focal point. In this post, we delve into the latest developments and arguments presented by both parties.
Dr Livy’s Plea for Full Document Disclosure:
Dr Livy, counsel to the petitioners, expressed deep concern over INEC’s failure to provide the requested documents despite repeated requests and letters. He urged the court to intervene and mandate INEC to produce the missing documents promptly. The petitioners argue that the incomplete disclosure from INEC hampers their ability to present a comprehensive case against the election result.
INEC’s Defense and Subpoenaed Witness:
INEC’s Director of ICT, Lawrence Bayode, appeared as a subpoenaed witness and provided some documents listed under paragraphs A and B. However, he claimed that certain documents (C, D, and E) were still a work in progress or simply did not exist. Dr Livy contested this, insisting that INEC should be held accountable for providing all the requested documents.
The Burden of Proof:
The court requested the petitioners to provide evidence of their applications for the missing documents. The judges emphasized the importance of demonstrating that the LP had actively pursued the requested materials. INEC’s counsel, Abubakar Mahmoud, argued that the proper procedures for document retrieval had not been followed, highlighting the need for adherence to legal protocols.
Subpoena Service and Limited Document Submission:
Dr Livy informed the court that a subpoena was successfully served to INEC. However, the documents provided by INEC representative Funmilayo Taiwo were insufficient, with some documents missing entirely. This raised concerns about the credibility and completeness of the evidence presented by INEC.
Contentious Cross-Examinations:
The cross-examinations during the proceedings brought forth conflicting arguments and expert testimonies. Questions regarding the use of password protocols, glitches, outage incidents, and agreements between INEC and AWS (Amazon Web Services) were raised. The parties involved challenged the credibility and relevance of certain reports and testimonies, leading to a heated exchange.
The Need for Complete Documentation:
Dr Livy reiterated the urgency of obtaining all the requested documents before the close of their case, stressing that INEC’s rejection of the subpoena served on them was unfair. The defense argued that the impracticability of producing all the documents within the given timeline was justified under the Electoral Act.
Conclusion:
The court case between Mr. Peter Obi, Labour Party and INEC continues to unfold, with the demand for full document disclosure being a central point of contention. Dr Livy maintains that the incomplete provision of documents by INEC obstructs their ability to present a comprehensive case. As the cross-examinations proceed, the court faces the task of assessing the credibility and relevance of the evidence presented. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for both parties involved and could set a precedent for future electoral challenges.
