by Eric Ikhilae
The proceedings before a United States (U.S.) court in which President Bola Tinubu allegedly forfeited $460,000 was a civil case, a lawyer and first petitioners’ witness in the petition by Labour Party (LP) and its candidate Peter Obi, Lawrence Nwakaeti yesterday told the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC).
Testifying before the court, Nwakaeti said he did not see or have any copy of any charge filed against Tinubu in respect of the case.
Nwakaeti, through whom the petitioners tendered documents in relation to the said U.S. court proceedings, which were admitted in evidence and marked as “exhibit PA5,” said the documents were not registered in Nigeria.
When being cross-examined by Wole Olanipekun (SAN), lawyer to Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettma, the witness said the documents were not accompanied with a CERTIFICATE from either the Nigerian Consular in the US or US Consular in Nigeria.
Nwakaeti, however, said he would be surprised if the documents did not indicate that Tinubu was fined.
Under cross-examination by Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), lawyer to the All Progressives Congress (APC), the witness said the documents were also not accompanied with a certificate issued under the hand of a police officer in the U.S., where he (the witness) claimed that Tinubu was convicted, indicating the sentence and terms of the sentence.
The witness also denied knowing if there was charge filed, adding that he did not have any copy.
Nwakaeti added that he was not aware of the letter of clearance, dated February 4, 2003 issued by the Legal Atache of the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria issued in respect of Tinubu on his alleged prosecution in the U.S.
He denied knowing about a letter written on July 6 by Shettima, informing the APC of his withdrawal as a senatorial candidate of the party.
Earlier, while being led by Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), lawyer to the petitioners, the witness adopted his written witness statement, which he urged the court to adopt as his evidence in the case.
He said beside being a voter, he did not do any other thing on the day of the presidential election, but just voted in his Anambra State community.
Okutepa tendered, through the witness, some set of documents relating to Shettima ‘s nomination.
At the conclusion of Nwakaeti’s testimony, the petitioners applied for an adjournment on the grounds that they have no other witness for the day.
The court then adjourned further hearing in the petition till today ( Wednesday) at 9am.
Also opening its case yesterday, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) tendered before the court copies of results sheets, printout of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and record of the number of permanent voter cards (PVC) collected for the last presidential election across the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
The documents, which are certified true copies (CTCs) of the said materials, were brought to the courtroom in some plastic containers.
They were tendered from the Bar by the petitioners’lawyer, Eyitayo Jegede (SAN) and were admitted in evidence, with objection raised in relation to some of the documents by lawyers to the respondents.
Prof Taiwo Osipitan (SAN) and Adeniyi Akintola (SAN) who spoke for the legal teams of Tinubu and APC, said they will give reasons for their objection at the address stage.
The petitioners (the PDP and Atiku Abubakar) did not call any witness yesterday.
Further hearing in the petition was adjourned till 2pm on Wednesday.
The court adjourned till Friday hearing in the petition by the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), challenging the nomination of Shettima as a replacement for Kabir Masari (the placeholder) as the vice presidential candidate of the APC.
The adjournment, according to the court, was to enable the lawyer to the APM, Shehu Abubakar and other parties obtain copies of the May 26 judgment of the Supreme Court on the appeal by the PDP, challenging the APC’s nomination of Shettima, which the PDP had termed double nomination.
Abubakar sought the adjournment upon an observation by Olanipekun (lead lawyer to the President, Bola Tinubu and Shettima in the petition) that the Supreme Court judgment has an effect on the petition by the APM, which deals solely with the same issue of Shettima’s nomination.
Olanipekun promised to obtain a CTC of the judgment and make it available to the court within two days. He also said he hopes to meet with the lawyer to the petitioner to know whether, in view of the judgment, the APM will still continue with its case.
Abubakar said he needed time to enable him obtain the judgment, study same to ascertain its effect on his client’s case and decide what further steps to take.