INEC counsel accuses Peter Obi of delaying presidential election petition Tribunal

The counsel representing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Kemi Pinero, has accused the Labour Party (LP) of intentionally causing unnecessary delays in the proceedings of the presidential election petition tribunal.

Telescope.ng gathered that the tribunal was initiated after INEC declared Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the presidential election on March 1.

Expressing dissatisfaction with the election results, Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and Peter Obi, the presidential candidate of the LP, took the matter to court to challenge the outcome.

However, during the proceedings on Wednesday, Livy Uzoukwu, the lead counsel for the LP, claimed that the office of the INEC chairman had failed to provide the party with the requested documents for evidence, despite a subpoena.

Uzoukwu stated, “The office of the INEC chairman has consistently refused to comply with providing documents even with the subpoena issued, in spite of the efforts of the bailiff.”

He mentioned that although he had met with the INEC lead counsel, he did not have a copy of the subpoena to present at the time.

Uzoukwu expressed confidence that he would send it to the INEC counsel later, expecting them to fulfil the necessary requirements for the proceedings to continue the following day.

Contrary to Uzoukwu’s claims, Kemi Pinero dismissed them, asserting that it was a tactic employed to seek an adjournment.

Pinero refuted the existence of a subpoena, stating that INEC had adequately responded to subpoenas issued by other parties and had no reason to neglect the LP’s request. She emphasized, “A subpoena was not refused. PDP served subpoenas and we have responded to them.

It is clear that this is becoming a habit that they (LP) like to whip, it’s a pattern.” Pinero further urged the LP not to use INEC as a target of criticism, offering no opposition to their request for an adjournment.

Pinero criticized the LP’s actions, suggesting that they were intentionally stalling the case. She highlighted that out of the 50 witnesses the LP claimed they would present, only two had been called upon in the two weeks since the tribunal began.

Pinero clarified that the INEC chairman had no personal interest in the matter and stated, “I just want to make it clear that it is not correct that the INEC chairman refused to respond to the subpoena. The chairman of INEC has no interest whatsoever. So it’s very unfair and uncharitable.”