Tinubu Drug Forfeiture: Tribunal Slams Obi, INEC Lawyers For ‘Breach Of Protocol’ At Proceedings

A rowdy session was witnessed at the Presidential Election Petitions Court sitting in Abuja on Tuesday when the legal team of the presidential candidate of the Labour party, Peter Obi, said they had only one witness for today’s proceedings and about five documents to tender as evidence in their case against President Bola Tinubu.

J.S Okutepa SAN told the five-man panel of the court led by Justice Haruna Tsammani that he has filed his team’s schedule of documents for the witness this morning, adding that he intends to tender five documents as evidence as well.

The documents he sought to tender were from INEC (bordering on Kashim Shettima’s nomination) aside from a United States District Court judgement on alleged drugs dealings associated with Bola Tinubu’s bank account resulting in forfeiture of 460,000 dollars.

But INEC’s lawyer, A.B Mahmoud SAN rose up and accused Obi’s team of hiding their documents only to bring them up during the proceedings.

He said he needed time to consult with his client (INEC) before admitting any document from Obi even if they were electoral materials.

“We have been served with the schedule of documents not with the documents itself. I have not seen the document as of now,” Mahmoud said, adding that it was not right for the petitioner to “ambush” him.

“They should give us their documents ahead of time. We are not here to conduct trial by ambush, ” Mahmoud said.

Tinubu and Kashim Shettima’s lawyer, Wole Olanipekun SAN, equally maintained that he has not seen Obi’s documents.

But Okutepa rose up again saying, “There is no law mandating the petitioners to give our documents to the respondents days before hearing.”

He countered INEC, saying the document that he wanted to tender was already certified by the Commission and its lawyer cannot tell the court that he has not seen the documents Obi’s team intends to tender.

Following their arguments, the panel ordered the proceedings to be suspended for ten minutes for them to go back to their chambers and return and for lawyers to go through the documents Obi’s legal team wants to tender.

When the court resumed, a member of the panel, Justice Stephen Adah, faulted Obi’s lawyers for causing delay in commencement of hearing, saying they ” breached protocol.”

Referring to Obi’s team, the court ordered that all processes should be filed and given to parties before hearing date, not on the day of proceedings.

On INEC’s lawyer’s statement that he needs to meet with his client before he can confirm the electoral materials Obi wants to tender, the court said the lawyer should know INEC’s certification when he sees one.

Justice Adah reminded all parties that they had agreed not to object to certified documents from INEC.

Justice Adah pointed towards Mahmoud, saying “INEC, you should know your certification.”

The panel also directed Obi’s legal team to file all his schedule of documents, not one by one.

“I apologize and we take correction,” Okutepa replied but urged the court to note that INEC was yet to give him all the documents they had applied for.

Subsequently, Okutepa asked the panel to admit his five documents relating to Tinubu’s alleged drug forfeiture in US and INEC forms on Shettima’s nomination.

INEC did not object but Tinubu and APC lawyers, Wole Olanipekun and Lateef Fagbemi SAN, raised objection to the document on alleged forfeiture but said they reserved their comment till final address as stipulated by the court.

However, the court admitted the documents tendered by Obi’s legal team as evidence.

Cross Examination Of First Witness

Okutepa then presented a lawyer, Lawrence Uchenna Nwakaeti, from Ihiala, Anambra state, as his first witness for the day.

The witness adopted his statement on oath and also admitted he obtained the “proceedings of the United States District Court” on Tinubu’s alleged forfeiture.

During cross examination, INEC counsel asked the witness to confirm whether all he told the court about electoral forms and the U.S. Court Judgment was his legal opinions or not.

The witness said his statement was in line with “pure law”.

Olanipekun asked the witness, Nwakaeti: “You stated emphatically that Tinubu was fined 460,000 dollars in USA?

“Will you be surprised that not a single line or word relating to fine was mentioned in the US Court Judgment?”.

The witness insisted that Tinubu was fined.

The APC counsel asked the witness to confirm whether the forfeiture in U.S was civil or criminal.

The witness replied that it was a civil forfeiture.

The court subsequently discharged the witness from the testimony dock and adjourned hearing till tomorrow, Wednesday.