Election dispute: Buhari, APC, INEC not calling witnesses in HDP petition.•Court fixes August 5 for final adoption •Petitioners close case with one witness

President Muhammadu Buhari, his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) have said they do not intend to call any witness in their defence of the petition filed by Hope Democratic Party (HDP) and its presidential candidate in the last election, Ambrose Owuru.

HDP and Owuru are challenging the outcome of the last election and seeking to be declared winners.

They claimed to have won a referendum purportedly conducted after the INEC postponed the presidential election.

Yusuf Ali (SAN) for Buhari; Yunus Usman (SAN) for INEC and Akin Olujinmi (SAN) for the APC, told the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) at the closure of the petitioners’ case on Monday that they did not intend to call witnesses and would rely on the case as presented by the petitioners.

The petitioners’ lawyer, Eze Nnayenlugo, called his first witness, Yusuf Ibrahim, who adopted his written statement on oath as his true testimony in the case.

While being cross-examined by lawyer to the APC, Olujinmi (SAN), Ibrahim admitted that INEC alone has the power to conduct an election in the country.

He added: “We have referendum where people’s voice should be heard,” following which the APC lawyer asked if the referendum was “celestial”, a word the witness said he did not understand, and asked the lawyer to use an easier work.”

Olujinmi asked: “Was it celestial, not terrestrial? Was it something that happened in the spiritual realm?”

Read Also: Insecurity: Buhari moves to check tension in Southwest

The witness responded: “It was a physical one and not spiritual.” He added that the referendum was not conducted on the internet and that it was not on “INEC server”.

Under cross-examination by Ali, Ibrahim said he voted in the February 16 referendum and that he was in the country on February 23 and voted during the presidential and National Assembly elections of that day.

He agreed that Buhari was elected and declared the winner of the presidential election of February, 23.

The witness added that he had no document attached to his witness’s statement on oath as evidence for the 50 million votes allegedly polled by his party’s candidate at the alleged presidential referendum.

The witness said INEC did not conduct the referendum but that it was conducted by a group he referred to as “Citizenship Organisations”. He said the documents he had in relation to the referendum were with his lawyers.

During cross-examination by NEC’s lawyer Usman (SAN), Ibrahim said he was aware that “it is only INEC that can conduct election today in Nigeria”.

The witness agreed that his party did not claim to be the winner of the February 23 presidential election.

The court rejected two other witnesses called by the petitioners, including a subpoenaed witness, on the grounds that they had no written depositions, as required by law.

The petitioners also tendered documents, including copies of newspapers, a document, titled: Citizen Observers Referendum Election Right Protection of Nigeria, and INEC’s “final list of presidential candidates”.

Justice Mohammed Garba, who is the head of the court’s five-man panel, adjourned till August 5 for parties to adopt their final written addresses.