Counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Kemi Pinero has accused the Labour Party (LP) of unnecessarily stalling the presidential election petition tribunal.
Recall LP alongside the PDP are in court challenging the pronouncement of Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as winner of the presidential election on March 1 by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
But it seemed the LP as against its claims of having witnesses and evidences to invalidate the outcome of the 2023 presidential election are merely frittering away the time of the tribunal.
Speaking during proceedings on Wednesday, Livy Uzoukwu, lead counsel for the LP, accused the office of the INEC chairman of refusing to supply the party with documents requested for evidence.
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,” Uzoukwu said.
He noted that he had met with the INEC lead counsel but did not have a copy of the subpoena to hand over at the time.
“I intend to send it to him once I’m done with this proceeding. I’m confident that he will do the needful for us to continue tomorrow,” Uzoukwu added.
However, Pinero dismissed Uzoukwu’s comments, saying it was a tactic to adjourn the proceedings.
Pinero said there was no subpoena issued, adding that INEC had adequately responded to subpoenas issues by other parties and had no reason to neglect the LP.
“A subpoena was not refused. PDP served subpoenas and we have responded to that. It is clear that this is becoming a habit that they (LP) like to whip, it’s a pattern,” Pinero said.
“Don’t use INEC as a whipping board, if they (LP) have nothing else to do they should just say it. We are not going to oppose your adjournment.
“This habit is showing that you’re only stalling the case. You’ve only called two witnesses out of the 50 witnesses you said you would call and it has been two weeks since tribunal started.
“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.”