President Umaru Yar’Adua and Vice-President Goodluck Jonathan on Thursday argued that the responses of the Independent National Electoral Commission Chairman, Prof. Maurice Iwu, to the 27 questions by Alhaji Atiku Abubakar on the April 21, 2007 poll had nailed his petition at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal.
They said in a written address submitted on their behalf by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), that the answers provided by Iwu had strengthened their case and weakened that of Abubakar.
Findings by THE PUNCH on Wednesday, however, indicated that Iwu was not truthful in his responses to some of the questions posed by Abubakar, who contested the presidential election on the platform of the Action Congress.
Iwu had on pages 30 and 31 of the Official Report of the Election which he presented in October 2007 said that additional ballot papers for the poll were printed in South Africa.
In his response to the former vice-president’s question, he said that INEC did not award any contract to any company in South Africa to produce ballot papers.
But Yar’Adua and Jonathan said that since INEC awarded all the contracts for the printing of ballot papers for the poll to Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company, the questions on whether same was awarded to a South African Company did not arise.
They said that questions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are based on the wrong assumption by the former vice-president and his running mate in the poll, Senator Ben Obi, that the contract was awarded to a South African company.
The President and the vice-president added that since it had been clearly stated in the answer to question one that it was the NSMC that handled all contracts for the co-ordination and printing of the ballot papers, questions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 were totally irrelevant.
Yar’Adua and Jonathan said that since Iwu had shown in his answers that Abubakar’s name was displayed as one of the presidential candidates, he could no longer sustain the allegation that he was excluded from the election.
They said, “The answers to questions 17, 18, 19 and 20 clearly show that the 1st petitioner’s (Abubakar) name was published by INEC as one of the candidates contesting the election and the public was adequately informed.
“These answers deal deadly blow to the unsubstantiated claim by the 1st petitioner that he was excluded from the election.
“On his own request, a list showing his name among other candidates who contested the presidential election has now been attached. He cannot be heard again to assert anything to the contrary.”
The President and his deputy stated that Abubakar should not be allowed to attack or dispute the questions elicited by him on oath through his interrogatories.
Yar’Adua and Jonathan said, “They (the former vice-president and Obi) had chosen to doggedly and strangely request interrogatories and since the answers have become part of the record and, indeed, their evidence, they can not shy away from them.
“It is granted that a defendant is a competent and compellable witness for the plaintiff and vice versa. Howbeit, any party who chooses or gambles to call his opponent or adversary as a witness would also have to inherit the advantages or even liabilities of the evidence of such witness.
“Put succinctly and within the precincts of this case, the answers submitted through the interrogatories on oath constitute an admission against the interest of the petitioners and such an admission is binding on them.”
Meanwhile, some prominent lawyers – Prof. Itse Sagay (SAN), Mr. Fred Agbaje, Mr. Bamidele Aturu and Mr. Wale Ogunade – have called for the prosecution of Iwu, for his inconsistent statements on the printing of the ballot papers.
The lawyers told our correspondents in Lagos on Thursday that it was a criminal offence for one to lie on oath.
In Sagay’s view, since Iwu had committed contempt of court, he deserved to be punished.
The professor of law said the onus lay on the counsel on Abubakar’s lawyers to call the attention of the court to the perjury so that the right step could be taken.
Agbaje, in his own comment, said that the INEC boss ought to be arrested, prosecuted and sent to jail for perjury.
He said, “It pains me that Iwu is still at the helms of affairs of the commission. He is supposed to have been kicked out especially with the verdicts returned by some election petition tribunals that have concluded sittings.
“When a person like him could be lying under oath, what do you expect from the elections he conducted? That was why he made a mockery of our electoral process. An INEC chairman is supposed to be impartial.
“Perjury is an offence under the Criminal Code as well as the Penal Code and he should be given the maximum penalty.”
Ogunade, who is the President of the Voters Awareness Initiative, said with the inconsistency, Iwu had added another dimension to his disservice to the nation.
He said, “Before now, Iwu had been playing on Nigerians’ intelligence. Now he has started desecrating our laws. Nobody is above the law. This is a case of perjury and he should be prosecuted to serve as a deterrent to others.
“Iwu has been telling lies and misleading the people. Tribunals’ verdicts have vindicated people like us who have been saying that the elections were far from being free and fair. We know he is playing out a script.”
Aturu, who preferred to comment generally on perjury, said “Nobody is allowed to lie under oath. It is criminal and immoral to lie under oath. Perjury can lead to the miscarriage of justice, so, it attracts imprisonment.”
By Seth Akintoye, Tobi Soniyi, Festus Akanbi and Olalekan Adetayo
The Punch
Friday, February 1, 2008
