Due to a witness summons that was served on them by the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC) sitting in Abuja, the three individuals took turns mounting the box and narrated how the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines failed them on February 25, which was the day that the presidential election was held.
According to the witnesses, while they were able to electronically submit the results of the election for the National Assembly, which was held on the same day, using the BVAS machines, their attempts to electronically transfer the results of the presidential Poll to INEC's IReV portal were unsuccessful despite their repeated attempts. The election for the National Assembly was held on the same day.
The three witnesses, Janet Nuhu Turaki, Christopher Bulus Ardo, and Victoria Sani, all testified before the court that they served as Presiding Officers during the presidential election in the states of Yobe, Bauchi, and Katsina, respectively. Janet Nuhu Turaki, Christopher Bulus Ardo, and Victoria Sani.

The witnesses testified in court under the direction of a member of Atiku's legal team, Mr. Eyitayo Jegede, SAN. They said that "technical glitches" that they faced with the BVAS machines made their tasks more difficult on election day.

They said in front of the court that the results of the elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives were transferred without a hitch, and they insisted that the problem of a technical hitch only occurred when they were transferring the results of the presidential poll.

The first witness, Turaki, said before the court that the accreditation of voters using the BVAS machine was satisfactory. She emphasized, however, that the voting procedure got unpleasant for her when she sought to upload the election results.

However, she stated in front of the judge that she meticulously compiled the results of the presidential election in the polling unit in which she worked, documented those results in the form EC8A that was provided by INEC, and then signed the document alongside agents from each of the political parties.
Ardo testified before the court that he had a dissatisfying experience working for INEC during the election because he was unable to transmit the results of the presidential election as mandated by the law. This testimony was presented as part of Ardo's own evidence.

Similarly, Sani stated in her testimony that she was unable to recall the name of the presidential candidate who received the most votes in Katsina state, despite the fact that she bemoaned the fact that she was unable to send the election results via the BVAS device.

The witnesses stated that after the presidential election, they had turned in a report to INEC in which they detailed the problems that they had encountered with the BVAS machines. The report was submitted after the conclusion of the election.

Also Read: Presidential Poll: Over 18,088 Results INEC Uploaded Were Blurred — OBI’S Witness.

During this time, each of the Respondents in the case contested the legitimacy of the court's acceptance of statements that witnesses had made under oath when testifying in front of the court as part of the proof of evidence in the case.

While Mr. Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, appeared on behalf of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), President Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) were respectively represented by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, and Mr. Charles Edosomwan, SAN.
The five-member panel of the court that will hear the case, overseen by Justice Tsammani, has decided to postpone any further hearings on the subject until Tuesday.

This new turn of events took place on the same day that the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), which is also contesting the re-declaration of Tinubu as the winner of the presidential election, chose not to withdraw its own petition from the court where it is currently pending consideration.

After a counsel for President Tinubu called the court's attention to a verdict of the Supreme Court, which he said settled the question the APM cited in its petition, the court had on May 30 halted further proceedings in the matter and stopped further proceedings in the matter.
Tinubu's lead counsel, Chief Olanipekun, SAN, argued that an appeal the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, filed against his client, which was denied by the Supreme Court, bordered on the issue of whether or not his client's nomination to contest the election by the APC was valid. The appeal was filed against Tinubu by the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP.

It was his contention that the abovementioned ruling of the supreme court had some bearing on the issues raised in APM's appeal.

Chief Olanipekun, SAN, emphasized that the only premise that the APM petitioned on was the fact that Kashim Shettima, the Vice President, had multiple nominations before to the presidential election. This was the only argument that was presented in the petition.
Tinubu's lead counsel insisted that the issue had already been resolved by the Supreme Court. He said: "As officers of this court, it behoves us to assist the court in all circumstances and also bring to the attention of yours lordships, decisions of courts, even from other jurisdictions, which relate to any matter pending before yours lordships." Tinubu insisted that the issue had already been resolved by the Supreme Court.

Even if such choices aren't always in line with what's best for our customers, we have to make them nevertheless. If we are aware of or up to date on any decision made by the Supreme Court that touches on subjects that are currently being litigated before your lordships, then it is much more vital that we do so.

"In this way, my lords, this specific petition that has just been called in regard to which the only matter that is being discussed is the nomination of the 1st Respondent who we represent has just been summoned.

"We are aware that the Supreme Court rendered a verdict on the subject on Friday, May 23, in respect of appeal No: SC/CV/501/2023. The parties involved in the case were PDP Vs. INEC& 3 Ors, and the highest court evaluated all of the concerns and resolved them.

"We will confirm from the petitioners, whether in light of the Supreme Court decision, there will still be the need to continue with this petition," he continued. "We will confirm from the petitioners whether in light of the Supreme Court decision, this petition will still be necessary."
Even though the parties initially told the court that it was difficult for them to obtain copies of the judgement, at the resumed procedure on Monday, the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gideon Idiagbonya, claimed that his client was able to secure a copy of the said verdict of the top court. This is despite the fact that the parties previously told the court that it was difficult for them to obtain copies of the judgement.

He stated in front of the judge that after the APM had reviewed the verdict, they had come to the conclusion that they would continue pursue their petition against Tinubu to its natural conclusion. He said that this would be the case.

As a consequence of this, he was successful in convincing the court to postpone the hearing until Wednesday so that the opposition party could present its sole witness and submit its documented proof challenging the results of the presidential election.

In its petition with the reference number CA/PEPC/04/2023, the APM argued that Tinubu's candidacy was invalidated because Mr. Ibrahim Masari, who had been nominated as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, withdrew his name from consideration. This argument was based on Sections 131(c) and 142 of the Constitution of 1999, as amended.

The party argued that there was a gap of approximately three weeks between the time that Masari, who was listed as the 5th Respondent in the petition, expressed intention to withdraw, the time that his purported nomination was actually withdrawn, and the time that Tinubu purportedly replaced him with Senator Kashim Shettima. Masari was listed as the 5th Respondent in the petition.
In addition, it was suggested that Tinubu's candidacy had expired by the time he proposed Shettima as Masari's replacement. This was further supported by evidence.

The petitioner claims that at the time Tinubu announced Shettima as the Vice Presidential candidate, "he was no longer in a position, constitutionally, to nominate a running mate since he had ceased to be a presidential candidate of the 2nd Respondent having regards to the provisions of section 142 of the 1999 Constitution." The petitioner claims that this is because Tinubu had "ceased to be a presidential candidate of the 2nd Respondent having regards to section 142 of the 1999 Constitution."

In addition, the APM argued that Masari's original nomination activated the joint ticket principle that is contained in the Constitution, and they emphasized that the joint ticket was invalidated as a result of his subsequent withdrawal from the nomination.

As a result, it petitioned the court to rule that Shettima did not meet the requirements to run for the position of Vice Presidential candidate of the APC as of February 25, when the election was run by INEC. The petition stated that this was because Shettima had breached the terms of Section 35 of the Electoral Act, 2022.

"An order nullifying and voiding all of Tinubu's votes scored in the presidential election in light of the fact that he does not qualify as a candidate for the APC,"
In a similar vein, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) presented the President with a directive to cancel the Certificate of Return that it had previously granted.

Since then, both President Tinubu and the APC have initiated legal proceedings to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the petition, which both parties believe to be devoid of any valid arguments.