The ballot papers for the April 21, 2007 presidential election, printed by the Nigerian Security Printing ans Minting Company (NSPMC), were allegedly delivered on June 1, 2007.
The Chairman of the Independent national Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Maurice Iwu, while replying the 27 questions posed to him by the candidate of Action Congress (AC) in the election, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, claimed that the ballot papers produced by the company were used for the said election.
In Abubakar�s amended final address to the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja, he referred to exhibit EPT/03/P/32(18) already admitted in evidence, to establish that the Nigerian company did not deliver on the N6,580,200,000.00 contract until about 41 days after the election.
He said, �One interesting thing about the answer to the interrogatories in respect to questions 1 to 11 is in relation to the 2 orders said to have been made by INEC from the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company for the printing of ballot papers for the election of the 21st April 2007.
�The 1st order made on the 4th of January 2007 attached to the answers to the interrogatories as Exhibit MI1, was the order for ballot papers made from the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company for the total cost of N6,580,200,000.00.
�The 5th Respondent (Iwu) however failed to mention in his affidavit that this order was not supplied until the 1st of June 2007 and so could not have been used in any of the elections held in April 2007.
�Exhibit EPT/03/P/32(18) already tendered before this court is proof of this fact.�
Abubakar, who was reacting to Iwu�s response to his questions, pointed to the case made by the electoral commission before the tribunal, wherein it was clearly stated that the ballot papers used for the presidential poll were printed in South Africa and delivered a few hours to the election by air.
According to Abubakar, �First the 5th Respondent (Iwu) has made a total u-turn by stating that the ballot papers used in the presidential election 2007 were printed in Nigeria, by the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company.
�This statement is clearly at variance with his pleadings before this court and a statement in Exhibit EPT/03/P/36(29).
�Questions 1�11 of the interrogatories were designed to elicit answers from the 5th Respondent from the vital issues relating to the order for and the printing of ballot papers, instructions given to the company that printed the ballot papers, the quantity of the ballot papers and the time of arrival of these ballot papers in Nigeria.
�These questions were drafted based on the issues joined between the parties as at the time the application for leave to administer interrogatories were made.
�Issues have been joined between the parties to the effect that the ballot papers were ordered from South Africa after the judgment of the Supreme Court on the 16th of April 2007 and that the ballot papers so ordered, were air freighted and arrived in Nigeria a day before the election i.e. 20th April 2007.
�We refer the court to the pleadings of the 4th � 808th Respondents (INEC and its officers) para �7 (d) (viii) which we set out as follows:
�Respondents admit paragraph 16 (h) xiii but deny paragraph 16 (h) of the petition and state that due to the late reversal by the Supreme Court of the judgment of the Court of Appeal upholding 4th Respondent�s legal right to disqualify candidates seeking electives offices, the printing of the Presidential Ballot papers were undertaken in South Africa and had to be rushed in three days after the Supreme Court judgment of 16th April, 2007 and this might haven been responsible for some of the complaints that the 3rd Petitioner�s logo on the Ballot Papers did not have the correct colours on some of the ballot papers.
�But this did not in any way affect the Petitioners specially or differently from other candidates or parties and did not confuse the voters who in any case knew the logo of their favoured parties from the face of the ballot paper.
�The Presidential ballot papers were substantially in compliance with the Electoral Act and, whatever the discrepancies, if any, (which is not conceded) did not affect the outcome o the election.�
Abubakar, who is asking the tribunal to nullify the election, also noted, �It was after the inspection carried out by the petitioners consequent upon the order of this court that the petitioners discovered that some ballot papers used for the elections were also printed by the Nigerian Security Minting and Printing Company (NSPM PLC).
�At no stage during the trial and in the final addresses by counsel were issues raised that ballot papers were not printed in South Africa and that they were not flown into Nigeria on the eve of the election.
�That this is so is understandable having regard to the statement credited to the 5th Respondent on the 22nd of April 2007, a day after the election which statement is contained in Exhibit EP3/P/36(29)�
Abubakar called on the tribunal to treat Iwu and INEC�s defence as no-case, because he had lied on oath and nothing he said could be taken as the gospel truth again, while adding that President Umaru Yar�Adua could not prove the commission�s case for it because the President was not involved in the conduct of the election.
Concluding, the petitioner said, �The sudden change of story by the 5th Respondent {Iwu} as to where the ballot papers were printed is a feeble attempt to becloud the existence of ballot papers printed by the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company as one of the ballot papers used for the elections.
�This is all in an attempt to defeat the claims by the petitioners that ballot papers not meant for use at the said presidential election found their way into the ballot boxes and that this is clear evidence of one of the corrupt practices that marred the election.
�As against the evidence led by petitioners� witnesses in support of these sundry allegations, 5th respondent has only managed to provide a perjured testimony.
�We therefore submit that your lordships are entitled to treat the case of 4th-808th respondents unproved.
�The evidence expected of them to sustain the election ought to be credible evidence worthy of belief.
�We submit that for evidence to be worthy of credit , it must not only proceed from a credible source but must be credible in itself, in the sense that it should be so natural, reasonable and probable in view of the transaction, which it describes or to which it relates as to make it easy to believe.
�Finally, it is submitted most respectfully, that the consequence of concession by 5th respondent�s counsel that he provided evidence of no probative value, is that 5th respondent has failed to answer the questions posed to him truthfully.
�His defence to the petition is therefore liable to be dismissed; ditto for the defense of his subordinates who participated in the conduct of the election, that is 7th- 808th Respondents.�