.…INEC staff disclaims PW44 as Presiding Officer
By Chioma Onuegbu
Uyo—A Forensic expert, Edidiong Udoh has described the video evidence earlier tendered by Mr. William Ndarake, witness 44 to the petitioners in the ongoing gubernatorial Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Uyo, as a scam, stage managed to mislead the Tribunal.
Also, A staff of Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, Akwa Ibom State, Mr Ikpong Inyang also told the tribunal that petitioners witness, PW44, Ndarake who had claimed to be an Ad-hoc staff of INEC is an impostor.
Inyang testified yesterday, as RW20, tendered his original identity card as evidence.
Mr. Nsima Ekere and the All Progressives Congress, APC, in the petition are challenging the declaration of Governor Udom Emmanuel of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, by Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, as winner of the governorship election in the state.
Inyang testified that Ndarake PW44 did not serve as the Assistant Presiding Officer 2 of the commission in Abiakpo, Ntoedino, ward 4, unit 5, Obot Akara LGA of the state as he had claimed, adding that he has a list of ad-hoc staff of ward 4, polling unit booklet and the list of supervising officers in the area.
While being cross examined by counsel to the PDP, Uko Udom, SAN, Inyang told the tribunal that the Presiding Officer for that unit was a female Corps member, Ifeyinwa Priscilla Ifeanyi and that her name was listed among the names of people he (Inyang) supervised in the Presiding Officers. The list was admitted in evidence by the tribunal as Exhibit RS 27.
Earlier, Udoh, who faulted the earlier claims by PW44 that the video revealed massive thumb printing at Senator Christopher Ekpenyong’s House, noted that the video was deliberately orchestrated where the GPS was switched off by the witness, to prevent analysts from tracing the location of the event in the video.
Udoh who analysed how the video evidence was stage managed at the resumed hearing yesterday, said contrary to Mr. Ndarake’s evidence that the video was recorded under duress with the phone placed on the ground, the video showed scenes recorded by more than one person with the participants fully showing indications of being part of the plot.
He said, “If the phone was placed on the floor, the only angle it would have captured would have been only one point of the roof of the building or one direction of the room, but the video shows activities of what happened even on top of the table and all angles of the room, meaning the device was in motion from the beginning to the end.”
Under cross examination by counsel to INEC, Sylva Ogwemoh, SAN, the forensic expert further testified, “From my observation, over three persons were involved in the making of this video apart from PW44.
“PW44 also misled the Tribunal by saying he later picked up the phone to continue the recording. All through the video, he was seen seated with legs stretched out and his hands on his thighs. This means the video was done by someone else.
“The person in front of the green table and the person who begged that his face should not be recorded were in the know of the video recording. There was someone who was doing the thumb printing. It was stage managed and not done under tension or anxiety like PW44 claimed.”