From Ndubuisi Orji, Abuja
Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), yesterday, berated the Tinubu Presidential Legal Team (TPLT) over claims that it “scanned and watermarked” its copy of the judgment of Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) with its header.
In a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Debo Ologunagba, the party said the claim of the TPLT was self-indictive and lends credence to public insinuation that the judgment was allegedly pre-determined by the All Progressives Congress ( APC).
The PEPT, last week, in its judgment upheld the declaration of President Bola Tinubu by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as winner of the February 25 presidential poll.
While the PDP and its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, had rejected the judgment, circulation of Certified True Copies (CTC) of the verdict has been generating controversies.
Nevertheless, the opposition party noted that “the knee-jerk admission by the TPLT that it ‘scanned and watermarked’ its copy of the judgment with the inscription, ‘Tinubu Presidential Legal Team ‘TPLT’ is self-indicting and lends credence to widespread public insinuation of pre-determined manipulation by the APC.
“The rush by the TPLT in admitting that it imprinted on the CTC of the judgment smacks of a desperate attempt to dispel public scrutiny and ward off the possibility of more revelations regarding the issue.”
The PDP added that the opposition and “majority of Nigerians are not satisfied with the claims by the Tinubu Legal Team. This is especially as further examination and expert analysis show that the documents are not scanned and that the TPLT inscriptions are not watermarks but computer default header which usually originates from an author of a document.
“The Tinubu Legal Team should also disclose to Nigerians what specific time on Friday, September 8, 2023 they received their CTC; what time specifically was the ‘watermark’ imprinted of the document, the identity of the electronic device with which the ‘watermark’ was made as well as the PDF used in the said watermarking process for independent analysis.”
The party demanded that the APC should come clean on the issue, and explain “how what obviously is a default header on its computer system should be accepted as a watermark.”
