Home General Tinubu’s legal team explains watermark on PEPT judgement

Tinubu’s legal team explains watermark on PEPT judgement

terrorism- lagospost.ng
Advertisement

The Tinubu Presidential Legal Team has responded to the controversy surrounding its use of a watermark on copies of the Presidential Elections Petition Tribunal’s ruling that have been widely disseminated.

The watermarked copy had caused uproar, particularly on social media where detractors claimed a nefarious action.

In a statement released on Saturday in response to the criticism, TPLT coordinator Babatunde Ogala chastised the critics for implying that the watermark was the result of predetermined manipulations and insisted that there was nothing suspicious about it.

He clarified that they watermarked their copy of the decision after receiving it from the Court of Appeal and then distributed the scanned copies to the team members.

The statement read, “Following some mischievous insinuations being made in certain quarters regarding the innocuous water-mark of copies of the consolidated judgment of the Court of Appeal with the inscription -“Tinubu Presidential Legal Team ‘TPLT’”, it is has become necessary to offer this clarification.

“After the delivery of judgment in the 3 (Three) election petitions by the Court of Appeal on September 6, 2023, the Court directed its registry to make physical copies of same available on September 7, 2023.

“Accordingly, the Tinubu Presidential Legal Team applied for a Certified True Copy of the said judgment and paid the prescribed fee.

“Lawyers for PDP were present at the registry at the same time to collect the same judgment.

“In fact, the representative of the PDP collected the first copy that was made available by the registry.

“On collecting our own copy, we immediately scanned and watermarked with the inscription – “Tinubu Presidential Legal Team ‘TPLT’” before circulating the scanned soft copies to the lawyers in our team.

“The Certified True Copy issued to us and other parties in the petitions by the registry does not contain the said inscription and any insinuation to the contrary is untrue.

“Counsel for the petitioners will also appreciate the fact that the insinuations being circulated in some quarters are untrue, unkind, unfair, and unfortunate, as they have the same certified copies of the judgment as we have.”

Advertisement

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.