INEC warns the Labour Party about blackmail.

Earlier in the proceedings, the petitioners complained that the election commission had refused them access to confidential papers relevant to their filings. On Wednesday afternoon, while moving for the hearing to be adjourned, counsel for the petitioners, Livy Uzoukwu SAN, complained to the Presidential Election Petition Court that despite efforts to access documents under the commission, INEC has "consistently refused...the subpoena to produce documents."

He went on to say that he had to call the attention of INEC's chief counsel, A.B Mahmoud, who promised him that the commission would comply.

Dissatisfied with the statement that claimed his client was obstructive, INEC lawyer Kemi Pinhero SAN, who presided over Wednesday's sessions on behalf of the electoral authority, refuted the assertion.

He accused the petitioners of repeatedly blaming them for not providing them with paperwork and advised them to stop the "habit."

"Don't use INEC as a whipping boy," he warned.

He stated that he was unaware of any conversation Uzoukwu SAN may have had with their main counsel, Mahmoud, that would justify the assertion. "They've made it a habit of looking for someone to whip. I'm not aware of any discussions he's had with A.B. Mahmoud."

"It can't be true that the receipt or subpoena were both refused."

"They have made it a habit of blaming INEC or claiming that INEC has refused to release documents to them."

"It is incorrect that the chairman's office will refuse to answer to the subpoena. INEC's chairman is completely uninterested. It's unjust to INEC."
 "If they have nothing else to do today, they should just say it." In response, Uzoukwu maintained his position and informed the court that his statements are easily verifiable.

Following the debate between the two parties, the Presidential Election Petition Court, presided over by Justice Haruna Tsammani, advised them to relax.

The case was then adjourned until June 15 to allow the hearing to continue.