Why PEPT judgment had our watermark – Tinubu’s legal team

• Says there was nothing untoward to it
• Explained that they watermarked their copy of the judgement after collection from the Court of Appeal before circulating the scanned copies to members of their team
  

  ---

The Tinubu Presidential Legal Team has responded to the controversy over its watermark on the widely circulated copies of the judgement of the Presidential Elections Petition Tribunal.

The watermarked copy had been a subject of controversy especially on social media with critics alleging a sinister move.

Responding to the criticism, TPLT coordinator, Babatunde Ogala, in a statement on Saturday berated the critics for insinuating the watermark was a result of pre-determined manipulations saying there was nothing untoward to it.

He explained that they watermarked their copy of the judgement after collection from the Court of Appeal before circulating the scanned copies to members of their team.

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.”