Unless I’m misunderstanding something, **the claim stated in the question is false, and the statement of Lemma 1.9.5 in Borceux is unclear to me.**  To be clear, the claim in this question is that for any Abelian category $\newcommand{\A}{\mathcal{A}}\A$, and maps $f:X \to Z$, $g : Y \to Z$, and pseudo-elements $[x]$, $[y]$ such that $f[x] = g[y]$, there is a $unique$ pseudo-element $[p]$ of $X \times_Z Y$ with $\pi_1[p] = [x]$, $\pi_2[p]=[y]$. More concisely, the claim is that the “pseudo-elements” functor $\A \to \mathrm{Set}$ preserves pullbacks.  (Borceux Lemma 1.9.5 claims that $[p]$ is “pseudo-unique”; from the “proof” sketch, I agree it seems like he intends this to mean “unique, as a pseudo-element”, but conceivably he had something else in mind.)

Work for concreteness in $\newcommand{\Ab}{\mathrm{Ab}}\Ab$.  Then maps $x_1 \colon X_1 \to X$, $x_2 \colon X_2 \to X$ are equivalent as pseudo-elements if and only if they have the same image.  (The “only if” direction is clear; for the “if”, take a projective cover of the image, and note that it factors through each $x_i$.)  So pseudo-elements of $X$ correspond to subobjects/subgroups of $X$.  Borceux notes this fact in the closing discussion of §1.9.

But it’s easy to see this doesn’t preserve pullbacks. For instance, it doesn’t preserve the product $\newcommand{\Q}{\mathbb{Q}} \Q \times \Q$: the subgroups $\{ (x,x) | x \in \Q \}$ and $\{ (x,2x) | x \in \Q \}$ have the same images under each projection, but are not the same.