Tribunal reserves judgment in Edo governorship election
The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal on Monday, reserved judgment on the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party and its governorship candidate, Asue Ighodalo.
The PDP and Ighodalo are challenging the September 21, 2024, governorship election conducted in the state by the Independent National Electoral Commission, which declared the All Progressives Congress’ Monday Okpebholo the winner of the polls.
During the presentation of witnesses, Ighodalo’s legal team called 19 witnesses to defend their claim that the election should be nullified.
The petitioners also subpoenaed a Senior Technical Officer from INEC’s ICT Department, who tendered 154 BVAS machines to the tribunal to support their allegations of over-voting.
Aside from voting, the petitioners are praying for the tribunal to nullify the election over non-serialization of ballots, incorrect collation of figures, and erroneous computation of scores.
INEC, Okpebholo and the APC are first to third respondents respectively in the petition marked EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024.
After the petitioners closed their case, INEC being the first respondent opened their case next. They however did not present any witnesses in response to the petitioners’ claims.
Okpebholo on his part, called one witness, while the APC presented four witnesses before closing their case.
At the resumed sitting, Justice Wilfred Kpochi-led’s three-member tribunal reserved judgment for a later date to be communicated to the parties after the petitioners and respondents adopted their final written addresses.
Justice Kpochi stated, “A date for judgment will be communicated to the parties by the Secretary of the tribunal. The tribunal stands adjourned until then.”
Earlier, at the commencement of proceedings, the petitioners’ lead counsel, Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN), informed the tribunal that they were in court to adopt their final written addresses.
The first respondent’s lead counsel, Kanu Agabi (SAN), adopted INEC’s final address. While addressing the tribunal, he urged it to dismiss the petition, arguing it lacked merit and that the election results were properly collated.
He asserted that all polling unit agents who testified had signed the result sheets and could not distinguish between what they heard and what they observed. He further noted that the number of polling unit agents called as witnesses by the petitioners represented an insignificant percentage of the total polling units in the state.
Agabi stressed that INEC could not declare the petitioners winners based on their claims that the election was invalid. He argued that the petitioners’ claim of non-compliance with the Electoral Act was weak because it was not accompanied by the appropriate relief, which would be nullification of the election.
He contended that the petitioners merely submitted documents to the tribunal without proper evidence to support their claims.
“This is a clear indication that the election was conducted in compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022. The results were duly collated at all levels of collation. The petitioners have not pleaded any alternative results on the basis of which they can be declared winners. Their case is based on analyses carried out by hired consultants,” Agabi said.
He also argued that the petitioners did not seek nullification of the election as a relief and prayed the tribunal to dismiss the petition in its entirety for lacking merit.
The governor’s legal team, led by Onyechi Ikpeazu, argued that Okpebholo won the election, and the petitioners had no substantial case. He explained that his team analyzed the polling units cited by the petitioners and compared them with the documents presented, which confirmed that his client remained ahead of the petitioners in the polls.
Ikpeazu addressed the issue of Form EC25b, noting that while the petitioners argued that the serial numbers of sensitive materials must be provided, the form only requires details of the quantity of electoral materials received and returned.
He further stated that a Supreme Court ruling established that over-voting could not be proven without access to the BVAS machines, but none of the machines were opened for the tribunal to examine. Ikpeazu concluded that the petitioners failed to present the appropriate documents to substantiate their claims of over-voting.
He urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition, describing it as an academic exercise.
APC’s lead counsel, Emmanuel Ukala, argued that the petitioners’ case, which was based on non-compliance claims, lacked substantive proof. He contended that the petitioners merely submitted documents to the tribunal without calling sufficient witnesses to validate them.
Ukala emphasised that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that claims of non-compliance must be proven on a polling unit-by-polling unit, ward-by-ward, and local government-by-local government basis.
He noted that with over 4,000 polling units in Edo State, the petitioners called only five polling unit agents and failed to summon any presiding officers. Additionally, he pointed out that the petitioners did not demonstrate how the BVAS machines functioned, reinforcing their lack of evidence. He urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition.
In response, counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ken Morzi (SAN), clarified that although Edo State has 4,519 polling units, their complaints were limited to 765 of them.
He urged the tribunal to consider the petition “holistically and not in parts,” arguing that the success of an election petition is determined by the cumulative effect of the issues raised, not the percentage of polling units involved.
Morzi stated, “The argument of isolating grounds and labelling them as academic is unfounded.”
He explained that the petitioners called only five polling unit agents because their grievances concerned activities at the collation centres, not the polling units. “We concede that elections took place at the polling units, but our contention is how 25 votes transformed into 525 votes at the collation centres,” he said.
On the claim of failing to present alternative results, Morzi argued that all results before the tribunal were submitted by his clients.
He also refuted the respondents’ claim of document dumping, noting that all tendered documents were duly certified by INEC and submitted without objections from the commission.
After taking arguments from the parties involved, the tribunal reserved judgment, with the date to be communicated to the parties.
