Following the adoption of their final written addresses by all the counsel, the Justice Wilfred Kpochi-led three-member panel of the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja has reserved judgment.
The petition was filed by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its governorship candidate, Dr. Asue Ighodalo, challenging the outcome of the September 21, 2024, governorship election in the state.
According to Justice Wilfred Kpochi, the date for judgment will be communicated to all parties involved by the tribunal’s secretary.
He said: “The tribunal stands adjourned until then.”
Persecondnews reports that at the resumed hearing, Mr. Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN), counsel to the petitioners, informed the tribunal that the day’s agenda was to adopt final written addresses.
Counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mr. Kanu Agabi(SAN), proceeded to adopt the final address on behalf of the commission.
In his submission, Agabi urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition, arguing that it lacked merit.
He argued that the tribunal lacked the authority to annul the September 21, 2024 governorship election, as this remedy was not requested by the petitioners.
The senior lawyer emphasized to the tribunal that it lacked the authority to declare the petitioners as winners, given their own claim that the election was invalid.
Speaking on the claim of non-compliance, Agabi argued that the petitioners’ plea was weak since it was not accompanied by the necessary relief, specifically the nullification of the election.
He also stated that the petitioners’ claim of having received the majority of lawful votes was moot, given their concurrent claim that the election itself was invalid.
Agabi argued that the number of polling unit agents called as witnesses represented an insignificant or even negligible percent of the number of polling units in Edo.
He argued that the petition should be dismissed on the grounds that all polling unit agents, who were called as witnesses, had signed the result sheet, and yet they could not differentiate between what they personally witnessed and what they merely heard.
Agabi said: “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 as winners.
“The case of the petitioners is based on analysis undertaken by hired consultants.”
Furthermore, Agabi argued that the documents relied upon by the petitioners were merely dumped on the tribunal without proper foundation, rendering them inadmissible as evidence in their favour.
Agabi urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition in its entirety, emphasizing that it lacked merit.
Counsel to Gov. Monday Okpebholo, Mr. Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition, arguing that it had become an academic exercise, essentially rendering it moot and without practical significance.
He stated that during their research, they meticulously extracted the polling units for which the petitioners submitted documents and compared them to the ones presented, revealing that his client maintained a significant lead over the petitioners in the polls.
Ikpeazu clarified that Form EC25B only requires the quantity of electoral materials received and returned, contrary to the petitioners’ claim that serial numbers of sensitive materials must be provided.
He emphasized that, according to a Supreme Court ruling, proving over-voting requires the Bimodal Verification Authentication System (BVAS) machines, but ironically, none of the machines were opened for the tribunal to examine their contents.
According to him, the petitioners’ failure to submit the necessary documents meant they could not prove over-voting.
Speaking on behalf of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Mr. Emmanuel Ukala contended that the petitioners’ case rested almost entirely on allegations of non-compliance.
He said: “By the nature of the case they pleaded, the Supreme Court has over the years laid down that they need to prove this by polling unit to polling unit, ward to ward and local government by local government.”
He, however, held that rather than prove this, the petitioners dumped documents on the court.
He said that without polling unit agents testifying to those documents, they were useless and the case remained unproved.
Ukala said the petitioners’ case was weak, noting that despite having over 4,000 polling units in Edo, they only presented five polling unit agents and failed to call a single presiding officer as a witness.
He further argued that since the petitioners failed to demonstrate how the BVAs worked, it was evident that they had not proven their case, and therefore, it should be dismissed.
Responding to the tribunal, counsel to the petitioners, Mr. Ken Moze (SAN), highlighted that out of the 4519 polling units in Edo, the petitioners’ complaint only pertained to 765 of them, which represents approximately 16.7% of the total polling units.
According to him, the law states that successfully prosecuting an election petition is not about the percentage of total polling units in the state, but rather the impact of consistently establishing the complaint.
He also argued that the petition should be evaluated holistically, considering it as a whole, rather than breaking it down into separate parts.
He said: “So the submission of isolating grounds and labeling them alone as academic is not well founded.”
On the issue of not presenting the tribunal with an alternative result, the senior lawyer said that it was on record that all the results before the tribunal were tendered by his client
The petitioners’ counsel explained that they only called five polling unit agents because their main issue was with the events that unfolded at the collation centers, not the polling units themselves, thereby negating the need for additional testimonies.
He said: “We concede that elections took place at the polling units but how 25 votes metamorphosed to 525 votes at the collation center is what we are quarrelling with.”
Moze countered the claim that they dumped documents on the tribunal, stating that all the documents they submitted were properly certified by INEC and were accepted without any objection from the commission, which is the very body that created the documents.
He also held that the tribunal had the necessary authority to hear the petition, as the allegations presented were related to post-election issues, rather than pre-election matters, which would fall outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Having considered all the arguments, Justice Kpochi announced that the tribunal would reserve judgment on the matter, with the date for the verdict to be communicated to the parties by the tribunal’s secretary.
Persecondnews recalls that INEC had declared Gov. Okpebholo of the APC the winner of the election.
Dissatisfied with this outcome, the PDP and its governorship candidate, Dr. Ighodalo, petitioned the tribunal to nullify INEC’s declaration of the APC and Okpebholo as winners.
They argued that the governorship election was invalid due to alleged non-compliance with the Electoral Act’s provisions.
In the petition, EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, they also claimed that Okpebholo didn’t receive the highest number of lawful votes cast in the election.
The petitioners presented 19 witnesses to testify that over-voting and incorrect vote computation occurred in more than 700 polling units during the election.
INEC, the first respondent, opted not to call any witnesses, instead submitted 153 Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines used in 133 disputed polling units as evidence.
Okpebholo, the 2nd respondent, presented just a witness in his defence, whereas the APC called four witnesses to testify on their behalf.
The petitioners and respondents were scheduled to adopt their final written addresses on March 3, after which the tribunal will set a date for judgment.
