The All Progressives Congress (APC) commenced its defense in the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, contesting the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo, who challenged the declared victory of Governor Monday Okpebholo in the September 21, 2024, election. The APC’s defense strategy unfolded with the presentation of four witnesses, each serving as local government collation agents during the contested election. These agents represented Esan North East, Akoko Edo, Oredo, and Owan West Local Government Areas, providing their accounts of the election proceedings within their respective jurisdictions. This marked the beginning of the APC’s response after the PDP had closed its case the previous week and Governor Okpebholo concluded his defense with a single witness on Monday. The stage was set for a detailed examination of the electoral process, with the APC aiming to solidify the validity of Okpebholo’s victory.
The testimony of the APC’s witnesses offered a mixed picture of the election proceedings. While some maintained the integrity of the process in their assigned areas, others made significant admissions regarding electoral inconsistencies, particularly concerning instances of over-voting. The cross-examination conducted by the petitioners’ counsel, A. J. Owonikoko (SAN), proved pivotal in uncovering these discrepancies. Afuda Theophilus, the APC agent for Esan North East, initially denied any over-voting but later conceded under questioning, acknowledging discrepancies in electoral documents and confirming result cancellations by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) due to over-voting. Similarly, Gabriel Iduseri, representing Oredo LGA, retracted his initial claim of a complaint-free election, admitting to the cancellation of results from a specific polling unit due to over-voting.
In contrast to these admissions, Kamarudeen Bello, the APC agent for Akoko Edo LGA, maintained that no over-voting occurred within his jurisdiction. This contrasting testimony highlighted the variations in reported electoral conduct across different local government areas. Frank David, the agent for Owan West, presented a more nuanced account. While initially asserting the correct collation of results in his area, he later admitted to instances of over-voting leading to result cancellations. However, despite witnessing the collation process, he could not definitively confirm whether INEC officials adhered to all stipulated procedures for documenting sensitive election materials, adding a layer of uncertainty to the proceedings.
The APC’s legal strategy involved requesting an adjournment to prepare and present essential documents for their subsequent witnesses. They informed the tribunal of their intention to present a total of 28 witnesses to support Governor Okpebholo’s victory, a significantly larger number than the initial four who testified. The APC’s counsel explained that the next set of witnesses would rely heavily on documents not yet tendered, necessitating the adjournment. They assured the tribunal that a schedule of witnesses and documents would be shared with the petitioners’ counsel later that evening, allowing them adequate time to prepare for the subsequent proceedings. This strategic move underscored the APC’s reliance on documentary evidence to bolster their defense.
The petitioners’ counsel, however, raised concerns about the limited number of witnesses presented despite the APC’s previously submitted list of 28 names. They sought clarification on whether the remaining witnesses would indeed appear and if new documents would be introduced, emphasizing the importance of this information for their own preparation. This inquiry reflected the strategic maneuvering inherent in legal proceedings, where each side seeks to anticipate and counter the other’s arguments. The APC’s legal team responded by assuring the petitioners that all necessary details and documents would be made available in advance, aiming to address their concerns and ensure a fair and transparent process.
The tribunal, after considering the arguments and requests from both sides, granted the APC’s adjournment request. The proceedings were scheduled to resume the following day, allowing the APC time to prepare their remaining witnesses and documentary evidence, and providing the petitioners’ counsel an opportunity to review the provided materials and formulate their cross-examination strategy. This adjournment set the stage for the continuation of the legal battle, with both sides preparing to present their strongest cases to the tribunal in the days to come. The outcome of this petition would significantly impact the political landscape of Edo State, and the meticulous examination of evidence and testimonies would play a crucial role in the tribunal’s final determination.
