The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal commenced its pre-hearing session on Wednesday, setting the stage for a protracted legal battle over the outcome of the September 21st election. The All Progressives Congress (APC), whose candidate, Governor Godwin Obaseki’s successor, Monday Okpebholo, was declared the winner, launched a vigorous defense, seeking the outright dismissal of the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). This initial volley of legal arguments highlighted the deep divisions and high stakes surrounding the contested election results.
The APC, represented by Ferdinand Orbih, SAN, contended that the PDP’s petition was fundamentally flawed and should be struck out. Orbih argued that the petition failed to comply with the necessary legal requirements for filing, rendering it incompetent and the tribunal without jurisdiction to entertain the matter. He pointed to a specific motion filed on November 30th, supported by a detailed affidavit, which outlines the grounds for dismissal. This motion served as the cornerstone of the APC’s strategy to preemptively quash the PDP’s challenge to Okpebholo’s victory.
Responding to the APC’s offensive, the PDP, through its counsel, Ken Mozia, SAN, vehemently opposed the dismissal motion. Mozia argued that the petitioners had duly filed a comprehensive reply and counter-affidavit, effectively addressing and rebutting the APC’s claims of incompetence. He urged the tribunal to disregard the dismissal motion and proceed with the substantive hearing of the petition, emphasizing the PDP’s commitment to challenging what they perceived as irregularities in the electoral process. This initial exchange of arguments underscored the sharply contrasting perspectives of the two parties and foreshadowed the intensity of the legal battle ahead.
Presiding over the proceedings, Justice Wilfred Kpochi, chairman of the tribunal, reserved his ruling on the APC’s dismissal motion. He indicated that a decision would be rendered on the final judgment day, postponing a crucial determination that could potentially define the trajectory of the entire petition. This deferral maintained the suspense surrounding the fate of the PDP’s challenge, leaving both parties in anticipation. Justice Kpochi’s approach suggested a deliberate effort to thoroughly consider all arguments before reaching a conclusive verdict.
Beyond the primary dismissal motion, the legal maneuvering continued with the APC filing a subsequent motion to strike out specific paragraphs within the PDP’s petition. Orbih argued that these paragraphs contained extraneous and irrelevant material, warranting their removal before the substantive hearing could commence. This tactical move aimed to further weaken the PDP’s case by eliminating potentially damaging allegations. However, the PDP’s legal team countered this move, describing the application as frivolous and urging the tribunal to dismiss it outright. They maintained the relevance of the contested paragraphs to their overall argument, emphasizing the need for the tribunal to consider the petition in its entirety.
Justice Kpochi, maintaining his consistent approach, deferred ruling on this secondary motion as well, indicating that all preliminary objections and motions would be addressed collectively on the final judgment day. This decision streamlined the proceedings, preventing the pre-hearing stage from becoming bogged down in individual rulings. The PDP also submitted four separate motions of their own, seeking to expunge various paragraphs from the replies submitted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the APC, and Okpebholo to their original petition. This flurry of motions highlighted the complex legal strategies employed by both sides, each attempting to shape the narrative and control the information presented to the tribunal.
To facilitate a more organized and efficient process, the tribunal adjourned proceedings to Saturday, directing all parties to collaborate on a common proposal outlining the framework for subsequent hearings. This collaborative approach aimed to streamline the presentation of evidence and arguments, ensuring a fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute. This adjournment signaled the transition from preliminary skirmishes to the substantive phase of the legal battle, where the core arguments and evidence would be presented and scrutinized.
The pre-hearing session thus served as a crucial prelude to the main legal showdown, revealing the key battle lines and setting the stage for a protracted and complex legal process. The PDP’s challenge to Okpebholo’s victory, based on alleged electoral irregularities, faced an immediate and robust defense from the APC, seeking to dismiss the petition on procedural grounds. The tribunal’s decision to reserve rulings on the various motions until the final judgment day added an element of suspense and underscored the weight of the legal arguments presented. With the parties directed to formulate a common proposal for the upcoming hearings, the stage was set for a more focused and structured examination of the evidence and arguments surrounding the disputed election results. The outcome of this legal battle holds significant implications for the political landscape of Edo State, and the nation at large, as it will determine the legitimacy of the declared election results and the future leadership of the state.
