The political landscape in Edo State heated up as the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) clashed over the PDP’s planned protest at the Attorney General of the Federation’s office in Abuja. The APC accused the PDP of attempting to influence the ongoing governorship election tribunal by staging the protest, urging security agencies to intervene and prevent any potential disruption. The PDP, however, dismissed these claims as propaganda, asserting their right to peaceful protest and criticizing the APC’s handling of the Edo State and Rivers State elections. The PDP’s primary concern was the alleged irregularities in the Edo governorship election, which they believed should not be allowed to stand in a democracy. They called on President Tinubu to caution the Edo APC leadership, referencing the peaceful transfer of power from Goodluck Jonathan to Muhammadu Buhari as a precedent.
Concurrent with this political sparring, the Edo State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal reserved judgment on the petition filed by the PDP and its governorship candidate, Asue Ighodalo, challenging the September 21, 2024, election results. The PDP presented 19 witnesses, including a subpoenaed INEC technical officer who tendered 154 BVAS machines, to support their allegations of over-voting, non-serialization of ballots, incorrect collation of figures, and erroneous computation of scores. While INEC chose not to present any witnesses, Governor Okpebholo and the APC called one and four witnesses respectively to defend their victory. The tribunal, led by Justice Wilfred Kpochi, reserved judgment for a later date, promising to communicate the decision to all parties involved.
The legal arguments presented before the tribunal revealed the core contentions of both sides. INEC’s lead counsel, Kanu Agabi (SAN), argued that the PDP’s petition lacked merit, emphasizing that polling unit agents had signed the result sheets and that the number of witnesses called represented a small fraction of the total polling units. He further asserted that the petitioners failed to plead for the nullification of the election with appropriate relief and merely submitted documents without sufficient evidence. Agabi stressed that INEC could not declare the petitioners winners based on their claims and urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition entirely.
Governor Okpebholo’s legal team, led by Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), echoed the sentiment that the PDP’s case was unsubstantial. They argued that their analysis of the disputed polling units confirmed Okpebholo’s lead, addressing the Form EC25b issue by stating it only required details on the quantity of materials, not serial numbers. Ikpeazu also highlighted a Supreme Court ruling requiring access to BVAS machines to prove over-voting, which the petitioners did not have. He urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition as an academic exercise.
The APC’s legal representation, led by Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), similarly argued that the PDP’s claims of non-compliance lacked substantive proof, reiterating the need for evidence on a polling unit-by-polling unit basis, a standard set by the Supreme Court. He pointed out the insufficiency of the petitioners’ witnesses, particularly the absence of presiding officers and the lack of demonstration regarding BVAS machine functionality, urging the tribunal to dismiss the petition.
The PDP’s counsel, Ken Morzi (SAN), countered these arguments by clarifying that their complaints were focused on 765 polling units, not the entirety of the state’s 4,519 polling units. He emphasized the cumulative effect of the raised issues and explained that their focus was on the collation centers, not the individual polling units, alleging vote manipulation during collation. Morzi asserted that all results before the tribunal were submitted by his clients and refuted claims of document dumping, stating all tendered documents were certified by INEC and submitted without objections. The tribunal, having heard all arguments, reserved judgment, leaving both parties awaiting the final decision.
