The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its gubernatorial candidate, Dr. Asue Ighodalo, continued their legal challenge against the declared outcome of the September 21, 2024 Edo State Governorship Election. Their petition, contesting the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) declaration of All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate Monday Okpebholo as the winner, focused on alleged widespread irregularities during the election. The three-man tribunal, presided over by Justice Wilfred Kpochi, heard testimonies from three PDP witnesses, each representing a different local government area within Edo State, adding to the testimonies presented on the previous day. This ongoing legal battle seeks to overturn the election results and potentially reshape the political landscape of Edo State.
The petitioners’ witnesses aimed to substantiate their claims of electoral malpractice by detailing specific instances of irregularities within their respective local government areas. Destiny Oghayerio Enabulele, testifying about Ovia South West Local Government Area, highlighted a critical procedural lapse: the alleged absence of prior recording of sensitive materials deployed by INEC to 19 polling units. This omission, according to the witness, casts doubt on the integrity and transparency of the electoral process in those units. Enabulele asserted that his testimony was based on meticulous examination of certified true copies of INEC’s summary of ward collation results, among other documents. Under cross-examination by the respondents’ counsel, Enabulele clarified his involvement in the creation of these documents, stating that he only participated in the making of Form EC8C (Ward Collation result).
The proceedings took a dramatic turn during the testimony of Babah Idenobhe, the PDP’s witness from Etsako West Local Government Area. Idenobhe alleged over-voting in three polling units (units 021-023) within his local government area. However, the credibility of his testimony came under scrutiny when a discrepancy was discovered regarding the certification dates of some of the documents he cited. It emerged that certain documents presented as evidence were certified by INEC on January 8, 2025, while Idenobhe’s sworn statement was made on October 10, 2024. This inconsistency raised questions about the reliability of his claims and the validity of the documents used to support them. Idenobhe stated that the documents he considered included original certified true copies of polling unit results, photographed with the BIVAS machines, further complicating the issue.
Adding to the petitioners’ allegations, Moses Agbukor, the PDP’s Collation Agent from Etsako East Local Government Area, testified about instances of over-voting and the lack of prior recording of sensitive materials, mirroring the concerns raised by previous witnesses. Agbukor requested the court to admit his party’s Ward Collation Agent Tag and his sworn statement as evidence. The legal representatives for INEC, Governor Okpebholo, and the APC – Kalu Agabi, SAN, Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, and Ukala, SAN, respectively – objected to the admissibility of these documents, opting to reserve their detailed arguments for their final written addresses.
Justice Kpochi, presiding over the tribunal, ruled that the contested documents would be provisionally admitted as evidence, allowing the proceedings to continue. This decision allowed the petitioners to present their case based on these documents, subject to further scrutiny and potential challenges by the respondents later in the trial. The tribunal then adjourned the hearing until January 22, 2025, to allow for the continuation of the case and the presentation of further evidence and arguments.
The PDP’s strategy in presenting witnesses from multiple local government areas aimed to demonstrate the widespread nature of the alleged electoral irregularities. By highlighting inconsistencies in documentation, procedural lapses related to sensitive materials, and allegations of over-voting, the petitioners sought to build a case that questioned the overall credibility of the election results. The responses from INEC, Governor Okpebholo, and the APC, including their objections to certain evidence, indicated a robust defense strategy focused on challenging the validity of the petitioners’ claims. The tribunal’s decision to provisionally admit the contested documents allows the case to proceed while preserving the respondents’ right to challenge their admissibility later, highlighting the complexities of legal proceedings and the importance of due process in determining the outcome of this electoral dispute. The upcoming hearings will likely delve deeper into these issues, with both sides presenting further evidence and legal arguments in an attempt to sway the tribunal’s judgment. The final decision holds significant implications for the political future of Edo State.
The adjourned date of January 22, 2025, sets the stage for the continuation of this high-stakes legal battle. The proceedings until then will be crucial in determining the credibility of the election and the fate of the governorship. The tribunal’s eventual ruling will have far-reaching implications for the political landscape of Edo State and could potentially set precedents for future election petitions in Nigeria. The focus of the proceedings moving forward will likely be on further examination of the evidence presented, including the contested documents, and the cross-examination of witnesses to assess the veracity of their claims. The legal arguments presented by both sides will be pivotal in shaping the tribunal’s understanding of the case and ultimately influencing its decision. The nation will be watching as the tribunal navigates these complex legal arguments and the potentially conflicting evidence to arrive at a just and fair resolution.
