The Edo State Governorship Election Tribunal commenced hearings on Tuesday, with witnesses from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presenting evidence alleging widespread irregularities in the September 21, 2024, election. The PDP and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo, are contesting the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) declaration of All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Monday Okpebholo, as the winner. The PDP’s case hinges on discrepancies between results recorded on agents’ copies, the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) accreditation reports, and the final results announced by INEC.
Kennedy Osifo, the PDP’s local government collation officer for Ikpoba Okha Local Government Area, testified first. He presented agents’ copies from 76 polling units in Ward II, alleging four categories of electoral irregularities. Osifo asserted that discrepancies emerged when comparing the agents’ copies with the certified true copies of BVAS accreditation reports obtained from INEC’s IREV portal. These discrepancies, highlighted in his sworn witness statement, reportedly reveal that INEC used incorrect scores to determine the final election outcome. Under cross-examination, Osifo clarified that his testimony relied solely on the documentary evidence and not on direct communication with polling agents.
The second witness, Adebayo Ogedegbe, the PDP collation officer for Akoko-Edo Local Government Area, identified alleged irregularities in 45 polling units. In 41 of these units, Ogedegbe claimed INEC computed incorrect scores that deviated from the records on the certified true copies. Further, he alleged overvoting in four units, presenting agents’ copies as supporting evidence for his claims. Ogedegbe’s testimony echoed Osifo’s, pointing to a pattern of discrepancies between initial records and the final results declared by INEC.
Lucky Aroye, testifying about Owan West Local Government Area, continued the trend of alleged discrepancies and overvoting. He presented agents’ copies from nine polling units, highlighting instances of alleged overvoting. Furthermore, Aroye claimed that seven units lacked prior recordings of sensitive materials, a procedural lapse that could raise questions about the integrity of the voting process. He, like the previous witnesses, submitted his sworn statement as evidence for the tribunal’s consideration. When questioned about his comprehensive knowledge of all units, given his role as collation officer, Aroye acknowledged the impossibility of visiting every unit due to their sheer number.
The legal teams representing INEC, Okpebholo, and the APC, led by Kalu Agabi, Onyeachi Ikpeazu, and Emmanuel Ukala respectively, objected to the admissibility of the documents tendered by the PDP witnesses. However, they reserved their detailed arguments for their final written addresses, a standard legal tactic that allows for a more comprehensive and structured presentation of their objections later in the proceedings. This postponement allows for a more thorough analysis of the evidence presented and prevents interrupting the flow of witness testimonies.
Justice Wilfred Kpochi, the tribunal chairman, provisionally admitted the contested documents into evidence. This “provisional” status means the tribunal will make a final determination on their admissibility later in the proceedings, after considering all arguments. The hearing was then adjourned to Wednesday for the continuation of witness testimonies and the presentation of further evidence. The tribunal’s approach of provisionally admitting the documents suggests a commitment to thoroughly examining all available evidence before reaching a final judgment.
The PDP’s strategy appears to be establishing a pattern of irregularities across multiple local government areas, suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents. By focusing on discrepancies between initial records and the final declared results, they aim to demonstrate that the announced outcome does not accurately reflect the votes cast. The INEC and the APC will likely counter these claims by challenging the credibility of the witnesses and the validity of the tendered documents, possibly arguing that they are incomplete, inaccurate, or forged. The tribunal’s ultimate decision hinges on its assessment of the evidence and the persuasiveness of the arguments presented by both sides. The case highlights the importance of robust electoral processes and transparent mechanisms for addressing disputes, which are crucial for maintaining public trust in democratic systems.
