The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal in Abuja witnessed the closing arguments of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its governorship candidate, Asuerime Ighodalo, on Monday, marking a significant step in their legal challenge against the declared outcome of the September 21, 2024, election. The PDP and Ighodalo contest the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) declaration of All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Monday Okpebholo, as the victor. They petition the tribunal to nullify the election results, asserting that INEC erroneously declared the wrong winner. The official results announced by INEC show Okpebholo securing 291,667 votes, surpassing Ighodalo’s 247,655 votes. The core of the petitioners’ argument revolves around alleged non-compliance with the Electoral Act, specifically citing instances of overvoting and the collation of inaccurate figures at various collation centers. These irregularities, they contend, fundamentally undermined the integrity of the election.
The petitioners’ case rests heavily on witness testimonies, several of whom recounted their refusal to sign result sheets at their respective wards and polling units due to observed discrepancies. These firsthand accounts serve as crucial evidence in their bid to demonstrate the alleged electoral malpractice. Lead counsel for the petitioners, Robert Emukpoeruo (SAN), formally informed the three-member tribunal, presided over by Justice Wilfred Kpochi, of the conclusion of their case after presenting their witnesses. This signaled a transition in the proceedings, shifting the focus to the respondents’ defense. The proceedings also saw INEC submitting additional evidence in the form of five Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines used in the contested election. This supplemented the earlier submission of 148 BVAS machines on January 30 by Anthony Itodo, a Senior Technical Officer in INEC’s ICT Department. A slight discrepancy arose between the expected number of 151 machines initially mentioned and the actual number submitted, which INEC’s counsel, Kanu Agabi (SAN), clarified, explaining that only 148 were relevant to the specific complaints raised regarding the election’s conduct.
Despite objections from all respondents—INEC, the APC, and Governor Okpebholo—the tribunal admitted the BVAS devices into evidence, albeit with the respondents reserving the right to challenge their admissibility in their final written addresses. This procedural step sets the stage for a comprehensive legal analysis of the evidence presented by both sides. The tribunal subsequently scheduled Wednesday for INEC to commence its defense, providing the electoral body with the opportunity to present its version of events and refute the allegations leveled against it. The ongoing legal battle underscores the importance of electoral integrity and the role of the judiciary in ensuring a fair and transparent electoral process. The tribunal’s eventual decision will have significant implications for the political landscape of Edo State.
Meanwhile, outside the courtroom, Anthony Aziegbemi, the Chairman of the PDP in Edo State, expressed his bewilderment at INEC’s objection to the tendering of its own BVAS machines. He characterized INEC’s actions as “strange,” questioning why the electoral body, after conducting the election and certifying documents for the petitioners, would subsequently object to the same documents being admitted as evidence. Aziegbemi’s remarks highlight the apparent contradiction in INEC’s stance, raising concerns about its motives and impartiality in the electoral process. He emphasized the peculiarity of INEC’s objection, contrasting it with the expected objections from the APC and Governor Okpebholo, the direct beneficiaries of the declared results. “Is it not strange? You conducted an election, you certified documents for the petitioners, and now, when the petitioners want to tender these documents, you object to them and say you will give reasons later,” Aziegbemi pointedly remarked. This unusual turn of events fueled his skepticism and prompted him to question the underlying reasons for INEC’s seemingly contradictory actions.
Aziegbemi’s concerns extend beyond INEC’s specific actions in this case, touching upon broader implications for public trust in the electoral body. He posed a fundamental question: “Why would INEC oppose the documents it certified to the petitioners being tendered in open court?” This question resonates with the public’s desire for transparency and accountability in electoral processes, raising concerns about potential biases or hidden agendas. Despite these concerns, Aziegbemi expressed confidence in the judiciary’s ability to impartially evaluate the evidence presented and deliver a just verdict. He highlighted the credibility of the petitioners’ witnesses, many of whom served as collation agents and ward agents, offering firsthand accounts of the alleged irregularities that occurred during the ward and local government collation stages. He emphasized the focus of their testimonies on the specific issues that arose during these critical phases of the electoral process, reinforcing the petitioners’ claims of procedural irregularities.
Aziegbemi underscored the clarity of their case, emphasizing its reliance on documentary evidence and the direct testimony of key electoral officials. “We didn’t need to call a lot of witnesses. We called those we needed to make our case solid and straightforward,” he explained. He reiterated the petitioners’ belief that the core issues emerged during the collation process, specifically at the ward and local government levels, and not at the individual polling units. “We are confident. We think we have presented our witnesses to substantiate our case, which is principally about the elections held at the 4,519 polling units in Edo State. At the polling unit level, we do not have major issues, except for a few places. The issues began manifesting with the connivance of INEC at the ward and local government collation levels,” he stated. Aziegbemi concluded by expressing his unwavering faith in the judiciary, anticipating a thorough review of the presented evidence and a just resolution that upholds the principles of electoral integrity. The tribunal’s decision will undoubtedly shape the political future of Edo State and serve as a precedent for future electoral disputes.
