The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has launched a legal challenge against the outcome of the 2024 Edo State governorship election, alleging widespread irregularities in a significant portion of the polling units. At the Election Petition Tribunal, relocated from Benin City to Abuja, the PDP’s Director of Research and Strategy, Oseyili Anenih, testified as the party’s key witness. Anenih claimed that irregularities marred the election process in 765 polling units, representing 16.7% of the total 4,519 polling units across the state. He asserted that these irregularities, documented in his sworn witness statement, were substantial enough to impact the final result and that, if the lawfully cast votes were properly tallied, their candidate, Asue Ighodalo, would have been declared the winner.
Anenih’s testimony centered around the discrepancies discovered between the physical result sheets provided by party agents, the certified true copies obtained from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and the data extracted from the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) reports available on INEC’s IREV portal. He alleged infractions in 320 polling units, based on reports received from party agents and election experts, both orally and in writing. A recurring issue highlighted by Anenih was the lack of signatures on many of the result sheets provided by PDP agents at the Situation Room. This, coupled with the inconsistencies found when comparing these documents with the certified true copies and BVAS data, formed the crux of the PDP’s argument for election irregularities.
Under cross-examination by the legal representatives of INEC, Governor Monday Okpebholo, and the All Progressives Congress (APC), Anenih’s claims were rigorously scrutinized. Kanu Agabi, SAN, representing INEC, questioned the witness on the specifics of the alleged irregularities. Anenih admitted that he had not personally documented any of the irregularities but relied on information gathered from party agents and experts. He emphasized that he had examined the election materials and other relevant documents. He also acknowledged not having physical access to the BVAS machines but stated that screenshots of the BVAS data were obtained and tendered as evidence.
Onyechi Ikpeazu, counsel for Governor Okpebholo, questioned the authenticity and timing of the data presented by Anenih. He pointed out a discrepancy in the dates of data extraction from the IREV portal and the procurement of certified true copies, suggesting a potential issue with the evidence’s integrity. Ikpeazu also underscored the role of polling unit agents in reconciling results with BVAS entries, implying a potential lapse in the PDP’s own procedures. He stressed the importance of these reconciliations in ensuring the accuracy and consistency of the election results.
Emmanuel Ukala, representing the APC, further probed Anenih’s involvement and understanding of the electoral process. Anenih confirmed that he did not receive election results directly due to disruptions during the election but stated that some results eventually reached the collation center. He also acknowledged that he lacked formal training from INEC for any specific role in the election. Furthermore, he admitted that some agents’ copies of the results were illegible and were therefore excluded from the petition, potentially weakening the PDP’s overall claim of widespread irregularities.
Following Anenih’s testimony, the tribunal, presided over by Justice Wilfred Kpochi, discharged the witness. The proceedings were then adjourned until January 30, 2025, at the request of the PDP’s counsel, Adetunji Oyeyipo, SAN. Oyeyipo explained that travel disruptions had prevented the remaining witnesses from attending the hearing. He assured the tribunal that they would present as many witnesses as possible on the next adjourned date and would streamline their witness list to expedite the proceedings. The adjournment allowed the PDP time to regroup and prepare for the continuation of their legal challenge, while the tribunal awaited further evidence to adjudicate on the validity of the Edo State governorship election.
The PDP’s case hinges on the assertion that the alleged irregularities were significant enough to alter the election outcome. The party maintains that a proper collation of the lawful votes would have revealed their candidate as the rightful winner. The defense, however, questioned the credibility of the evidence presented, highlighting inconsistencies and procedural lapses that could potentially undermine the PDP’s claims. The tribunal must now carefully consider the evidence and arguments from both sides to determine the true extent and impact of the alleged irregularities.
The adjournment also underscores the logistical challenges involved in election petitions. Gathering witnesses, securing evidence, and managing legal proceedings can be complex and time-consuming, particularly when dealing with a large number of polling units and alleged irregularities. The tribunal’s decision to grant the adjournment reflects the need for a fair and thorough examination of the evidence, even if it requires adjustments to the schedule. The PDP’s commitment to streamlining its witness list suggests an attempt to expedite the process while still presenting a compelling case.
The outcome of this petition carries significant implications for the political landscape of Edo State. It will determine the legitimacy of the declared election winner and could potentially lead to a rerun if the tribunal finds the irregularities substantial enough to invalidate the results. The case highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in electoral processes and the role of election petitions in ensuring the integrity of democratic elections.
The tribunal’s final decision will undoubtedly have a profound impact on the political future of Edo State. It will either affirm the current governor’s mandate or potentially pave the way for a new election. The proceedings will continue to be closely watched by stakeholders, as the outcome will significantly influence the state’s political direction. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of well-functioning electoral processes and the crucial role of legal mechanisms in addressing disputes and upholding democratic principles.
