EDO: APC, PDP and Obaseki’s olive branch

In the aftermath of the legal tussle over the governorship election in the state, Edo State governor, Godwin Obaseki offered an olive branch to the opposition, the Peoples Democratic party (PDP), prompting a wave of debate as to the nature of political landscape in the state. BANJI ALUKO, in this report, examines the fallouts of the election petition and the governor’s olive branch to the PDP.

Everything that has a beginning must have an end. For the gubernatorial ambition of Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu, the 2016 governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Monday, July 10, 2017, ended his wish to govern Edo State through the aftermath of the September 2016 election.

That day, Ize-Iyamu and the PDP who had approached the Supreme Court with 21 grounds of objection to earlier ruling of the Court of Appeal, which affirmed Obaseki’s victory got all hopes dashed as the apex court affirmed Obaseki as the Governor.

Though Pastor Ize-Iyamu and the PDP wasted no time to congratulate the Governor for that victory, many expected the two parties to return to status quo almost immediately. Edo electorate and the political watchers have over the past years been used to seeing these two parties at each other’s throats most of the time.

However, not a few were surprised at the actions immediately taken by the candidate of the PDP immediately the Supreme Court announced its verdict. Ize-Iyamu congratulated the Governor and declared his readiness to accept the verdict in good faith.

He said in a statement he personally signed: “Today, the Supreme Court has by its judgment brought to an end our struggle for the office of the governor of Edo State which began on 28 September, 2016.

“I accept in good faith this decision of the highest court of our country, which affirms Mr Godwin Obaseki as the Governor of Edo State. I therefore congratulate Mr. Godwin Obaseki and assure him of my goodwill.

“I also want to use this opportunity to thank all our supporters and party loyalists for their immense support for our struggle right from the time of the election to this day that it ended at the Supreme Court.

“Let me assure them of my acknowledgement of their various sacrifices and promise that I will always be there for them.

“I thank all Edo people who have been part of our struggle all the way. In our various ways, we should keep the fire burning in the quest for an Edo State of our dreams.”

Governor Obaseki was to follow that up with a similar statesmanlike statement, which called on all stakeholders including the opposition to join him in delivering the dividends of democracy to the people.

He said: “It is not my place to tell the opposition what role they should play. If I should tell them anything, I would tell them, they should join me.”

Following the statement credited to Ize-Iyamu and the body language of the governor which does not rule out the possibility of working with the opposition, a number of political watchers in the state were hopeful of a turn-around of the usual hostile environment between the ruling party and the opposition in the state. Is the situation really about to change? That is the question for the future. But before the ruling of the Supreme Court, the battle at the two fronts was enduring. The Edo State governorship election petition tribunal headed by Justice Ahmed Badamasi was the first to uphold the election of Obaseki. After gruelling arguments by eminent lawyers that lasted almost three months between January 9 and April 4, 2017, the tribunal, in a judgement delivered on Friday, April 14, 2017, ruled that the petition filed by Ize-Iyamu and the PDP to be declared winner lacked merit. Justice Badamasi, who read out the judgement, noted that “the petitioners can only succeed on the strength of his case and not on the absence or weakness of the defence.”

For the petitioners, the issues before the tribunal were simple and the petition should be taken on its merit. Lead counsel to the petitioners, Yusuf Alli (SAN), noted that the petition was largely documentary, meaning that it was basically hinged on documentary evidence of key materials used in the conduct of the election, especially the voters registers and the result sheets. The eminent lawyer said the tribunal only needed to reconcile figures to establish a case of fraud perpetrated by INEC. For this reason, the learned gentleman, who led other lawyers such as Roland Otaru (SAN), Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), Kemi Pinhero (SAN), Adebayo Adelodun (SAN), Ferdinand Orbih (SAN), Kehinde Eleja (SAN) amongst others, produced as exhibits the voters’ register in all the 18 local government areas of the state. The petitioners also produced the Forms EC8A, Form EC8B and EC8C, being results sheets for all the polling units, wards and local government areas of the state.

The petitioners had averred that there were lots of invalid votes arising from non-compliance to the Electoral Act in the contested units. The petitioners also pointed out that the most credible way to confirm non-compliance was through the voters’ register, adding that anyone who voted without accreditation, renders the total votes of the unit invalid. Counsel to the petitioners also deposited that when reconciled, the figures of ballot papers used and unused in the contested units did not add up. Another point raised by Alli (SAN) was that the second respondent in their reply claimed to be dissatisfied with the conduct of the election, thereby raising objections to votes scored by the petitioners, who are equally dissatisfied with the conduct of the election. He therefore argued that if all parties involved are dissatisfied with the conduct of the election, the duty rested on the tribunal to give strength to the dissatisfaction of the petitioners and the second respondent.

One of the reasons the petitioners argued judgement should go their way was the refusal of the INEC to present any witness during the trial. Recall that INEC did not present any witness as its counsel stated that they would prefer to rely on the cross-examination of the petitioners’ witnesses to prove their case. In his final address, Yusuf Alli (SAN) said all allegations of non-compliance were made against INEC and by virtue of the allegation, only INEC can provide answers to the allegations. He added that the petition was largely documentary and that it was not hinged on alleged thuggery or ballot box snatching, but on documents issued and certified by INEC.

Another contentious issue at the tribunal was the issue of what constitutes accreditation of prospective voters in an election as contained in relevant statutes. Counsel on the two sides took time to argue this point by backing their claims with relevant sections of the Electoral Act and other relevant statutes. For the petitioners, accreditation is completed when a prospective voter as his name ticked on the left side of the voters’ register, while ticking to the left is marked by ticking to the right side of the voters register. To back the claim, Yusuf Alli (SAN), who led other lawyers, stated that the Supreme Court had made it clear in Faleke vs INEC that the 2015 manual for election officials is a part of the guidelines guiding the conduct of election and that it should be used when found relevant. He also pointed out that an amendment was made in 2016 to the 2015 Manual for Election. Counsels to respondents were unanimous in their position that the Manual for Election was meant for the training of election officials and not for the conduct of the election itself.

In his judgement, Justice Badamasi said evidence led by the petitioners did not establish that there was substantial non compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act in the 2,627 polling units they contested as the petitioners did not call on witnesses in majority of the polling units in the state. He pointed out that the petitioners in a bid to prove their case, called on witnesses who could not give evidence and that the petitioners did not call on any witness to prove a case of misapplication of votes. He stated that the PDP and Ize-Iyamu could not put forward substantial reasons for the latter to be declared winner of the election or make the tribunal nullify the result of the election.

While the tribunal declared that accreditation constituted the foundation for a credible election, the tribunal asserted that allegation of poor or uncompleted accreditation by the petitioners could not be established. Justice Badamasi said the reliance of the petitioners on the ticking of the name of a prospective voter on the left side of the voters’ register to mark complete accreditation was only an administrative guideline for election officials. Justice Badamasi said: “On the whole, we hold that the petitioners have not by credible evidence proved their case and they have failed to show that they are entitled to their reliefs.

“Accordingly, the petition is, therefore, dismissed. The election of the second respondent, Godwin Obaseki, is hereby upheld.”

Dissatisfied, Ize-Iyamu and the PDP took the case to the Court of Appeal. However, in a unanimous decision by five judges, the Appeal Court ruled that the lower court painstakingly carried out its job by objectively considering the case presented before it, adding that the tribunal deserved commendation for a job well done. Justice M.O. Bolaji Yusuf, who read out the judgement on the PDP’s appeal, said “we have considered all the issues and at the end, we found that the conclusion of the tribunal as has been shown is unassailable. The tribunal carried out a painstaking, detailed and thorough consideration of all aspects of the appellants’ case; it deserves commendation. Having resolved the issues identified against the appellants, we find this unmeritorious. It is, hereby, dismissed. Each party shall bear his or her own cost.”

With the Supreme Court’s judgement on Monday, many in Edo State have started to ask questions about what becomes of the PDP in the state and its opposition to the APC. With the next general elections some 18 months away and with the resolution of the crisis rocking the PDP at the national level, will the PDP in Edo join hands with Obaseki as the Governor has demanded or will the party sustain the rancour that had existed between the two parties in recent years?