Edo guber: Tribunal reserves judgment in PDP, Ighodalo’s petition seeking to nullify Okpebholo’s election

THE Edo State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal, sitting in Abuja, on Monday reserved judgment in the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) and its governorship candidate, Mr Asue Ighodalo, challenging the declaration of Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressive Congress (APC) as the winner of the September 21, 2024 election in the state.

The Justice Wilfred Kpochi-led three-member tribunal took the decision after counsel in the matter adopted their final written addresses.

Justice Kpochi, who said the secretary of the tribunal would communicate the date for the judgment to parties if it was ready, said: “The tribunal stands adjourned until then”.

At the resumed hearing of the petition on Monday, the petitioners, through their counsel, adopted their final written address, told the tribunal that the election that brought Okpebholo to power was conducted in gross violation of the Electoral Act.

Counsel for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), while adopting the final address of his client, prayed the tribunal to dismiss the petition for lacking in merit.

Agabi hinged his prayer on the grounds that the tribunal cannot annul the September 21 election because it was not one of the reliefs sought by the petitioners.

The senior lawyer also said the tribunal could not declare the petitioners as winners of that election in the light of their own assertion that the election was invalid.

Speaking on the claim of non-compliance pleaded by the petitioners, Agabi said it was weak as it was not accompanied by the appropriate relief which was nullification of election.

He also said: The claim of majority of lawful votes pleaded by the petitioners could not avail them since their other claim was that the election was invalid.

Another ground that INEC prayed the tribunal to dismiss the petition was that all the polling unit agents called as witnesses signed the result sheet and, “This is a clear indication that the election was conducted in compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022.

“The results were duly collated at all levels of collation. The petitioners have not pleaded any alternative results on the basis of which they can be declared as winners. The case of the petitioners is based on analysis undertaken by hired consultants ,” he said and that the documents upon which the petitioners relied were all dumped on the tribunal and could not be used in their favour.

He, therefore, prayed the tribunal to dismiss the petition in its entirety for lacking in merit.

In his own submission, Dr Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), who represented Governor Okpebholo, asked the tribunal to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it had become an academic exercise.

He told the tribunal that in the course of their research, they carefully extracted the polling units which the petitioners tendered documents on and compared them with the ones they presented and even at that, his client was well ahead of the petitioners in the polls.

On the contentious Form EC25B, where the petitioners claimed the serial numbers of sensitive materials must be given, Ikpeazu said, all that was required in the form was quantity of electoral materials received and quantity returned.

He added that a pronouncement of the Supreme Court said, one could not prove overvoting without the Bimodal Verification Authentication System (BVAS) Machines but that none of the machines was opened to allow the tribunal to look at the content.

According to him, the petitioners, by not tendering the right documents, failed to prove overvoting on the whole.

Counsel for the APC, Mr Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), argued that it was clear that the case of the petitioners was based virtually and entirely on non-compliance and that, “By the nature of the case they pleaded, the Supreme Court has over the years laid down that they need to prove this by polling unit to polling unit, ward to ward and local government by local government.”

Ukala, however, said that, rather than prove this, the petitioners dumped documents on the tribunal and added that, without polling unit agents testifying to those documents, they were useless and the case remained unproved.

He argued that with over 4,000 polling units in Edo, the petitioners called only five polling unit agents and no single presiding officer.

The senior lawyer also said, since the petitioners failed to demonstrate how the BVAS machines worked, it was clear that the case of the petitioners was not proved and it should be dismissed.

Responding, counsel for the petitioners, Mr Ken Moze (SAN) told the panel that, with 4,519 polling units in Edo state, the complaint in the petition was concerning 765 of them.

According to him, it is law that successful prosecution of election petition is not about the percentage of the total polling units in the state but the effect of the successive establishment of the complaint and further argued that, the petition must be considered whollistically and not in parts.

“So the submission of isolating grounds and labeling them alone as academic is not well founded,” he said.

On the issue of not presenting the tribunal with an alternative result, the senior lawyer said, it was on record that all the results before the tribunal were tendered by his clients.

On why the petitioners called only five polling unit agents, he said, the grouse of his clients was with what happened at the collation centres and not at the polling units so they didn’t need more than five agents to testify.

“We concede that elections took place at the polling units but how 25 votes metamorphosed to 525 votes at the collation center  is what we are quarrelling with,” he said.

Speaking on the claim that they dumped documents on the tribunal, Mozie said, all the documents they tendered were duly certified by INEC and were tendered without objection from the commission, the makers of the document.

He also held that the tribunal had requisite jurisdiction to hear the petition because their allegations were not pre-election matters.

Having taken all the arguments, Justice Kpochi announced that, judgment in the petition was reserved to a date that would be communicated to parties by the secretary of the tribunal.

READ ALSO: Edo Tribunal: Okpebholo’s bribery claims, attempt to blackmail Judiciary — Ighodalo’s media