Edo polls: And the people’s will prevailed

BARRING any last minute change, the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal holding in Benin City will be delivering judgment on a petition brought before by the governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu.

Pastor Ize-Iyamu, who felt shortchanged over the outcome of the elections, had approached the tribunal urging it declare him the winner of the September 28, 2016, governorship election.

But the All Progressives Congress, APC, and its candidate, Mr. Godwin Obaseki, picked holes in PDP’s request. Having gone through the legal fireworks and hearing from both the petitioner and the defence, the 3-man panel led by Justice Justice Ahmed Badamasi has reserved judgment.

The parties involved are through with their final addresses. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had declared Governor Obaseki winner of the election, after polling 319,483 as against Ize-Iyamu’s 253, 173 votes.

Not satisfied with the outcome of the polls, the PDP and its standard standard-bearer, felt it was necessary to seek legal redress. With the setting up of the three man tribunal panel, the legal fireworks commenced with arguments for and against.

The two parties, in an attempt to outwit each other, came up with an array of legal luminaries to defend their cases. Leading the legal team for Ize-Iyamu and the PDP is Yusuf Ali (SAN).

Other senior counsel on the team included Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), Adebayo Adelodun (SAN), Roland Otaru (SAN), D.C.Denwigwe SAN, Ferdinand Orbih (SAN), Chief H.O.Ogbodu SAN, Akintola Kehinde SAN, Kehinde Eleja (SAN), Dr P.A.Otaigbe and over 70 other counsels on his side.

Governor Obaseki was also not found wanting as he put together a team of eminent lawyers headed by a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN).

Olanipekun, a tested legal icon, led the legal onslaught which included Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN), Ken Mozia (SAN), A.J. Owonikoko (SAN), Dr Oladapo Olanipekun (SAN), Chief N.Ekanem (SAN), Joseph Odibeli Esq and over 20 others.

As a mean of backing up Obaseki’s legal arsenal, the APC contracted the services of Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), Ricky Tarfar (SAN), Chief Adeniyi Akintola (SAN), Austin Alegeh SAN, Rotimi Oguneso (SAN), Dr. J.O .Olatoke (SAN), H.O.Afolabi SAN and others.

Also not left behind, INEC came up its own legal team headed by A.B.Mahoud (SAN), Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), H.M. Liman (SAN), Ahmed Raji (SAN), Mathew Ugwuocha Esq, Obumneme Esq, Onyinye Anumonye Esq and others.

The legal fireworks came to an end recently with all parties making their closing address.

Prior to the closing statements, Ize Iyamu’s main thrust of the argument was that Obaseki was not duly elected by the majority of the lawful votes cast at the election.

He also argued that the election that threw up Obaseki was invalid by reason of “non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended. That the election of the 2nd Respondent was invalid by reason of corrupt practices.”

For the PDP challenger, he is of the view that there is a need for the tribunal to declare him the winner of the elections.

But in countering Ize-Iyamu’s claim to be declared the winner of the contest, Obaseki’s counsel, Chief Olanipekun described the petitioner as embarking on a wild goose even as he insisted that the tribunal should thrash the petition on grounds of Ize-Iyamu’s identity.

Olanipekun argued that the identity of the PDP candidate was questionable and in that light, the petition should be thrashed by the tribunal.

Obaseki’s counsel posited that “Why are we here, who is the petitioner, what is his identity? In the body of the petition we have Pastor Ize-Iyamu Osagie Andrew, while in his party’s nomination form, he described himself as Osagie Ize-Iyamu. We have submitted to you, your Lordships that is not the name of the person sponsored by the political party to contest the election on its behalf. They have filed a reply and they compounded the matter beyond redemption. The Supreme Court decision says if you are AT, or TA, you cannot say you are TJ. These are binding decisions of the Supreme Court we urged your Lordships to apply them because there must be certainty of the person who is the petitioner and I will say my lord, for now, there is no certainty and rather than addressing the matter they compounded it the more in their counter affidavit.”

Besides the debate on Ize-Iyamu’s identity, Olanipekun also picked holes in the agitation for a ballot recount by the PDP contender.

He held the view that Ize-Iyamu’s call for ballot recount would be an exercise in futility.

He told the tribunal that: “Another issue they are talking about is ballot recount, My lord I am a counsel in this matter but I am not aware of any ballot recount. And that takes us to the address of the petitioners. Even if this court directed the secretary of the Tribunal to count the ballot papers, whatever might by the result of that exercise be admitted in evidence. My Lord in the case of Almakura, that is where the Supreme Court agreed with Yusuf Ali SAN, documents were brought but they were not tendered. Even when you tender documents for identification the Supreme Court says that no court can use them because you don’t tender documents for identification you either tender to be admitted or rejected no more no less. And it is not right to ask the court to count ballot papers, it is not possible and that is the heart of their case. I refer to the case of Agagu VS Mimiko and INEC VS Oshiomhole, My Lord to buttress the point, even in those two cases when the counting exercise was done, we were there, the report was now tendered and admitted formally in court after counting the ballot.”

Buttressing Olanipekun’s point, the APC counsel, Fagbemi maintained that the petition brought before the tribunal was a carcass.

Fagebmi held the view that Obaseki won the governorship elections convincingly and was quick to point out that “there is a total disconnect between the petition, the evidence, and the written address.”

He said: “what is left in the petition after the petitioner removed the issue of corrupt practices during the election is carcass. There is difference between calling witnesses and calling evidence. What the petitioners have done in this case is to call witnesses without calling evidence and from that angle I urge your Lordship to dismiss this petition. From time immemorial, over voting, none accreditation have always qualified as a species of malpractices and therefore my Lord, it is a matter bothering on criminality. There is no doubt about what standard that is required, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. But they failed to meet up with this. In respect of the tables provided by the petitioners, they are uncalled for. There is a total disconnect between the petition, the evidence, and the written address. However our evidence, however brilliant submissions counsels may be, they cannot take the places of pleadings because pleadings is the primary source from which all other matters are derived. Even the first petitioner who had the opportunity to identify the documents that he had made reference to in his pleadings did not make use of the opportunity. He was busy trying to sort out things forgetting that this is a matter regulated by procedure and time. His deposition comes to none because there is no leg for which that deposition can stand.”

Fagbemi added that “The petitioners made the point of tables, even though they are wrong, but assuming your Lordship decides to take their figures Obaseki would still have won with about 58, 696 votes. Despite all the pitfalls in their submission, if your lordship decides to set everything aside, we will still have won. If they said they have won what is their spread. This matter is anchored on about 2,423 polling units.

“They said they have ward collations agents but my lord how much has these ward collation agents said in this matter to upturn the election, they have not said anything. What came out from cross-examination shows how unreliable these ward collation agents were because some of them were not even at the collation center and they did not go beyond their polling units. And it is humanly not possible to visit all the polling units when we had restrictions on that day. And they were supposed to give evidence in respect of their units but they were giving evidence on the entire ward where they were not present. And that is why this petition should be dismissed it has no merit.”

With the petitioner and defence making their closing address, political pundits are optimistic that the Justice Badamasi panel would allow justice and the will of the people prevail.

• Obadan writes from Benin, Edo State.