Timeline of the Edo Election Tribunal

IN anticipation of the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal’s ruling on the petition of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its governorship candidate in the last governorship election in the state, Pastor OsagieIze-Iyamu, concerning the declaration of Mr Godwin Obaseki as the governor of Edo State, there is a need for something of an eschatology independent of subjudice.I do not deem myself to be in a position to declare with any certainty or authority that such and such would be the outcome of the tribunal, but I know I have some freedom to employ the analytical forecast of deductive logic. Since I do not want to state categorically that this man, or this party will lose for this reason or for that reason, I will leave the reader with a timeline of the successes and failures of those parties and let them predict in their hearts the expected ruling of the Election Tribunal sitting in Benin City.

The handwriting on the wall…

To start with, the Tribunal, in the cause of its sitting, restrained the (PDP) and its candidate in the September 28 governorship election, Pastor Ize-Iyamu, from utilising any equipment to examine, scan, or howsoever interact with the ballot papers used in the election unless the integrity of such equipment had been demonstrated and cleared by the Tribunal. Secondly, the judges rejected PDP and Pastor Ize-Iyamu’s application for extension of time to call more witnesses at the election tribunal. The petitioners had lined up witnesses in excess of 1,000 but they were only able to call 99 of them. Many of these witnesses had put up dramatic appearances in court, with some declaring that they were the petitioners.

According to the chairman of the three-member panel, Justice Ahmed Badamasi, the Tribunal lacked the powers to grant such an extension and the application lacked merit. Consequently, the PDP and Ize-Iyamu had to close their case. Did they prove their case enough in line with the time-tested legal principles, Qui dicit, necesseestprobare, meaning he who asserts must prove? That is left for the Tribunal to decide.

Again, the Tribunal declined PDP and Ize-Iyamu’s bid to amend their petition. Shortly after, the tribunal ruled against another attempt by Pastor Ize-Iyamu to make amendments to a paragraph in the petition.The Tribunal chairman, Justice Badamasi held that the amendment could not be made by mere application. Since justice was not a one-way traffic, the application was described as fraudulent and an attempt to amend the main petition. Ruling on the application, Justice Badamasi held that the correction could not be made by mere utterances, and that the petitioners had not stated any reasons justifying why they wanted to make the amendment.

As the Tribunal sitting progressed, keen observers of event, saw how the Tribunal also ordered the PDP and its candidate in the September 28 governorship election, Pastor Ize-Iyamu to comply with an earlier order that all parties to the case must be represented in the scanning of the ballot materials. Counsels to the respondents had informed the Tribunal that the PDP and its candidate were carrying out scanning of ballot papers without the representatives of the APC and Obaseki, noting that the continuous scanning of the ballot papers without respondents’ representatives was a breach of the Tribunal’s prior order that all parties must be present.

The Tribunal chairman had, then, reiterated that prior order and emphasised that no party should be excluded. While the petitioners appealed the Tribunal’s decision to cease ballot recount after the 14 days allocated to them were expired, the Appeal Court dismissed the bid to continue the ballot recount, adding that the petitioners’ appeal lacked merit. Justice MudasiruNasiru of the Appeal Court held that paragraph 41 of the First Schedule of the Electoral Act prescribed the time upon which petitioners and respondents were to prove and defend their case. He ruled that any action taken outside the prescribed time would be a nullity and that the Tribunal was right to stop the counting of ballot papers after the 14 days had elapsed.

As the Tribunal sitting inched to a close, counsels to Obaseki and the APC urged the Tribunal, with ample citing of previous Supreme Court rulings, to dismiss the petition, because there was no sanctity in the identity of one of the petitioners, and so there was no validity to the petition. Therefore, as the chairman of the Tribunal, Justice Badamasi adjourned the sitting and ruling on the matter to a later date, which will be communicated to the parties involved, not many politically-observant and legally-aware people were in suspense as to what might be the fate of the parties involved. But then, the question is, who will laugh last?

• Dr Oviosun writes in from Benin, Edo State