Taiwo Popoola
The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal has adjourned indefinitely the judgment in the petition filed against the September 21, 2024, election of Governor Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress, APC, by the People’s Democratic Party, PDP, and its governorship candidate, Mr Asue Ighodalo.
The tribunal adjourned the verdict delivery in the disputed election on Monday in Abuja after taking arguments from the petitioners, comprising Ighodalo and the PDP, and the respondents, which included the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, Okpebholo, and the APC.
At the adoption of final written addresses, Justice Wilfred Kpochi, who permitted the petitioners and the respondents some minutes to adumbrate on their arguments, told the parties that the date for judgment delivery in the petition would be communicated to them when ready.
At Monday’s proceedings, a former Attorney-General of the Federation, AGF, Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, stood for the electoral body, while Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, addressed the tribunal on behalf of Governor Okpebholo, and Chief Emmanuel Ukala, SAN, argued for the APC.
The INEC lawyer said that the petition could not stand the test of time based on the grounds that the tribunal could not annul the September 21, 2024, governorship election because it was not one of the reliefs sought by the petitioners.
The senior lawyer also told the tribunal that it could not declare Ighodalo and the PDP as winners of the 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 the nullification of the election.
He also said that the claim of a majority of lawful votes pleaded by the petitioners could not avail them since their other claim was that the election was invalid.
He also argued that the number of polling unit agents called as witnesses represented an insignificant or even negligible percentage of the number of polling units in Edo.
Another ground that INEC prayed for the tribunal to dismiss the petition on was that all the polling unit agents called as witnesses signed the result sheets and they could not distinguish between what they heard and what they saw.
“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 based on which they can be declared as winners.
“The case of the petitioners is based on an analysis undertaken by hired consultants,” he said.
He further argued that the documents upon which the petitioners relied were all dumped on the tribunal and could not be used in their favor.
He therefore prayed for the tribunal to dismiss the petition in its entirety as it had no merit.
On his part, counsel to Governor Monday Okpebholo, Mr Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, told the tribunal to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it had become an academic exercise.
He said that in the course of their research, they carefully extracted the polling units which the petitioners tendered documents on and compared them to 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 that all that was required for the form was the quantity of electoral materials received and the quantity returned.
He added that a pronouncement of the Supreme Court said that one could not prove over-voting without the Bimodal Verification Authentication System (BVAS) machines, but that none of the machines were opened to allow the tribunal to look at the content.
According to him, the petitioners, by not tendering the right documents, failed to prove over-voting on the whole.
Speaking on behalf of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Mr. Emmanuel Ukala argued that it was clear that the case of the petitioners was based virtually and entirely on non-compliance.
“By the nature of the case they pleaded, the Supreme Court has, over the years, laid down that they need to prove this polling unit by polling unit, ward by ward, and local government by local government.”
He, however, argued that rather than prove this, the petitioners dumped documents on the court.
Arguing the case of the petitioners, Mr. Ken Mozia, SAN, said that with 4,519 polling units in Edo, the complaint in the petition was concerning 765 of them.
According to him, it is established law that successful prosecution of an 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.
He further argued that the petition must be considered holistically 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 that it was on record that all the results before the tribunal were tendered by his client.
On why the petitioners called only five polling unit agents, he said that the main grievance of his client was with what happened at the collation centers 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 into 525 votes at the collation center is what we are contesting,” he said.
Speaking on the claim that they dumped documents on the tribunal, Mozia said that all the documents they tendered were duly certified by INEC and were tendered without objection from the commission, the creators of the document.
He also held that the tribunal had the requisite jurisdiction to hear the petition because their allegations were not pre-election matters.
