The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja, on Wednesday, upheld the election of Governor Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The tribunal, in a unanimous decision by a three-member panel, said it found no reason to nullify the outcome of the governorship contest that held in the state on September 21, 2024.
Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Wilfred Kpochi, who delivered the lead judgement, dismissed as lacking in merit, a petition the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Asuerinme Ighodalo, filed to challenge the declaration of governor Okpebholo as the valid winner of the gubernatorial poll.
Reacting to the judgement, Ighodalo, through his team of lawyers, vowed to challenge it at the Court of Appeal.
The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, had declared that Okpebholo of the APC secured a total of 291, 667 votes to defeat his closet rivalry, Ighodalo of the PDP, who got a total of 247, 655 votes.
Dissatisfied with the result, the PDP and its candidate approached the tribunal, alleging that the election was not conducted in substantial compliance with provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.
In the petition marked: EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, it was alleged that governor Okpebholo did not secure the highest number of lawful votes that were cast at the election.
It was equally the contention of the petitioners that INEC failed to serialise and pre-record some of the sensitive materials that were deployed for the poll, a situation they said aided the rigging of the election in favour of the APC and its candidate.
Specifically, PDP and its candidate alleged that there was wrong computation of results in 765 polling units in the state, even as they produced 19 witnesses that testified and tendered exhibits before the tribunal.
Among exhibits the petitioners tendered before the tribunal, included a total of 153 Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, (BVAS) machines that were used in 133 polling units.
According to the petitioners, results from the polling units were manipulated at the collation centers, a situation they said resulted in over-voting, in Okpebholo’s favour.
However, in its judgement on Wednesday, the tribunal held that the petitioners failed to by way of credible evidence, establish why the outcome of the election should be set-aside.
It held that the onus of proving that governor Okpebholo was unduly returned by INEC, rested squarely on the petitioners.
The panel said it was trite law that a petitioner must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence.
It noted that contrary to section 16(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, the petitioners, in their reply, introduced new facts that were not contained in their substantive case.
The said new facts were rejected and struck out by the panel.
However, against the position of the Respondents, the panel admitted as valid, documents the petitioners tendered in evidence from the Bar.
It also noted that the petitioners were very detailed in chronicling the wards and polling units were the alleged infractions took place.
Nevertheless, the tribunal held that the PDP and its candidate merely dumped exhibits before it without demonstrating them through competent witnesses as required by the law.
It held that most of the witnesses that testified for the petitioners gave hearsay evidence, stressing that failure to produce polling unit agents, presiding officers or voters that participated in the election, to testify, proved fatal to the case of the petitioners.
The tribunal held that section 137 of the Electoral Act did not preclude the petitioners from producing necessary and competent witnesses to testify in support of their case.
It further dismissed contention of the petitioners that contrary to the provision of section 73(2) of the Electoral Act, INEC failed to pre-record most of the materials that were deployed for the election.
Moreso, the tribunal held that none of the BVAS machines tendered before it were switched on to demonstrate that the number of votes recorded in the disputed polling units, exceeded the total number of accredited voters.
“It is clear that items needed to prove over-voting are; Voters Register, BVAS machines and Form EC8A,” the tribunal held, noting that the petitioners merely tendered what they termed as BVAS screenshots in aid of their allegation.
It further held that the petitioners failed to prove their allegation that INEC did not substantially comply with provisions of the Electoral Act in the conduct of the election.
The tribunal held that even if it deducted the votes the petitioners alleged were unlawfully credited to the APC, governor Okpebholo would still remain the winner of the gubernatorial contest. – Vanguard.
