Proceedings at the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja will commence on March 3, 2025, for parties to adopt their respective written addresses.
This followed the sudden closure of defence by the All Progressives Congress (APC) last week, after calling only four witnesses to defend its victory at the September 21, 2024 governorship election in Edo State.
The closure came as a surprise last Thursday, after the APC, which is the third respondent in the petition filed by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Mr Asue Ighodalo, had called only four witnesses who gave evidence regarding the governorship polls.
The three-member panel led by Justice Wilfred Kpochi had last Wednesday adjourned trial the following day (Thursday) to enable the APC to tender some documents which it claimed the remaining witnesses would rely on in giving their evidence.
The APC also told the court that it would call 28 witnesses to defend its victory. Surprisingly, after calling four witnesses, it asked for an adjournment to enable it to call its remaining witnesses, who would rely on documents yet to be tendered before the tribunal.
When the matter came up last Thursday, Chief Ferdinand Orbih (SAN), who argued APC’s case, informed the court that the 3rd respondent is still awaiting documents from Benin City, which its witnesses would use in their evidence.
He, however, announced that they couldn’t defend any further, and so, would be closing its case. This, he said, is because, the plethora of documents tendered, the evidence of the petitioners during cross-examination by the respondents as well as the evidence of the 3rd respondent have done justice to their case and as such makes it unnecessary to call further witnesses.
“Taking all the enumerated factors into consideration, we are happy at this stage to close the 3rd respondent’s case, with the leave of my Lordships”, Orbih submitted.
Since the petitioners did not object, Justice Kpochi granted the request in a short ruling and fixed March 3, for parties to adopt their final written addresses in the matter.
While the panel gave the respondents seven days to file and serve the defence, it ordered the petitioners to reply within five days of receiving the processes, adding that the respondents can reply to the point of law, within three days.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Okpebholo of the APC winner of the election in Edo State after securing a total of 291,667 votes to defeat his closet rival, Asue Ighodalo of the PDP, who polled a total of 247,655 votes.
Aggrieved by the poll’s outcome, the PDP and its candidate approached the tribunal, praying it to nullify INEC’s declaration of the APC and Okpebholo as winners of the contest.
The petitioners, among other things, contended that the governorship election was invalid because of alleged non-compliance with provisions of the Electoral Act.
They equally argued in the petition marked: EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, that Governor Okpebholo of the APC did not secure the highest number of lawful votes cast at the election.
The petitioners called 19 witnesses to prove that over-voting and wrong computation of votes actually occurred in over 700 polling units during the conduct of the election. They also tendered over 1000 documents before the tribunal to prove that Ighodalo truly won the poll before closing their case.
When INEC was called to defend their actions during the poll, the electoral umpire, the 1st respondent did not call any witness. It only tendered 153 of the Bimodal Verification Accreditation System (BVAS) used in 133 polling units where results are disputed.
The second respondent, Senator Okpebholo, called only one witness, while the APC, which had earlier stated that it had 28 witnesses, surprisingly called four before closing its case.
Even among the four, there were contradictions during cross-examinations by the Petitioners’ lawyers. For instance, the APC’s Collation Agent for Esan North East LGA, Theophilus Afuda, initially swore in his witness statement that there were no incidents of over-voting during the governorship election.
However, under cross-examination by PDP’s counsel, Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN), Afuda reversed his stance, conceding that cases of over-voting and non-serialisation of electoral materials were evident in key exhibits, including certified copies of result sheets and Form EC25B.
He further confirmed that INEC failed to document the serial numbers of ballot papers, result sheets, and other sensitive election materials in the required forms—an omission the PDP argues renders the results invalid in the affected polling units.
Also, another APC witness, Engr. Gabriel Iduseri, who served as the party’s collation agent for Oredo LGA, under cross-examination, acknowledged that the final results INEC used to declare Okpebholo winner did not match the polling unit results uploaded onto the iREV portal.
He further admitted that while collation agents were required to verify results before they were recorded into Form EC8C when presented with the polling unit results used to collate the final figures INEC announced, they lacked the signatures of party agents and did not match the signed original EC8A results from polling units which were uploaded to iREV.
“These results are strange, my Lord. I do not know where they emanated from,” Engr. Iduseri confessed. Similarly, Frank David, the party’s witness from Owan West LGA, under cross-examination, acknowledged that INEC presiding officers were required to document the serial numbers of sensitive electoral materials, such as ballot papers and result sheets, in Form EC25B before voting began—but admitted they failed to do so.
As the tribunal, which relocated to Abuja a few weeks back due to incidents of violence in Edo prepares for judgment, the people of the state hope for justice, fairness, impartiality and independence.
Considering what has transpired so far in the proceedings and the quantum of evidence provided, including oral testimony of witnesses, everyone is waiting to see how the panel will courageously deliver justice in the matter.
