From Progressive Media Squad
The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal which has been sitting in Benin City, Edo State, since it’s inception will resume sitting at the National Judicial Institute (NJI), Airport Road, Abuja, effective from Monday, 27th January, 2025.
Although the Tribunal did not expressly explain the rational for its decision, indications are that the violent activities of the petitioners’ supporters including shooting near the sitting premises and other forms of violence inside the Tribunal led to the decision.
But here is where we are when the Tribunal adjourned Friday last week in the case, marked EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024 by petitioners Ighodalo Asuerinme and others against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and two respondents (Governor Monday Okpehbholo and the APC) challenging the validity of the gubernatorial election results.
The court heard the testimonies of two Petitioners’ witnesses namely, Rev. Chibogwu Ade, 67, PW11 of Okungbowa Street, Benin City and Oseyile Anenih, 48, PW12, resident at Delta Crescent , Benin City, in an exercise that was riddled with notable gaps, contradictions, and omissions igniting serious doubts about their reliability.
As it were PW11 admitted that he refused to sign Form EC8B due to alleged irregularities, even though party agents, including those from other political parties, signed without protest. He also conceded that the election results were derived from Form EC8A, which had been duly signed by his agents. This contradiction pooh-poohed his claims of significant discrepancies, as his failure to document objections at collation centers cripple the credibility of his assertions.
PW11 spoke of discrepancies between BVAS accreditation figures and IREV reports, using the instance, of Ward 2, Polling Unit 1, and cited 235 accredited voters in the BVAS report compared to 59 in IREV. However, he provided no evidence or justification for these differences, and instead chose to rundown BVAS data, which is prioritized by electoral guidelines as the most reliable accreditation tool. His rejection of BVAS figures not only was an attempted blow on established procedures but also leaves critical questions unanswered.
Despite alleging imaginary irregularities during collation, PW11 admitted to neither filing a formal police report nor raising objections with electoral officers. Instead, he claimed to have reported the matter to fictional party leaders. This failure to follow due process significantly sank his testimony, as no evidence corroborates his claims.
P12’s testimony was worse as it also raised concerns. While adopting his written statement, he amended key paragraphs, an afterthought signaling contradictions in his narrative. His reliance on calculations derived from documents he confirmed but failed to reconcile, particularly in citing discrepancies in 75 polling units, raises doubts about the his analysis. The inability to effectively reconcile BVAS and voter register figures further diminished his assertions.
Obviously both witnesses heavily relied on documents provisionally admitted as evidence, even respondents reserved objections for final arguments. Their over-reliance on contested materials, such as agent copies of Forms EC8A and EC8B, without independent verification, weakens the value of their testimonies. Furthermore, neither provided direct evidence to substantiate claims of over-voting, procedural flaws, or incorrect scores. Their arguments were based largely on inferences from documents prepared by others, without establishing a causal link between these and the alleged irregularities.
The tribunal continues sitting with the petitioners calling more witnesses if they have not run out of same like they did last week, when they reported that witnesses on their first schedule were not interested in showing up.
Get a premium automobile insurance coverage for your vehicle for as low as #15000 only and claim up to #3,000,000 in damages @Zenith Insurance To signup: WhatsApp/Call: +2349028313757
