The governorship election petition tribunal in Edo State witnessed a dramatic turn on Monday, February 10 as Governor Monday Okpebholo’s legal team abruptly closed their case after their first witness admitted to over-voting in Ovia South-West Local Government Area.
The witness, Usman Majek, 31, from Usen in Ovia South-West LGA, was called by Okpebholo’s lawyers to testify in defence of the election results.
However, under cross-examination, he confirmed that over-voting had occurred in his polling unit.
When presented with polling unit results and Exhibit PBA40, the official result sheet, the following exchange took place:
Counsel: “That’s your PU result? You signed?”
Majek: “Yes.”
Counsel: “Was there over-voting?”
Majek: “Yes, there was over-voting.”
The admission, made under oath, immediately caused an uproar in court. Ovia South-West is the home LGA of Deputy Governor Dennis Idahosa.
Over-voting, where the number of votes cast exceeds the number of accredited voters, is a violation of the Electoral Act 2022.
Following the testimony, legal representatives for Okpebholo unexpectedly declined to call additional witnesses, despite previously indicating they would do so. Instead, they closed their case.
APC’s counsel requested an adjournment, stating they needed time to reassess their witness strategy.
The tribunal subsequently adjourned proceedings to Wednesday, February 12, to allow the respondents to re-evaluate their case.
Speaking to journalists outside the courtroom, Ifaluyi Isibor, a chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), applauded Sen. Okpebholo’s witness for his honesty, stating that his testimony had further exposed flaws in the election process.
“I must commend the witness for refusing to lie under oath. He could have tried to cover it up, but instead, he told the truth: there was over-voting in Ovia South-West. That is a direct confirmation that the election was flawed,” Isibor said.
He further criticized Sen. Okpebholo’s decision to close its case prematurely, saying: “With Senator Okpebholo closing his case after just one witness, just like INEC before him, it is clear they have no defence for the heist they committed.
“If they had any credible argument, they would have brought it forward. Instead, they have chosen silence, which in itself is an admission.”
