The Governorship Election Petition Tribunal for Edo has reserved judgment in the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and it’s governorship candidate, Asue Ighodalo.
Ighodalo is challenging the outcome of the September 21, 2024 governorship election in the state.
Justice Wilfred Kpochi-led three-member tribunal reserved the judgment on Monday after counsel in the matter adopted their final written addresses.
According to Justice Kpochi, a date for judgment will be communicated to parties by the secretary of the trubunal.
“The tribunal stands adjourned until then,” he said.
At the resumed hearing of the matter, counsel to the petitioners, Mr Adetunji Oyeyipo, SAN told the tribunal that the business of the day was for adoption of final written addresses.
Counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), Mr Kanu Agabi, SAN proceeded to adopt the final address of his client.
Agabi by way of adumbration prayed the tribunal to dismiss the petition for lacking in merit.
He said this was based on the grounds that the tribunal could not annul the Sept. 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 the petitioners as winners of that 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 nullification of election.
He also said that the claim of 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 per cent of the number of polling units in Edo.
Another ground that INEC prayed the tribunal to dismiss the petition based on was that all the polling unit agents called as witnesses signed the result sheet 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 on the basis of which they can be declared as winners.
“The case of the petitioners is based on analysis undertaken by hired consultants ,” he said.
He further held that the documents upon which the petitioners relied were all dumped on the tribunal and could not be used in their favour.
He therefore prayed the tribunal to dismiss the petition in its entirety as it had no merit.
For his part, counsel to Gov. 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 quantity of electoral materials received and 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 was opened to allow the tribunal 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 by polling unit to polling unit, ward to ward and local government by local government.”
He, however, held that rather than prove this, the petitioners dumped documents on the court.
He said that without polling unit agents testifying to those documents, they were useless and the case remained unproved.
Ukala argued that with over 4,000 polling units in Edo, the petitioners called only five polling unit agents and no single presiding officer.
He also said that since the petitioners failed to demonstrate how the BVAs worked, it was clear that the case of the petitioners was not proved and it should be dismissed.
Responding, counsel to the petitioners, Mr Ken Moze, SAN, said that with 4519 polling units in Edo, the complaint in the petition was concerning 765 of them.
According to him, it is law that successful prosecution of 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 whollistically 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 grouse of his client was with what happened at the collation centres 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 to 525 votes at the collation center is what we are quarrelling with,” he said.
Speaking on the claim that they dumped documents on the tribunal, Moze said that all the documents they tendered were duly certified by INEC and were tendered without objection from the commission, the makers of the document.
He also held that the tribunal had requisite jurisdiction to hear the petition because their allegations were not pre-election matters.
Having taken all the arguments, Justice Kpochi said that judgment in the matter was reserved to a date to be communicated to the parties by the secretary of the tribunal.
