*Ighodalo vows to challenge verdict at Appeal Court
Contrary to the fake story in certain online medium about the purported split decision of two- to-one verdict, the Edo State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal, in a unanimous three-zero verdict on Wednesday, affirmed the election of Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as authentic Edo State Governor and dismissed the petition of the governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Asue Ighodalo.
In the three judgments delivered by the tribunal, the three-member panel dismissed the petitions by the the PDP and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo; the Action Alliance (AA) and its National Chairman, Adekunle Omoaje and the Accord Party and its candidate in the election, Bright Enabulele (AP) and held that the petitions were unmeritorious.
In his lead judgment, the Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Wilfred Kpochi, resolved the two issues identified for determination in the petition by the PDP and Ighodalo against them.
The first issue was whether from the totality of pleadings and evidence led the petitioners, they were able to prove their claim that the election was invalid by non-compliance with the Elector Act.
In resolving this issue, Justice Kpochi, after evaluating the petitioners’ evidence, held that the PDP and Ighodalo failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on them by the law.
Justice Kpochi held that none of the 19 witnesses called by the petitioners were relevant witnesses who could give eye witness accounts of what happened at the polling units, where the results of the election were being contested.
The judge noted that most of the witnesses were either ward collation agent or Local Government collation agent, without the petitioners calling either their polling unit agents or registered voters who voted at the polling units.
The judge also noted that the petitioners had alleged that relevant details were not filled in the election documents before the commencement of voting. Having so alleged, the petitioners were expected to call polling unit agents, saying they were not called or registered voters who voted in the affected polling units.
He said, “We hold that failure of the petitioners to call polling agents, presiding officers or even registered voters was fatal to their case. The petitioners did not call any scintilla of evidence to prove their claim that the relevant forms were not filled as required. The first to 14th witnesses gave hearsay evidence because they were not near the polling units during the election.”
He noted that the petitioners’ star witness was the Director of Research and Strategy, who did not play any role in the election.
Justice Kpochi held that all the documents and materials tendered by the petitioners, including election documents and the bimodal voters accreditation system (BIVAS) machines – were not demonstrated.
He added: “It is clear that the documents were dumped. No competent witness was called to give evidence on the documents. No eye witnesses, who witnessed how the election took place at the polling units were called.
“Where no witness is called to link the documentary evidence to the case of the petitioners, it is not the duty of the court to be scrutinising the documents tendered by parties.
“The BIVAS machines were clearly dumped and remained dormant. The machines were not demonstrated at trial nor did any witnesses testify on the content of the BIVAS machines.”
He added that it was not for the tribunal to be looking into the documents and BIVAS machines tendered.
Justice Kpochi also resolved the second issue, which was whether Okpebholo won the election with majority of lawful votes against the petitioner.
He made similar observations about the quality of evidence presented by the petitioners and held that they failed to prove that leg of their petition.
Justice Kpochi noted that by the quality of evidence led by the petitioners, it showed that they did not appreciate what was expected of them to prove their allegations.
The other two justices of the panel also concurred with the pronouncement of Justice Kpochi and held that the petition lacked merit.
The first judgment of the day was in the petition by AA and Onoaje, which was dismissed for being unmeritorious.
The petitioners had claimed among others, that AA’s candidate was excluded from the election on the grounds that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) accepted details of the party’s candidates from one Kenneth Eze, who they claimed was not the party’e National Chairman.
They had also alleged that AA was not allowed to nominate a lawful candidate for the election since INEC failed to accept details of the candidate whose nomination form Omoaje signed as the National Chairman of the party.
But the tribunal in its judgment on Wednesday, held that the petitioners failed to prove their allegations of exclusion and corrupt practices.
It also held that Omoaje, having not been a candidate in the election, lacked the locus standi (the right approach the tribunal) to challenge the outcome of the election.
The tribunal also found that having admitted in the course of proceedings that AA participated in the election, the petitioners could no longer complained of exclusion.
The tribunal had earlier in the judgement, upheld the notices of preliminary objection filed by INEC, APC and Okpebholo, challenging the competence of the petition.
The tribunal held that the issues raised in the petitions related to leadership dispute within the AA, which did not constitute an issue over which an election tribunal possesses jurisdiction.
It also held that the issues were pre-election related, which had become statute barred as at when the petition was filed. The tribunal thereafter proceeded to decline jurisdiction and struck out the petition by the AA.
The tribunal later commenced delivery of its judgment in the petition by Accord Party (AP). In its third judgment, the tribunal also dismissed the petition by the Accord Party.
The tribunal further held that the petitioners – AP and its candidate in the election, Bright Enabulele – failed to establish their claims with sufficient evidence as required.
The tribunal noted that the petitioners made weighty allegations of thuggery, ballots stuffing, harassing and voters’ molestation, but failed to name a single perpetrator.
It further noted that the same petitioners, who sought to be declared winners of the election, claimed that the election was conducted without compliance with the Electoral Act.
The tribunal therefore held that there was no meaningful evidence for it to act upon to nullify the election of Okpebholo and APC and subsequently dismissed the petition by the Accord in its entirety.
Meanwhile, the legal team of the PDP and Ighodalo have disclosed that they are going to challenge the judgment of the tribunal at the Court of Appeal. The lawyers also argued that they had done that was required of them to prove that the election was not credible.
The legal team further expressed their dissatisfaction with the judgment, insisting that the tribunal’s findings were flawed and that they would continue to seek justice through the appellate court.
