ENUGU GUBER: THE CRUX OF THE MATTER

The Labour Party candidate contends that the election and return of Peter Mbah as governor is invalid, writes Julius Udu

We can safely say that the problem of the Peter Mbah governorship lies in the details of his election. You wouldn’t understand the intricate details if you simply look at the fact that he scored 160, 895 votes as against the 157,553 polled by his main challenger and candidate of the Labour Party, Chijioke Edeoga. You would even feel, if you don’t know the details, that the margin of lead of 3,338 votes is sufficient enough to declare him governor. But all this will change if you get to know the unsavoury details that eventuated in the Peter Mbah governorship.

The difficulty that Mbah faces in the defence of his governorship stems mainly from Edeoga’s clinical pursuit of propriety and justice in the March 18 governorship election in Enugu State. At the very beginning, Mbah shot himself in the foot with the certificate controversy involving him and the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC). Mbah has an issue with this body. Early in his career, Mbah started acting in ways and manners that muddled up matters for him. He started the NYSC programme and abandoned it midstream to serve as Chief of Staff to the then governor of Enugu State, Chimaroke Nnamani. This was in 2003. Even though Mbah claimed that he regularised the irregular in the way and manner he left one assignment for another, the result in the long run suggests otherwise. Some 20 years after he claimed to have passed out of national service and obtained a discharge certificate issued by the NYSC, the body has disowned Mbah in this regard. It has disowned the certificate which Mbah deposed to in Form EC9 for the purpose of standing for election as the governor of Enugu State.

But Mbah is fighting back. Someone who claims to be a staff of the Department of State Services (DSS) appeared at the election petitions tribunal to say that the certificate Mbah holds was issued by the NYSC. Not a few people find this claim from DSS quarters absurd. Can the DSS determine for the NYSC the authenticity or otherwise of the certificate issued by it? Certainly not. But what appears to have crippled Mbah’s case in this regard is that the so called staff of the DSS has been disowned by the secret service. The service has dissociated itself from Mbah’s matter with the NYSC.

The Labour Party and its candidate, Edeoga, have since weighed in on this.

Mbah will be guilty of perjury if the court establishes that he does not possess the certificate he is claiming. Edeoga and Labour Party want the election court to disqualify him from the governorship election for lying on oath.

This issue presents difficult times for Mbah. Rather than establish beyond doubt that Mbah possesses a genuine NYSC discharge certificate issued by the NYSC, his defence lawyers have chosen to dwell on semantic gerrymandering. They are arguing that non possession of NYSC discharge certificate cannot be a ground to disqualify Mbah from the election. They forget, rather conveniently, that lying on oath is a more grievous offence than forgery. Even at that, none of the offences is good for Mbah. So far, Mbah has not been able to extricate himself from this case and this is to the advantage of Edeoga.

While observers are waiting with baited breath on what the courts will have to say on this delicate issue, Edeoga is not giving Mbah any breathing space. He presented before the Enugu Governorship Election Petitions tribunal another ground of appeal as delicate and complex as the first. The issue of over voting in Nkanu East Local Government Area of Enugu State is another thorn in the flesh of Mbah. Edeoga’s contention here is that the election and return of Mbah as governor is invalid as a result of non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022. His argument is that owing to manifest over voting that took place in selected polling units in this local government area, the return made by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in favour of Mbah is vitiated.

Here is what transpired there on Election Day. According to the figures from INEC BVAS, Nkanu East recorded 15,000 accredited voters. However, when votes were declared, the PDP was allocated 30,350 votes while 1,855 was recorded for the Labour Party. This result showed that over 15,000 ghost votes were allocated to the PDP candidate. This simply meant that there was widespread over voting.

As should be expected, the Labour Party protested against this anomaly at the point of collation. To ostensibly address the complaint from Labour Party, the INEC headquarters in Abuja set up a panel to look into the matter. The panel sat and reviewed the Nkanu East votes. It agreed with Labour Party that there was manifest over voting in the LGA under consideration. Section 51(2) of the Electoral Act 2022 provides that where there is over voting, the results of the affected polling units will be cancelled. Instead of adhering to the provisions of the Act, INEC illegally decided to slash some votes from the score of the PDP candidate and thereafter directed the Returning Officer to announce the repackaged result.

Those who are conversant with the law have stated that INEC does not have the power to constitute such panel at that point in time. The law provides that that can only be done seven days after a winner had been declared. In that case, an aggrieved party can approach the electoral commission for a review. This manifest illegality by INEC is haunting Mbah’s governorship. INEC also worsened his case when it was subpoenaed by the tribunal to produce the BVAS evidence of the results. The commission could not. Rather, it asked the tribunal to rely on the certified true copy of the results tendered by Edeoga. All this weaken Mbah’s hold on the governorship of Enugu State.

Essentially, Edeoga and his party are asking for the disqualification of Mbah from the election on the basis of forgery and consider the votes he scored in that election as wasted. Edeoga is also asking the tribunal to determine that upon the deduction of wrongful votes in the disputed polling units where there was over voting and votes suppression, that he (Edeoga) polled a total of 157, 997 votes as against Mbah’s 152, 778, therefore he (Edeoga) ought to and should be declared the winner of the said election.

This is the crux of the matter. And the people are watching how the courts will deal with this issue. Going by the strong evidence which Edeoga presented to the tribunal and Mbah’s weak defence of same, all fingers are crossed, waiting for the verdict of the electoral courts.

 Udu is of the Neo Africana Centre