Edo Guber Case: Two More Hurdles to Go

After emerging victorious at Edo Governorship Petition Tribunal last Wednesday, Governor Monday Okpebholo may have to wait perhaps for the apex court to make a pronouncement on the electoral victory as his closest rival in the 2024 gubernatorial poll, Asue Ighodalo, has hinted of plan to appeal the judgement. Alex Enumah reports.

Indications that the legal battle for the governorship seat in Edo State, may go all the way to the apex court emerged last Wednesday’s night, following the disclosure by the candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2024 gubernatorial poll in the state, Mr Asue Ighodalo, to seek further redress of his grievances against the conduct of the September 21, 2024 governorship election, which produced Senator Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as Governor, at the Court of Appeal.A

Few minutes after the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal which sat in Abuja, affirmed his election as Governor of Edo State, Senator Okpebholo, after dedicating his victory to the Almighty God and the people of Edo State, extended an olive branch to his closest rival at last year’s governorship election, Mr Asue Ighodalo of the PDP. The governor in a release by his Chief Press Secretary (CPS), Fred Itua, while thanking the tribunal for its diligence and fairness, called on all citizens, including Ighodalo to join hands with him in the spirit of unity and work together for the progress of Edo State. “It is time to put aside partisan differences and focus on the common goal of building a better future for our state”, he said.

But, in his immediate reaction to the unanimous decision of the three-member tribunal led by Justice Wilfred Kpochi, the PDP governorship candidate who reiterated his confidence in the judiciary, announced that he will be appealing the verdict.

Ighodalo in a statement personally signed on Wednesday night, described the tribunal’s judgment as a travesty of justice.

“Today, the Edo Governorship Election Petition Tribunal has delivered its judgment in our petition challenging the outcome of the September 21st, 2024 Governorship election in our dear State. While we all may not agree with the verdict, we however remain steadfast in our belief that the rule of law must remain the bedrock of our democracy. Our pursuit of justice in this regard is an affirmation of our firm belief that the right of the good people of Edo State to freely choose their leaders through a credible, free and fair electoral process must never be compromised.

“As an avowed democrat, I respect the judiciary as the last hope of the common man, and I urge all of you, our dear good people of Edo State, to remain peaceful, calm and law-abiding in the aftermath of this judgment. However, let it be clear: this is not the end of our journey, but the beginning of a greater struggle for justice, democracy, and the sanctity of the people’s mandate freely conferred on my running mate, Osarodion Ogie and I on the platform of our great Party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP)”.

Ighodalo stressed that his action has never been about the realisation of a personal ambition but about the conviction to create a clear pathway to prosperity for all Edo people, while upholding the foundational values of democracy, justice, and the will of the people.

“I have, therefore, instructed my legal team to proceed to the Court of Appeal to challenge this decision which we consider a huge travesty of justice. This is not about me or any single individual; it is about the very essence of democracy, the preservation of our collective right to freely determine our future, and the legacy we leave for generations unborn.

“We remain resolute. We remain committed. And we shall not waver in our pursuit of truth and justice”, he stated.

Ighodalo and the PDP are not the only one who seems dissatisfied with the verdict of the tribunal, as the United States mission in Nigeria, has called for the observance of transparency and due process in the Edo election appeal process, because such principles are vital for maintaining public trust in the democratic systems.

The US Ambassador to Nigeria, Richard Mills, while reacting to the 2024 Edo and Ondo Governorship Election BIP Report in a statement posted on the US Mission Nigeria X handle (@USinNigeria), disclosed that, “The U.S. Mission in Nigeria is following the Edo election appeal process closely, particularly given civil society’s concerns about critical issues related to the election, such as ‘serious lapses in the collation process’ that were observed.

“The 2024 Edo and Ondo Governorship Election BIP Report, conducted by Kimpact Development Initiative (KDI), revealed significant discrepancies in the electoral process. According to the report, one of the key findings was the persistent mismatch in the number of registered voters across multiple polling units. While the report claimed that in Edo State, inconsistencies were found in 141 polling units, in Ondo State, the same issue was observed in 87 polling units. And the discrepancies were said to have extended to the final collation centres, where the total number of registered voters recorded differed significantly from INEC’s pre-election figures.

A civil society group under the aegis of Coalition for Good Governance and Economic Justice in Africa, has, however, faulted the position of the US mission in Nigeria on the Edo tribunal, pointed out that the mission has no role to play in Nigeria’s judiciary or even in the country’s local politics. Country Director of the coalition, Mr. John Mayaki, whike commending journalists for their unbiased reportage of the tribunal’s proceedings, called for the protection of the country’s institutions, adding that the Edo governorship tribunal adjudicated to its best ability on what was presented before it.

While describing as “shocking” the statement by the US that “they are watching the appeal closely”, Mayaki stressed that “there should be a limit to everything” and advised the PDP not to be “carried away with what the international community says about our local politics because they are not the judiciary”. According to the country director, the tribunal was right in arriving at its decision that the petitioners did not call competent witnesses to substantiate their allegations and even dumped exhibits before the court.

“We should try to protect our own institutions because if we destroy them at some point we would come back and be needing them……I trust that being a sovereign nation we are not a vassal state to the US and Edo State is not a colony of Washington or the US”, Mayaki stated, adding that the country and the judiciary would always do what is right.

While he acknowledged that it is within the rights of Ighodalo to go on appeal against the judgment of the tribunal, Mayaki appealed that they should rather join hands with the governor to move the state forward.

Recall that the three-member tribunal on the Edo governorship election led by Justice Wilfred Kpochi had in a unanimous judgment dismissed Ighodalo and PDP’s petition against the election of Okpebholo as governor. The tribunal in a unanimous judgment on Wednesday, held that the petitioners failed to prove their claim of over-voting as well as allegation of non-compliance with the electoral laws during the conduct of the September 21, 2024, governorship election.

Ighodalo and the PDP had in their petition alleged non-compliance in 765 polling units, in form of multiple incidents of over voting, non serialization of ballots and incorrect computation of results which altered the victory of Ighodalo. They called 19 witnesses and tendered electoral documents, including the Bimodal Verification Accreditation System (BVAS) machine in urging the court to in line with the Supreme Court decisions in Uzodinma vs Ihedioha, Kennedy vs INEC, Johnson vs INEC amongst others hold that there must be prior recording of sensitive election Materials in forms EC25B which INEC failed to comply with in some Polling Units during the September 21st Governorship Election.

But, the justices observed that the petitioners did not bring before the court the right persons to confirm the true position of what transpired on election day at the disputed polling units. According to the tribunal, the witnesses called by the petitioners were not competent to speak on the electoral documents since they were not the makers of any of the documents presented.

On the allegations of non serialization of electoral materials before the commencement of voting, it was the findings of the tribunal that the petitioners did not call any scintilla of evidence to prove that the relevant forms were not filled as required by law. “The first to 14th witnesses gave hearsay evidence because they were not near the polling units during the election,” he said.

Besides, Justice Kpochi observed that contrary to the position of the petitioners, evidence showed that there was pre-recording of sensitive materials used in the conduct of the election.

On the issue of alleged over-voting in some polling units, the panel held that not calling polling unit agents, ward agents or other registered voters that witnessed the alleged over-voting, was fatal to their case. Recall that witnesses of the petitioners had led evidence of over-voting both in the written and oral evidence. The testimonies of the witnesses were however discountenanced because the did not personally witnessed how the alleged over-voting occurred.

Kpochi who delivered the lead judgment observed that, “Out of the 19 witnesses called only five were polling unit agents, the remaining were ward and LGA collation agents. They are not direct eye witnesses of what transpired at the polling units”.

On the claim of alleged discrepancies in figures recorded on results sheet at the polling units and the BVAS machines, the panel pointed out that while the BVAS machines were tendered before the panel, they were not opened, neither were they demonstrated to show how they work. Besides, the court further faulted the petitioners for not speaking to the documents, “since documents does not speak for themselves”.

Besides, Kpochi stated that, “we are restrained from looking (open them and look at it). 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 BVAS machines were clearly dumped and remained dormant. The machines were not demonstrated at trial nor did any witnesses testify on the content of the BVAS machines,” the tribunal held.

Explaining further, the tribunal pointed out that to prove allegations of over-voting, a petition must tender three valid documents which are; Voter’s Register, BVAS and the form EC8A (polling unit result).

“How do you prove over-voting if you don’t know the number of the registered voters?

In the final analysis, the tribunal stated that all the pleading and evidence of the petitioners failed to substantiate their claims of non-compliance and over-voting, adding that the 19 witnesses called by the petitioners is far less than 25 percent of the over 4,000 polling units where the election held.

Kpochi in addition reiterated that it is the duty of the petitioners to prove allegations of non-compliance and over-voting, adding that they cannot shift that burden to the respondents, even if the respondents admitted such.

He said since they were unable to prove their allegations their case was liable for dismissal and subsequently went ahead to dismiss same.

Having dismissed the case of the petitioners for lacking in merit, the tribunal subsequently affirmed the declaration of Okpebholo as the lawful winner of the September 21 governorship election in Edo State.

INEC had declared Okpebholo of the APC winner of the September 21 governorship election in Edo State, after securing a total of 291, 667 votes to defeat his closet rivalry, Asue Ighodalo of the PDP, who polled a total of 247, 655 votes.

Aggrieved by the outcome of the poll, the PDP and its candidate approached the tribunal, praying it to nullify INEC’s declaration of the APC and Okpebholo as winners of the contest.

The petitioners, among other things, contended that the governorship election was invalid by reason of alleged non-compliance with provisions of the Electoral Act.

They equally argued in the petition marked: EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, that governor Okpebholo of the APC did not secure the highest number of lawful votes that were cast at the election.

While the petitioners had called in 19 witnesses to prove that over-voting and wrong computation of votes actually occurred in over 700 polling units during the conduct of the Edo State governorship election in September last year, the electoral umpire which is the 1st respondent did not call any witness, besides tendering 153 of the Bimodal Verification Accreditation System (BVAS) used in 133 polling units were results are being disputed.

The second respondent, Senator Monday Okpebholo, on his part called only one witness, while the APC called four before closing their case.

Besides the case of Ighodalo, the tribunal also dismissed two other petitions filed by the Action Alliance (AA) and the Accord Party, for being incompetent and lacking in merit.

However, it’s just a matter of time for Nigerians to know if the verdict of the tribunal would stand or fall. According to the constitutional provisions, any dissatisfied party to the decision of an election tribunal has 14 days to file his case at the Court of Appeal, while the appellate court is bound to hear and determine the appeal within 60 days. The same goes for the apex court.