Enugu Guber Tribunal: Revisiting Edeoga’s Shenanigans

Silas Ugwu

As   was  widely reported, the Enugu State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal chaired by Justice Kudirat Murayo Akano, last week, concluded hearing and also reserved judgment for a yet to be announced date in the petition instituted by the governorship candidate of the Labour Party (LP) in the state, Hon. Chijioke Edeoga, and LP against the return of the 2nd Respondent and candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Dr. Peter Mbah, as the duly elected governor of Enugu State in the 18th March 2023 gubernatorial election.

But while the judgment is being expected, the Edeoga and Labour can be likened to the sawtail lizard that ruined his mother’s funeral. The many errors by the Petitioners are such that they could still probably have lost the case even if Mbah, PDP, and INEC (Respondents) did not present any defence or witnesses. In fact, their case is so weak that INEC did not even bother to present witnesses.

Whereas some believe the many blunders were fruits of ineptitude, the more spiritual and philosophical see them as natural retribution. Edeoga was one of the signatories to the May 2022 pact/covenant among Enugu East PDP governorship aspirants to support any of them endorsed by former Governor Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi as his successor. He equally issued a statement he personally signed after the PDP governorship primary where he threw his weight behind Mbah and urged his supporters and Enugu voters to do the same. But like Judas Iscariot, he betrayed the covenant/pact and went for LP ticket, allegedly at the prompting of the Nwodo family of Ukehe. Ecclesiastes 10:8 says, “Who so breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him”.  So, they believe he has been bitten by the serpent of errors and confusion.

First, they vested their entire energy and time allotted to them by the tribunal to pursue Mbah’s National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) certificate case. Rather than try to prove their claim that they won the election, they made a U-turn to begin to contest Mbah’s qualification to run for the election in the first place. Although they got a court order on 29th March to inspect some BVAS machines and materials used in the election, they only dusted it in mid July when it became clear to them, from the evidences by their subpoenaed star witness from NYSC defused their arguments and left them gasping for breath because he ended up confirming over 95 per cent of Mbah’s claims. But the NYSC hoopla was finally buried on the day Mbah’s subpoenaed witness from the Department of State Security unveiled the findings of the agency’s investigation.

The Petitioners’ comedy of errors also manifested in the final written address where they submitted that they won the highest number of votes in the Rivers (instead of the Enugu) governorship election and should therefore be declared winners of the same election. Even the panelists were flabbergasted.

Furthermore, instead of praying the court to resolve their submissions on issues number one (Paragraph 4.1), which has to do with their claim that Dr. Peter Mbah’s certificate was fake, the Petitioners stated: “We submit that the issue formulation above be answered in the negative”. In other words, they prayed the court to discard all that they have claimed about Mbah’s NYSC discharge certificate.

Likewise, at paragraph 4.38, the Petitioners ‘erroneously’ claimed to have called witnesses, who served as polling agents to the 2nd Respondent (Mbah), instead of witnesses of the Petitioners, to speak to documents submitted as exhibits. At paragraph 4.39, they further stated, “More fundamentally, the Petitioners (being Edeoga and LP, instead of the Respondents) were unable to establish their case.

Meanwhile, their efforts to amend the blunders in their final written address were stiffly opposed by the Respondents. The Petitioners’ lead counsel, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) made an oral application to that effect. But INEC’s counsel, Abdul Mohammed Rafindadi (SAN), opposed the application, insisting that it was not a typographical error, but an admission by the Petitioners that they had lost the case. INEC insisted that it was a deliberate attempt to change the position earlier canvassed by the Petitioners. Citing several authorities, including Fingesi v. INEC (2019), INEC said it was a procedural defect to ask for an amendment of a final written address and therefore urged the tribunal to throw out the application.

Also, Mbah’s lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), opposed the application on the grounds that the Respondents would suffer irremediable injustice if granted, insisting that the Petitioners wanted to add to their address whereas the Respondents had already adopted their final written addresses and the matter was closed.

After listening to the arguments on both sides, the Chairman of the three-man panel, Justice Akano, said the tribunal would rule on the matter alongside the judgment.

Meanwhile, it is recalled that Edeoga and LP also misquoted the codes of BVAS machines used in Owo and Ugbawka in Nkanu East LGA during the 18th March 2023 governorship election, listing BVAS codes for Igboeze North LGA instead in subpoenaing the INEC Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) for Enugu State. The subpoena signed by Justice Akano reads: “You are hereby commanded in the name of the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to attend before the Governorship Petition Tribunal sitting in Enugu… to give evidence on behalf of the Petitioners and also bring with you and produce at the time and place the aforesaid:

“Bimodal Voters Accreditation System (BVAS) used in Owo and Ugbawka 1 Registration Areas in Nkanu East LGA, polling units 14/08/01 (Umuonoada 1) and 14/08/01/003 (Orie Mama Asanya) in Essodo 1 Registration Area, polling unit 14/08/06/003 (pole 1 Ugbele) & 14/08/06/005 (Community Primary School Umundeba) in Ette Central Registration Area; and polling unit 14/08/17/012 (Ogene Hall Umuida), Umuozzi VII Registration Area in Igboeze North LGA Enugu State and Umuchigbo Registration Area (Hall VI Code: 14/08/009 polling unit) in Enugu East LGA, Enugu State used in the 18th March Governorship Election and the certified True Copy of the BVAS Report PU for the Enugu State Governorship Election held on 18/3/2023….”

So, whereas the Petitioners claimed that INEC REC acted in contempt of the court by allegedly refusing to provide the required BVAS machines, the BVAS codes contained in the subpoena, namely, 14/08/01/003, 14/08/01/002, 14/08/06/005, 14/08/06,003, and 14/08/17/012, were for Igboeze North LGA, not Nkanu East, while the 6th BVAS code (14/08/009) was incomplete.

Clarifying before the tribunal, the REC explained: “According to the list in the subpoena, we were mandated to produce five BVAS, and I am here with the five BVAS”. Asked if he also brought the BVAS for Owo and Ugbawka I Registration Areas of Nkanu East L.G.A, the REC reminded the court that INEC BVAS could only be identified by their codes and the established tradition in election adjudications nationwide is that INEC provides BVAS based on their codes.

Upon the insistence of the Petitioners that the REC be made to produce the BVAS for the named polling units, the codes on the subpoena notwithstanding, the tribunal asserted that it could not give them what they did not pray for.

It was not as if the BVAS machines could have made any difference. Not only that there was no established malpractice yet, but also because, as counsel to INEC, Chief Alex Izinyon (SAN) stated, they were talking about just five or six out of over 4,000 BVAS machines in polling units across the Enugu State.

Meanwhile, whereas the tribunal will have the final say, if all that transpired in court is anything to go by, one does not need a soothsayer to foresee what the future holds for Edeoga. It is a hopeless case.

Ugwu, public analyst, writes from Enugu.