By Sebastine Ebhuomhan
The Election Petitions Tribunal hearing Edo State governorship election petitions at the National Judicial Institute (NJI), Abuja, adjourned on Monday for judgment at a date to be announced under the tribunal’s seal and signature.
The Justice Wilfred Kpochi-led three-member panel announced the final adjournment at the conclusion of written addresses by both petitioners and respondents in the petition marked: EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, filed by the loser, Dr. Asuerinme Ighodalo and his political party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), 1st and 2nd petitioners.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is the 1st respondent, Governor Monday Okpebholo is 2nd respondent, the All Progressives Congress (APC) is 3rd respondent.
At the resumed hearing, the petitioners pleaded under a team of lawyers that include: Adetunji Oyeyipo(SAN); Ken Mozia(SAN); Abiodun Owonikoko(SAN); Rotimi Oguneso(SAN); Larry Selekowei(SAN); A. T. Kehinde(SAN); A. K. Ajibade(SAN); Oluwole Iyamu(SAN); Oluseyi Jolaawo(SAN) and others.
Kanu Agabi(SAN); A. M. Aliu(SAN); E. M. Inuwa(SAN); Alhassan Umar(SAN); M. T. Abubakar(SAN); and others appeared for the 1st respondent, INEC. Dr. Oyinyechi Ikpeazu(SAN); Chief Offiong E. Offiong(SAN); Festus Kayode(SAN); Tobechukwu Nweke; Dr. Ike Chude; Edward Ireluwe; Lydia Oluwakemi; Linda Chuba-Ikpeazu and others appeared for the 2nd respondent, Okpebholo.
Emmanuel Ukala(SAN); E. C. Denwigwe(SAN); Chief Ferdinand Orbih(SAN); J. O. Asoluka(SAN); Echezona Etiaba(SAN); Henry Bello(SAN) and others appeared for the 3rd respondent, the APC.
Arguments and counter-arguments began immediately after the issue of extensive or verbose pages of the parties’ addresses were resolved through a formal withdrawal of all related filed motions. Thereafter, Justice Kpochi gave 15 minutes each to the respondents and 30 minutes to the petitioners to present their written addresses.
Agabi filed a 12-point address that virtually took the wind out of the sail of Ighodalo and the PDP. In the first two points, the legal sage said, “Your Lordships cannot annul the election because that is not a relief that they sought. Your Lordships cannot declare the petitioners as winners of the election on the grounds of their arguments that it is invalid.”
He also argued that ground of non-compliance is not accompanied by consequential reliefs.
Furthermore, Agabi argued: that the number of polling unit agents Ighodalo and the PDP called as witnesses represented a negligible number of the polling units the petitioners challenged and the entire polling units in Edo State; that the polling unit agents Ighodalo called all signed the result sheets, a clear sign that the election was organised in accordance to the law; that the case of the petitioners was founded on analyses undertaken by consultants; that the petitioners have not pleaded alternative results on the basis of which they can be declared the winners; that the petitioners have not tendered the results they challenged; and, lastly, that the witnesses did not distinguished between what they heard and what they saw, they failed to prove over-voting even as the petitioners dumped BIVAS on the tribunal.
“The grounds are inconsistent with one another and inconsistent with themselves. It renders them defective. On the basis of these, I urge My Lordships to dismiss the petition,” Agabi concluded.
On his part, counsel to the 2nd respondent, Ikpeazu, further took Ighodalo to the cleaners with his arguments, branding the petition as a mere “academic exercise.” He particularly urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition after accusing the petitioners of tendering sensitive material exhibits with missing parts, contrary to the serial numbers it carries for identification and tendering BIVAS machines without opening any of the machines to prove their allegation of over-voting.
According to the APC counsel, Ukala, to prove non-compliance of the majority votes, the Supreme Court mandated that the petitioners must prove non-compliance from polling unit to polling unit, ward to ward, and local government to local government. He contended that the petitioners simply dumped documents on the tribunal instead of proving them after calling only five polling units out of over 4,000 in Edo State and calling no single presiding officers for their hearsay evidence. Citing Ucha versus Elechi and Baba versus INEC, he said this is the position of the law in spite of Section 137 of the Electoral Act.
“It is clear that the case of the petitioners was not proven. I urge My Lordships to dismiss the petition,” Ukala concluded.
In his address for the petitioners, Mozia reiterated that they challenged 765 polling units and called only five polling unit agents. He maintained that the petitioners disagreed with collation at ward and local government levels. He begged the tribunal to holistically consider the petition on several grounds for cumulative effects.
“Isolating grounds and submitting that such grounds when taken alone will not have the cumulative effects that were prayed and adopting that it is academic is not true.”
Mozia clanged to the disputed iRev results the petitioners tendered, insisting that no party had impugned the results. He cited Austin versus INEC, Kennedy versus INEC and Isah & another versus INEC & others before concluding inaudibly without underlining any relief.
“We urge My Lordships to grant this petition.”
It is arguable if Ighodalo’s petition achieved enough to nullify a ward or a local government council result as against the entire election result Governor Okpebholo unarguably won.
Mr. Sebastine EBHUOMHAN is an award-winning journalist and media consultant from Edo State. He can be reached on: usie007@yahoo.com and 08037204620.
Discussion about this post