17
Mar
Mar
EDO GUBER DISPUTE: PARTIES ADOPT WRITTEN ADDRESSES, AWAIT CRUCIAL JUDICIAL VERDICT
-
CapitalTimesNews / 1 month
- 0
- 11 min read
By Ehichioya Ezomon As the three-man Election Petitions Tribunal (EPT) reserved judgment in the petitions against the declaration of Senator Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as winner of the September 21, 2024, governorship election in Edo State, we’re reminded, as per Muhammad JSC, in Olonade vs Sowemimo (2014) LPELR-22914(SC), 27 – in explaining the meaning of the standard of proof in civil cases, (and) the balance of probabilities – that:“The court decides which side’s evidence is heavier, not by the number of witnesses called by either party or on the basis of the one being oral and the other being documentary, but by the quality or probative value of the evidence be it oral and/or documentary.”Were the parties to the electoral dispute, especially the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), whose candidate, Dr Asue Ighodalo, came second at the poll, able to meet the Supreme Court benchmark referenced by Justice Muhammad? The people of Edo State and Nigerians in general wait anxiously and expectantly for the tribunal to answer that poser in its crucial judicial pronouncement. While Dr Ighodalo and the PDP are the 1st and 2nd Petitioners, accordingly; the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Governor Okpebholo and the APC are the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, respectively, with the disputants representated by many election petition-tested Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) and junior legal practitioners. On Monday, March 3, 2025, Justices Wilfred Kpochi (Chairman), A.B. Yusuf and A.A. Adewole, presided over the tribunal’s concluding proceeding for adoption of the final written addresses by parties to the dispute, which centres on the petition marked, EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, filed by Ighodalo and the PDP. The tribunal, which sits at the National Judicial Institute (NJI), Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, granted the Respondents 15 minutes each to defend their final written addresses, while the Petitioners were given 30 minutes to argue their case “in what became a heated legal battle.” Thereafter, the tribunal reserved judgment to a future date to be communicated to the Petitioners and Respondents. The following quotes summarise the presentations of counsel for the Respondents and Petitioners, and how the tribunal arrived at the adoption of the final written addresses: • Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), INEC’s Counsel:“The petitioners are asking to be declared winners despite simultaneously arguing that the election was invalid — two conflicting positions… Your Lordships cannot declare the petitioners as winners of the election on the grounds of their arguments that it is invalid… “Your Lordships cannot annul the election because that is not a relief that they (petitioners) sought. “The case of the petitioners was founded on analyses undertaken by consultants… The petitioners have not pleaded alternative results on the basis of which they can be declared the winners… The petitioners have not tendered the results they challenged… The ground of non-compliance raised by petitioners is not accompanied by consequential reliefs. “The number of polling unit agents (five) the petitioners called as witnesses represented a negligible number of the polling units (765) the petitioners challenged from the entire polling units (4,519) in Edo State… The polling unit agents all signed the result sheets, a clear sign that the election was organised in accordance with the law… The witnesses did not distinguish between what they heard and what they saw… They failed to prove over-voting. “The petition is incompetent, as it does not seek the annulment of the entire election. The grounds (for the petition) 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.” • Dr Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), Governor Okpebholo’s Counsel:“The Supreme Court has ruled that proving over-voting requires the Bimodal Verification Authentication System (BVAS) machines. Since the petitioners failed to present BVAS data, their claim of over-voting was unsubstantiated… The petitioners had not provided crucial evidence such as Form EC25D, which records ballot paper serial numbers… Instead, they relied on Form EC25B, which merely documents the quantity of election materials received and returned. “The petitioners tendered sensitive material exhibits with missing parts, contrary to the serial numbers they carry for identification, and tendering BVAS machines without opening any of them to prove their allegation of over-voting… Even with the polling unit records presented by the petitioners, Okpebholo still has a clear lead… This petition is a mere academic exercise. It is frivolous, baseless, unwarranted, irritating, and lacking in merit. I urge My Lords to dismiss it.” • Chief Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), APC’s Counsel:“As per Supreme Court rulings, proving non-compliance requires detailed evidence from polling unit to polling unit, ward to ward, and local government to local government… The petitioners simply dumped documents on the tribunal, instead of proving them, after calling only five polling unit agents out of over 4,000 polling units in Edo State, and calling no single presiding officer for their hearsay evidence… (Citing Ucha vs Elechi and Baba vs INEC, as the position of the law in spite of Section 137 of the Electoral Act, Ukala said)… It is clear that the case of the petitioners was not proven. I urge My Lordships to dismiss the petition.” • Mr Ken Mozia (SAN), PDP/Ighodalo’s Counsel:“Of the 4,519 polling units in Edo State, irregularities were identified in 765 — enough to invalidate the election results… The PDP, in its petition, only challenged 765 polling units with complaints of multiple incidents of over-voting, non-serialisation of ballots, and incorrect computation of results, which altered the victory of Dr. Asue Ighodalo. “The 2nd respondent (INEC) failed to tender any alternative result sheet nor plead any alternative forms EC25B to challenge or contradict PDP’s CTC documentary evidence of rigging across the disputed 765 polling units in the State… All the documents we tendered were duly certified by INEC, and they were admitted without objection by the maker (INEC). “The Supreme Court decisions in Uzodinma vs Ihedioha; Kennedy vs INEC; Johnson vs INEC; and Lawal vs Matawalle, etc., established that there must be prior recording of sensitive election materials in forms EC25B, which INEC failed to comply with in some polling units.
