The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal has upheld the election of Monday Okpebholo from the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the Governor of Edo State.
On Wednesday, the three-member tribunal issued three separate judgments, ruling that the petitions filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo; the Action Alliance (AA) and its National Chairman, Adekunle Omoaje; and the Accord Party and its candidate, Bright Enabulele, were without merit. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed all three petitions.
The legal team representing the PDP and Ighodalo announced plans to challenge the tribunal's judgment in the Court of Appeal, asserting that they fulfilled their obligations to demonstrate that the election was neither free nor fair.
In the lead judgment, Tribunal Chairman Justice Wilfred Kpochi addressed two key issues in the PDP and Ighodalo's petition. The first issue was whether the petitioners provided sufficient evidence to support their claim that the election was invalid due to non-compliance with the Electoral Act.
Justice Kpochi, after evaluating the evidence presented by the petitioners, concluded that they failed to meet the legal burden of proof required. He noted that none of the 19 witnesses called by the petitioners were relevant witnesses capable of providing eyewitness accounts of events at the polling units contested in the election. Most of the witnesses were either ward collation agents or local government collation agents, with the petitioners not calling polling unit agents or registered voters who actually voted.
He stated, “The failure of the petitioners to call polling agents, presiding officers, or even registered voters is fatal to their case. The petitioners did not present any substantial evidence to prove that the relevant forms were filled out improperly. The first to fourteenth witnesses only provided hearsay evidence because they were not present at the polling units during the election.”
Justice Kpochi also criticized the petitioners' star witness, the Director of Research and Strategy, for not being involved in the election process. He ruled that all documents and materials submitted by the petitioners, including election documents and Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BIVAS) machines, were not adequately demonstrated or linked to their claims.
He emphasized, “It is clear that these documents were presented without competent witness testimony to validate them. No eyewitnesses who could attest to the election process at the polling units were called. The court is not obligated to scrutinize documents when no witnesses connect them to the petitioners’ case. The BIVAS machines were never demonstrated at trial, nor did any witnesses testify regarding their contents.”
The tribunal also addressed the second issue regarding whether Okpebholo won the election with a majority of lawful votes over the petitioners. Justice Kpochi made similar observations about the insufficient evidence from the petitioners, stating that they failed to prove that aspect of their petition.
In the first judgment, concerning the AA petition filed by Omoaje, the tribunal dismissed it for lacking merit. The petitioners had claimed, among other points, that the AA candidate was excluded from the election because the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) accepted candidate details from an individual named Kenneth Eze, whom they alleged was not the party's National Chairman. They also argued that the AA was unlawfully prevented from nominating a rightful candidate since INEC did not accept the nomination details for the candidate whose form Omoaje signed as National Chairman.
The tribunal ruled that the petitioners did not provide sufficient evidence to support claims of exclusion or electoral malpractice. Additionally, it stated that since Omoaje was not a candidate in the election, he lacked the standing to challenge the election results.
The tribunal clarified that, having admitted that the AA participated in the election, the petitioners could not later claim exclusion. Earlier in the judgment, the tribunal upheld preliminary objections raised by INEC, APC, and Okpebholo, challenging the validity of the petitions. It ruled that the issues raised were related to leadership disputes within the AA, which do not fall under the tribunal's jurisdiction and were pre-election matters that had become statute-barred by the time of filing.
No comments:
Post a Comment