The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal has upheld the election of Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the Governor of Edo State.
In three rulings on Wednesday, the three-member tribunal found that the petitions brought forth 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.
The tribunal subsequently dismissed all three petitions.
The legal team representing the PDP and Ighodalo announced their intention to appeal the judgment at the Court of Appeal, asserting that they had adequately demonstrated that the election was neither free nor fair.
In his lead judgment, Justice Wilfred Kpochi addressed the two key issues presented in the petition by the PDP and Ighodalo, ultimately ruling against them.
The first issue was whether the petitioners had sufficiently proven that the election was invalid due to non-compliance with the Electoral Act based on the totality of their pleadings and evidence.
After evaluating the evidence, Justice Kpochi concluded that the PDP and Ighodalo had failed to meet the legal burden of proof.
He stated that none of the 19 witnesses called by the petitioners were credible witnesses capable of providing first-hand accounts of the events at the polling units where the election results were contested.
Most of the witnesses were either ward or Local Government collation agents, and the petitioners did not call any polling unit agents or registered voters who participated in the elections at the relevant polling units.
Justice Kpochi also remarked on the petitioners’ claim that crucial details were not completed in the election documents prior to voting.
He emphasised that since this allegation was made, the petitioners were obligated to present polling unit agents or registered voters from the affected polling units, none of whom were called.
“The petitioners’ failure to call polling agents, presiding officers, or even registered voters is detrimental to their case,” he stated.
“The witnesses presented by the petitioners provided hearsay evidence, lacking direct observation of the polling units during the election,” he added.
He highlighted that the petitioners’ key witness, the Director of Research and Strategy, played no role in the election.
Justice Kpochi asserted that the documents and materials submitted by the petitioners, including election documents and the bimodal voters accreditation system (BIVAS) machines, lacked proper demonstration.
“It is evident that the documents were inadequately presented. No competent witness was called to provide evidence regarding these documents.
No eyewitnesses who could attest to the election process at the polling units were called.
“Without witnesses to connect the documentary evidence to the petitioners’ case, it is not the court’s responsibility to scrutinise the documents presented by the parties.
The BIVAS machines were evidently neglected and unutilised.
These machines were not demonstrated during the trial, and no witnesses testified about their contents,” he explained.
He further stated that it was not the tribunal’s role to investigate the documents and BIVAS machines presented.
Justice Kpochi also addressed the second issue: whether Okpebholo had won the election with a majority of lawful votes against the petitioners.
He reiterated his concerns regarding the quality of evidence submitted by the petitioners, concluding that they had failed to substantiate this aspect of their claim.
Justice Kpochi noted that the evidence provided by the petitioners indicated a lack of understanding of the requirements necessary to substantiate their allegations.
