The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja will on Monday, allow parties to adopt their final briefs of argument in the petition the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo, filed to challenge Governor Monday Okpebholo’s resounding victory at the poll.

The petition is specifically challenging the outcome of the governorship contest that held in the state on September 21, 2024.

Though observers had adjudged the gubernatorial poll as one of the freest and most credible the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, has conducted in recent times, however, Ighodalo and his party, in what appeared as a wild goose chase, insisted they should have been declared the winner.

Remarkably, Ighodalo contested the election as the anointed candidate of the immediate past Governor of the state, Godwin Obaseki, who despite deploying all instruments of government to ensure that the then Senator Okpebholo who was candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, was placed at a disadvantaged position, still failed to thwart the will of the electorates.

Consequently, notwithstanding Obaseki’s inglorious political misadventures, INEC, at the end of the poll, declared that Okpebholo of the APC secured a total of 291, 667 votes to defeat his closet rivalry, Ighodalo of the PDP, who got 247, 655 votes.

Rather than accepting the result, PDP and Ighodalo lodged a petition, alleging that the election was rigged to favour APC’s candidate, Okpebholo.

The gravamen of their petition marked: EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, was that the poll was invalid by reason of alleged over-voting and non-compliance with provisions of the Electoral Act.

The petitioners contended that governor Okpebholo did not secure the highest number of lawful votes that were cast at the election.

As customary with legal proceedings, he who raised an allegations must embrace the burden of proof.

How well the petitioners were able to discharge the burden of proof placed on them by the law has been a subject of debate, with even the tribunal itself expressing its disgust over how its precious judicial time was wasted.

For instance, following the relocation of the Justice Wilfred Kpochi-led three-member panel to Abuja after their smooth sitting was almost disrupted by thugs allegedly on the side of the petitioners, on the first sitting of the panel in Abuja on January 28, it lampooned PDP and Ighodalo for wasting judicial time.

The drama started after counsel to the petitioners, Mr. Adetunji Oyeyipo, SAN, who had claimed they had so many people lined up to testify, failed to produce them on excuse that the proposed witnesses “suffered travel disruptions.”

“My lords, this is the reason we are unable to present them today. We urge your Lordships to give us another date.

“We undertake that on the next date, we will bring as many witnesses as may be convenient for the tribunal.

“We will also work assiduously to prime down our witnesses,” Oyeyipo, SAN, pleaded.

Not pleased with the development, the panel slammed the petitioners, noting that it had earlier cleared its docket just to give room for unfettered hearing of the case.

“What you are just telling us is not good at all! Why then did we ask the other petitioners to take dates? We should have heard them today,” Justice Kpochi fumed.

“In fact, call those your witnesses. Tell them to come, we are ready for them to come today,” Justice Kpochi added.

However, counsel to the petitioners pleaded that the witnesses may not be in the right frame of mind to mount the dock after their travel difficulties.

“I appeal that we should be given a new date,” the petitioners’ counsel pleaded as he persuaded the tribunal to fix another date.

When the witnesses were eventually produced, most of them ended up giving contradictory evidence that proved fatal to the case of the petitioners.

A case in point was on January 30, when one of the witnesses flustered as he confirmed contradictions in the proof of evidence he was brought to testify on.

The witness, Mr. Eseigbe Victor, who told the panel that he is a farmer, added that he served as agent of the PDP at Ward 9 in Akoko-Edo Local Government Area of the state.

Testifying as the 13 witness of the petitioners, Victor, said he was the one that recieved results from agents of the party that were posted to 28 polling units in Ward 9, Akoko-Edo.

While being cross-examined by counsel to Governor Okpebholo, Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, the PW-13, insisted that information from the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, BVAS, machines and hardcopies from the IReV, were presented at the Ward Collation Center for reconciliation of results of the election.

When he was shown one of the Exhibits that was tendered by his party, PDP, the witness, confirmed that though there were 71 accredited voters at Unit 001 of Ward 9, report from the BVAS machine they tendered showed that there were 252 number of accredited voters in the same polling unit.

Likewise, he acknowledged that in Unit 003, while the number of accredited voters in the IReV report they tendered was 116, when he was shown the BVAS report they also tendered for the same Unit, he confirmed that the number of accredited voters on the document was 262.

The witness further confirmed that in Unit 004, while 107 was recorded in the IReV report, the BVAS report had 243 accredited voters.

More so, he confirmed that most of the documents they tendered had no stamp of the INEC.

He, however, insisted that agents of his party did not sign most of the result sheets owing to alleged wrong computation.

While some witnesses of the petitioners admitted that they signed copies of the election result, others claimed they did not.

Owing to the manifest inconsistencies, the petitioners, at the resumed sitting of the tribunal on February 3, hurriedly wrapped up their case, saying they would no longer call any witness to appear before the panel.

Of the 99 witnesses the petitioners said would testify for them, only 19 were called.

Having noticed the weakness of the case of the petitioners, INEC told the tribunal that there was no need for it to call any witness to testify in the matter.

The electoral body simply tendered a certified copy of the governorship election result to accentuate its position that the poll was duly conducted inline with provisions of the law.

Likewise, whereas Governor Okpebholo called a lone witness that told the tribunal that he was the valid winner of the contest, on the other hand, the APC closed its own defence with the evidence of four witnesses.

“My lords, we have carefully done a comprehensive review of the evidence led by the petitioners; evidence elicited from their witnesses under cross-examination; evidence led so far by the respondents in this petition; the documentary evidence presented before this tribunal; and also considered the fact that time is of the essence because judicial time of this tribunal is precious.

“Taking all the enumerated factors into consideration, we are happy at this stage to close the 3rd respondents case,” APC’s lawyer, Mr. Dan Orbih, SAN, told the tribunal as the party closed its case on February 13.

The respondents’ decisions not to call more witnesses was obviously buoyed by the position of the law that a petitioner must succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence.

With the conclusion of the evidence stage, the tribunal fixed Monday, March 3, for the parties to adopt their final arguments, a procedure that is a precursor to the delivery of judgement in the matter.

As all the parties converge again for the adoption, all eyes will be on the Judiciary to reinforce the four-year mandate that was freely handed to Governor Okpebholo by Edo people.