The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja has lashed out at the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo, for their failure to produce witnesses to testify in the petition challenging the election of Monday Okpebholo of the APC as Edo Governor in September last year.
In the petition under judicial scrutiny, the PDP and its candidate had approached the tribunal, praying it to invalidate the outcome of the governorship election on the grounds of alleged non-compliance with the Electoral Act.
The petitioners further contended that Governor Okpebholo of the APC did not secure the highest number of majority votes cast at the election.
However, proceedings at the tribunal, which was relocated from Edo State to Abuja, commenced on Tuesday – today, January 28 – only for the petitioners to express their inability to proceed, in a manner that infuriated the three-member panel of Justices.
Their lead counsel, Mr. Adetunji Oyeyipo, SAN, told the tribunal that most of their proposed witnesses, “suffered travel disruptions.”
Pleading his cause, the senior lawyer said, “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 prune our witnesses,” Oyeyipo, SAN, pleaded shortly after the witness that was testifying before the tribunal relocated its sitting from Edo state to Abuja, was discharged.
But irked by the development, the Justice Wilfred Kpochi-led three-member tribunal slammed the petitioners for wasting the judicial time of the tribunal.
Justice Kpochi thundered on the bench: “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. In fact, call those your witnesses. Tell them to come, we are ready for them to come today.”
However, the embattled senior lawyer 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,” Oyeyipo pleaded.
The tribunal subsequently adjourned the case till Thursday.
Meanwhile, the witness that was discharged, Mr. Oseyili Anenih, told the tribunal that though there were a total of 4,519 polling units in Edo state, the PDP and its candidate are challenging results from about 765 polling units.
Speaking under cross-examination, Mr. Anenih, who told the tribunal that he served as the Director of Research and Strategy for the PDP, admitted that he could not visit all the polling units during the election.
He told the tribunal that most of the evidence the petitioners’ relied on were based on reports that were submitted by agents and experts.
The witness further told the tribunal that most copies of the results that agents of the party made available to him at the Situation Room, were not signed.
However, Anenih maintained that if lawful votes that were cast at the election were sincerely collated, his candidate, Ighodalo, would have emerged victorious.
Answering questions from Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, who represented Governor Monday Okpebholo, the witness admitted that though they did not have any physical assess to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, BVAS, Machines, that were used for the election, they however got some screenshots of it, which they tendered in evidence.
He said they had since subpoenaed the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to make the machines available before the tribunal.
While being cross-examined by counsel to the All Progressives Congress, APC, Mr. Emmanuel Ukala, the PW-12, who is the lead witness in the matter, confirmed that he was not trained by INEC to play any role during the election.
He further admitted that none of the polling unit results was handed over to him personally by agents of the party.
However, while answering another question, he said: “Some of the local government collation agents brought their results straight to me because they were not allowed access to the State Collation Center.
“Some copies of election results in the Form EC8A that were handed to the agents were not legible.
“It is however not correct that the majority of the results that were brought by our agents were not stamped by INEC, though some of them were not.
When he was handed one of the Exhibits to look at, the witness confirmed to the tribunal that out of 16 copies of the results in the bundle, only three of them were stamped.
“To us, that three that were stamped was significant enough. It represents almost 20% ,” the witness insisted.
