By Ehichioya Ezomon
The main proceedings of the Election Petitions Tribunal (EPT) – hearing the challenge to the election of Senator Monday Okpebholo as Governor of Edo State on September 21, 2024 – came to an end on Thursday, February 13, 2025, when the All Progressives Congress (APC), as the 3rd Respondent, closed its defence after calling four of pledged 28 witnesses in its two-day outing at the tribunal in Abuja, Nigeria’s Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
However, the APC closure of its defence – coming in similar abrupt manner by the Petitioners (Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Dr Asue Ighodalo) on February 3; the 1st Respondent (Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)) on February 6; and the 2nd Respondent (Okpebholo) on February 10 – sparked instant recrimination between the Edo State chapters of the APC and PDP over alleged “witness sabotage” engineered within and/or outside the APC fold.
While such fiercely-partisan bickerings are a routine between the ruling and main opposition parties in Edo State; several issues croped up on February 12, and February 13 when the APC opened and closed its defence at the tribunal.
• One, the APC broke the near “no-show” jinx in the Respondents’ camp by calling four witnesses to testify for it. • Two, the witnesses were Local Government Agents or Local Government Collation Agents for the APC. • Three, the witnesses admitted there’re over-voting in some polling units, many of which, they noted, were cancelled by INEC’s officials on poll day.
• Four, yet, PDP/Ighodalo have queried the same cancelled over-voting results in their petition • Five, most of the PDP/Ighodalo contested polling units recorded a single over-vote. How? • Six, by calling witnesses to testify for it, the APC may’ve brought both a sigh of relief and a cold comfort to the party members and supporters in Edo State, and the country at large.
Certainly, the APC’s defence brought a “sigh of relief” in that, for its members and supporters – many of them (like in the general public) ignorant of the intricacies of prosecuting election petitions – it’d been long nights in 16 days, since the hearing proper began on January 21 at the tribunal.
The party members and supporters have had to endure emotional torture, as they watched “edited clips” or read on social media how counsel and witnesses for PDP/Ighodalo took the INEC, Okpebholo and APC through the legal grinding mill at the proceedings, first in Benin City, Edo State capital city, and then in Abuja.
The APC’s also given members and supporters “cold comfort” because, besides having no illusions about the PDP/Ighodalo petition against the election of Okpebholo as Governor, they’re not as optimistic about the tribunal outcome as the Acting Chairman of the Edo APC, Emperor Jarrett Tenebe.
Reacting to the Plaintiffs closing their petition on February 3, after calling 19 of the hundreds of witnesses earmarked to testify for them, Tenebe told the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) that PDP/Ighodalo “abandoned their case abruptly because they have no case ab initio,” boasting that when the Respondents opened their case, “the whole country and the people of Edo in particular would know that the APC won the election.”
Tenebe appeared hasty to criticise PDP/Ighodalo, as the INEC, through Kanu Agabi (SAN), on January 6, closed its defence without calling any witness, thus giving PDP an opening to offer “expert opinion” to the 1st Respondent, noting, “This abrupt end to INEC’s defence leaves the electoral body relying solely on cross-examinations and arguments from APC and Okpebholo’s lawyers.”
This was as Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN), for the Plaintiffs, told the tribunal, after Agabi’s request, that, “Frankly speaking, we are not surprised and it is well within the right of the 1st Respondent (INEC) to show such good discretion. We are not objecting.”
At the resumed proceeding on February 6, Agabi told the tribunal that his team had shelved the idea of bringing witnesses after it reviewed the case, adding, “My Lords, after we left you yesterday (Wednesday), we gave more thought to the matter and came to the conclusion that the sensible thing to do is to close the case of the 1st Respondent, which we hereby do.”
The chairman of the three-man tribunal, Justice Wilfred Kpochi (with Justices A.B. Yusuf and A.A. Adewole) in the petition marked, EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, then ruled: “The request (by INEC via Agabi) is granted and the first Respondent’s case is hereby closed,” and adjourned to February 10, for Okpebholo to open his defence, which he did by calling one witness, and closing his case.
Among a plethora of alleged electoral infractions, the three-man tribunal of Justices Wilfred Kpochi (Chairman), A.B. Yusuf and A.A. Adewole, in the petition marked, EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, is looking mainly into irregularities of over-voting, non-serialisation of electoral materials, incorrect computation of the total number of votes cast in many polling units, which reportedly exceeded accredited voter-count recorded by the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) that the INEC deployed for the ballot.
The Plaintiffs’ witnesses (19 of them) and counsel had honed in on those alleged poll indiscretions, to prove that the 291,667 votes (about 51.1%) credited to Okpebholo (APC, Edo Central) as winner of the election, and 247,274 votes (about 43.3%) scored for Ighodalo, a Lagos-based Lawyer and business tycoon, were “manufactured” by the INEC, APC and Police to favour Okpebholo.
In their testimonies, the witnesses attempted to demonstrate alleged suppression, inflation and alteration of votes to the detriment of Ighodalo, pointing out votes that should’ve been counted or cancelled, and claiming that INEC’s rigging of the process amounts to a serious breach of the Electoral Act 2022 (as amended).
With the reported “brilliant performances” by PDP/Ighodalo’s witnesses and legal teams bolstering the Plaintiffs’ claims of massive fraud at the poll they said Ighodalo won, and should be declared as Governor of Edo State; the APC members and supporters were hopeful that the Respondents would match the Plaintiffs’ submissions.
But when it’s turn to open defence on Thursday, February 6, the INEC (Ist Respondent) closed the case without calling any of the five witnesses it’d insisted the previous day (February 5) would testify for it.
Blindsided by INEC’s counsel, Agabi’s closure of the case, counsel to Okpebholo (2nd Respondent), Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), prayed for adjournment to Monday, February 10, to enable him “move the five witnesses” to be called from Benin City to Abuja, with Justice Kpochi acceding and adjourning sitting to February 10.
But when the hearing resumed, Okpebholo called only one witness, Majek Osumah, an APC polling agent from Ward 7, Unit 4, Ovia Southwest Local Government, who testified that the election was conducted peacefully, but that the result was cancelled due to over-voting, and that in Form EC8B, the column for the result of his Unit 4 had no record.
Against the foregoing, the APC members’ and supporters’ worries and anxieties increased, as the 3rd Respondent opened its defence on Wednesday, February 12, which, to its (APC’) credit, broke the “defence jinx,” and called four witnesses.
They witnesses include: Afuda Theophilus Idemudia, 54, a businessman resident in Benin City, who monitored the poll in Esan North East Local Government Area; Kamarudeen Coker Bello, 54 years, a businessman, lives in Igarra, and served as a Local Government agent of the APC in Akoko-Edo LGA; Engr. Gabriel Iduseri, APC’s Collation Agent for Oredo LGA; and Hon. Frank David, APC’s Collation Agent for Owan West LGA, all of whose testimonies, reported by The Nation on February 12, are run below with some abridgements:
“Led in evidence by Echezona Etiaba (SAN), the first witness, Afuda Theophilus Idemudia, told the tribunal that the result of the poll from the Esan North East LGA was signed by the agent of the PDP.
“He confirmed that under Exhibit PCB-40, titled: Ballot Paper and Verification Statement, the Part A of the document was expected to be completed by an official of INEC before the opening of poll, while Part B was to be completed after the close of election.
“When handed a copy of the documents to confirm, the witness, said: ‘Yes, I can see serial numbers recorded on this document. They are: 0459785 and 0460292,’ maintaining that serial numbers of Ballot Papers issued to the respective polling units were filled.
“Under cross-examination by a lawyer to the petitioners, Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN), the witness confirmed that the number of accredited voters in Unit 11, Ward 6, was 96, and upon Owonikoko’s request, the witness calculated the votes to be 97, with APC getting 53 votes, PDP 43 votes, and one rejected vote.
“The second witness, Kamarudeen Coker Bello, who admitted his signed statement on November 9, 2024, and adopted it while being led by Etiaba, confirmed, nder cross-examination by Owonikoko, that the petitioners raised allegations of over-voting in 17 polling units in Akoko-Edo LGA.
“The third witness, Engr. Gabriel Iduseri, claimed that there was no complaint about the conduct of the election by agents of the parties that participated in the contest in Oredo LGA, even as he he admitted that the result from polling unit 8, Ward 10, was cancelled at the Ward Collation Centre due to over-voting; and that it’s the responsibility of electoral officers to confirm the correctness or otherwise of results submitted at the LGA level.
“Asked if he was aware there was a table of 53 and 66 polling units in Oredo LGA, where petitioners alleged that INEC recorded the results incorrectly, the witness said though he read the petition, he could not recall the number of the disputed polling units.
“The fourth witness, Hon. Frank David, said that INEC officials diligently collated all results from the polling units in Owan West LGA, and none of agents queried the final result, adding that he, the PDP and Labour Party (LP) agents signed the result sheets of the election.
“Cross-examined, David said he was aware that INEC officials ought to fill details of sensitive materials handed to them for the poll, but he could not confirm if the procedure was followed since he did not serve as an official of INEC during the election.
“Handed the IReV report of Form EC8A of Ward 4 Unit 19, the witness confirmed that although only 36 persons were accredited, votes recorded for the unit were: 28, 1 and 8, amounting to 37, indicating one over-vote.
“While he confirmed that the exhibit containing the votes from Ward 8, Unit 8, were: 54 and 25, totaling 79, with 1 marked as rejected vote, making it a total of 80 votes; the witness claimed the results from Unit 5 were cancelled owing to over-voting.”
Thereafter, lead counsel to the APC, Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), announced that his client was preparing a schedule of documents to tender when the proceedings resume, and the tribunal adjourned till February 13, when the APC closed its defence without calling any of the pledged 24 additional witnesses.
Explaining the decision to close the defence, counsel to APC expressed confidence in the unimpeachable legal defence mounted for the poll victory of Governor Okpebholo. So, Ferdinard Orbih (SAN) addressed the tribunal, as reported by award-winning journalist from Edo State, Mr Sebastine Ebhuomhan, as follows:
“Yesterday (Wednesday, February 13), we promised that we will exchange our schedule of documents today in order to make for a seamless presentation of our witness testimony. My Lord, I am sorry to say the documents we were expecting did not arrive.
“However, we have done a further comprehensive review of the evidence led by the petitioners, the evidence received from the petitioners under cross-examination, the evidence led so far by the respondents in this tribunal, the documentary evidence before this tribunal…
“My Lord, we have also considered that time is of (the) essence. The judicial time of this honourable tribunal is precious. My Lord, taking all the enumerated factors into serious consideration, we are happy at this stage to close the 3rd respondent’s case as it pleases Your Lordship.”
Responding to the application to close their case, Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN) for the Plaintiffs, highlighted, with a jab, the surprising “abandonment” of the 3rd Respondent’s scheduled 28 witnesses after calling just four of the witnesses.
“My learned counsel has just addressed the court. I’m actually not quite sure about the state of those documents. I can only say ‘he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day.’ So, we have no objection,” Oyeyipo said.
Even with no objection from the other Respondents (INEC and Okpebholo), Orbih replied Oyeyipo’s poking, thus: “My Lord, I’m still on the point of fact. When they (Plaintiffs) scheduled 99 witnesses and presented only 19, we didn’t accuse them of running away. They have no business with how we conduct our case. We remain here. We are not running away.”
Despite pleadings by the Respondents and Plaintiffs for more days to prepare their written addresses, Justice Kpochi stood his ground and closed the defence of the 3rd Respondent (APC), and acceded to seven days for the Respondents, five days for the Petitioners and extra three days to file their final written addresses, which counting began on Friday, February 14, and adjourned the tribunal to Monday, March 3, for the adoption of the written addresses.
Going forward, the battle of wits between PDP/Ighodalo (Petitioners) and APC/Okpebholo (Respondents) for the Governorship, and political soul of Edo State continues in the next 13 days till the March 3!
