TheNewsGuru

Tag: Ehichioya Ezomon

  • Edo Guber: How Ighodalo made Okpebholo’s confirmation easier than expected – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Edo Guber: How Ighodalo made Okpebholo’s confirmation easier than expected – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    In other climes, people learn from history. But in Nigeria, it’s history that learns from the people. No matter how unfavourable the precedent is – which should serve to guard against a recurrence – Nigerians will keep doing the same thing, and expecting a different result, as starkly revealed on Wednesday, April 2, 2025, at the Edo Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal (GEPT) in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital city!

    Delivering judgment, the three-man tribunal dismissed, in its entirety, the petition by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Dr Asue Ighodalo, challenging the return of Senator Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as winner of the September 21, 2024, governorship election in Edo State.

    The Judges noted that the petitioners “dumped” their evidentiary materials on the tribunal, without interrogating them through relevant and credible witnesses, and thus, the tribunal was constrained, as it’s not its duty to open the documents for the petitioners.

    Referencing Tanko vs INEC, the tribunal held that section 137 of Evidence Act can’t relieve the petitioners of their duty under the act to interrogate their documents at the tribunal, adding that in view of its nature, the petitioners had an onerous duty to strictly prove their case.

    Recall the judgment in the petitions by the presidential candidates of the PDP and Labour Party (LP), former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and ex-Governor Peter Obi of Anambra State, respectively, against the declaration of Senator Bola Tinubu of the APC as the winner of the February 25, 2023, presidential election.

    The Appeal Court, which served as the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (PEPT), held that the petitioners had dumped exhibits on the court, without demonstrating, via eyewitnesses, their claims to winning the poll, with Atiku, who came second, praying to be declared as the authentic winner, and Obi, despite coming third, claiming he’s the rightful winner of the election.

    Stressing that “litigation is fought on pleadings, and parties swim or sink on their pleadings,” the five-member PEPT, led by Justice Haruna Tsammani, unanimously held that Atiku and Obi, as well as other petitioners, failed to substantiate their allegations against the conduct of the election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    The justices stated that the documentary and oral evidence presented before them by Atiku and Obi couldn’t prove the claims of irregularities, corrupt practices, non-compliance with the electoral guidelines, and other allegations for which the petitioners had asked the court to void Tinubu’s election.

    In their challenge of Okpebholo’s victory, the landmark ruling on the Atiku and Obi petitions – and such other judgments since the return of democracy in Nigeria in 1999 – should’ve served as a guide for Ighodalo/PDP to present eyewitnesses to authenticate their alleged electoral malpractice. But they failed in that regard!

    Hence, pointing to the Supreme Court guidelines, which roadmap it says bounds its handling of the electoral dispute, the tribunal emphasised that “oral evidence is required to prove over-voting,” and that the petitioners should’ve called eyewitnesses, who were present at the polling units during the election.

    In the petition marked, EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, the tribunal, comprising of Justices Wilfred Kpochi (Chairman), A.B. Yusuf and A.A. Adewole, held that pw2, pw3, pw4, pw5 and pw7, not being polling unit agents, weren’t competent witnesses, as they were nowhere near the polling units to observe whether there were prior recordings or not.

    Besides, the tribunal noted that the result booklets tendered through the bar had nobody, such as the presiding officers, to speak on them, and held that being not the makers, the witnesses that identified the booklets weren’t competent to do so, even as the tribunal said it couldn’t make anything out of some missing pages of the booklets.

    Saying the petitioners failed, by way of credible evidence, to establish why the outcome of the election should be set-aside, the tribunal held that the onus rested squarely on the petitioners to prove that the INEC unduly returned Governor Okpebholo, adding that it’s trite law that, “a petitioner must succeed on the strength of their own case and not on the weakness of the defence.”

    But that – and misrepresentation of facts – was majorly what Ighodalo/PDP depended upon in their case, as gleaned from their final written address presented by Mr Ken Mozia (SAN), who, among others, claimed that:

    • “All the documents we tendered were duly certified by INEC, and they were admitted without objection by the maker (INEC)… The Supreme Court decisions have established that there must be prior recording of sensitive election materials in forms EC25B, which INEC failed to comply with in some polling units.

    • “The 2nd respondent (INEC) failed to tender any alternative result sheet nor plead any alternative forms EC25B to challenge or contradict PDP’s CTC documentary evidence of rigging across the disputed 765 polling units in the State.

    • “No party (1st, 2nd or 3rd respondents) had impugned the IReV results that the petitioners have tendered… The Supreme Court, in Austin vs INEC, Kennedy vs INEC and Isah & Another vs INEC & Others, has affirmed that results uploaded to INEC’s IReV portal are credible.

    • “The law does not require petitioners to challenge results in every polling unit (under dispute) or submit alternative results… Polling unit agents need not testify, as the disputed collation occurred at ward and local government collation centres, where polling unit agents were not present.

    • “We plead with the tribunal to holistically consider the petition on several grounds for cumulative effects… Isolating grounds and submitting that such grounds, when taken alone, will not have the cumulative effects that were prayed, and adopting that it is academic, is not true… We urge My Lordships to grant this petition.”

    However, in their separate submissions – which virtually aligned with the tribunal findings – counsel for the INEC, Okpebholo and the APC countered Ighodalo/PDP’s presentation, beginning with Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), INEC’s Counsel:

    • “The petitioners are asking to be declared winners despite simultaneously arguing that the election was invalid — two conflicting positions… Your Lordships cannot declare the petitioners as winners of the election on the grounds of their arguments that it is invalid… “Your Lordships cannot annul the election because that is not a relief that they (petitioners) sought.

    • “The petitioners have not pleaded alternative results on the basis of which they can be declared the winners… The petitioners have not (even) tendered the results they challenged… The ground of non-compliance raised by petitioners is not accompanied by consequential reliefs.

    • “The number of polling unit agents (five) the petitioners called as witnesses represented a negligible number of the polling units (765) the petitioners challenged from the entire polling units (4,519) in Edo State… The polling unit agents all signed the result sheets, a clear sign that the election was organised in accordance with the law…

    • “The petition is incompetent, as it does not seek the annulment of the entire election. The grounds (for the petition) are inconsistent with one another and inconsistent with themselves. It renders them defective. On the basis of these, I urge My Lordships to dismiss the petition.”

    • Dr Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), Okpebholo’s Counsel, said: “The Supreme Court has ruled that proving over-voting requires the Bimodal Verification Authentication System (BVAS) machines. Since the petitioners failed to open any of them and present the BVAS data, their claim of over-voting was unsubstantiated.

    • “The petitioners had not provided crucial evidence such as Form EC25D, which records ballot paper serial numbers… Instead, they relied on Form EC25B, which merely documents the quantity of election materials received and returned… The petitioners tendered sensitive material exhibits with missing parts, contrary to the serial numbers they carry for identification.

    • “Even with the polling unit records presented by the petitioners, Okpebholo still has a clear lead… This petition is a mere academic exercise. It is frivolous, baseless, unwarranted, irritating, and lacking in merit. I urge My Lords to dismiss it.”

    • Chief Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), APC’s Counsel, said: “As per Supreme Court rulings, proving non-compliance requires detailed evidence from polling unit to polling unit, ward to ward, and local government to local government… The petitioners simply dumped documents on the tribunal, instead of proving them.

    • The petitioners called only five polling unit agents out of over 4,000 polling units in Edo State, and did not call a single presiding officer for their hearsay evidence… It is clear that the case of the petitioners was not proven. I urge My Lordships to dismiss the petition.”

    A day after the September 21, 2024, election, the INEC declared Okpebholo (APC, Edo Central) as the winner, having polled 291,667 votes (51.1%) to defeat Ighodalo, a Lagos-based Lawyer and business tycoon, who got 247,274 votes (43.3%).

    Dissatisfied with the outcome, the petitioners approached the tribunal, alleging, among others, over-voting, non-serialisation of electoral materials and INEC’s suppression, falsification and alteration of results across 765 polling units in Edo State, which reportedly deprived Ighodalo victory and the governorship.

    In the petition, Ighodalo and the PDP appeared as 1st and 2nd Petitioners, while the INEC, Okpebholo and the APC were the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, respectively, with the disputants representated by many election petition-tested Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) and junior legal practitioners.

    The tribunal, which sat at the National Judicial Institute (NJI), Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, began its pre-hearing on January 13, and the hearing proper on January 24, 2025, in Benin City, Edo State capital city, before relocating sitting to Abuja on January 28 over alleged security threats posed by armed political thugs.

    During the proceedings, which lasted till February 13, the petitioners tendered copious exhibits, pre-loaded and/or presented through the bar; 153 BVAS machines used in 133 of the 765 disputed polling units; and called 19 of 99 witnesses, and closed their case on February 3.

    While the 1st respondent (INEC) didn’t present any of the five witnesses it’d pledged, and closed its case on February 6; and the 2nd respondent (Okpebholo) called one of his six witnesses and closed his case on February 10; the 3rd respondent (APC) called four of 28 witnesses, and closed its defence on February 13.

    At this juncture, it bears repeating the immortal words of Muhammad JSC, in Olonade vs Sowemimo (2014) LPELR-22914(SC), 27 – in explaining the meaning of the standard of proof in civil cases, (and) the balance of probabilities – that:

    “The court decides which side’s evidence is heavier, not by the number of witnesses called by either party or on the basis of the one being oral and the other being documentary, but by the quality or probative value of the evidence be it oral and/or documentary.”

    Were the parties to the electoral dispute, especially Ighodalo and the PDP, able to meet the Supreme Court benchmark, as per Justice Muhammad? Definitely, yes by the respondents; but absolutely no, on the part of the petitioners, prompting Justice Kpochi, who, delivered the lead judgment, to declare that the tribunal “found no reason to nullify the outcome of the election” (as prayed by the petitioners), and dismissed the petition as “lacking in merit.”

    The tribunal had hardly delivered the judgment when Dr Ighodalo (and PDP) signalled his intention to head to the Appeal Court, to challenge the confirmation of Senator Okpebholo as Governor of Edo State.

    It’s Ighodalo’s right to appeal the tribunal verdict, going by the Latin legal maxim, “ubi jus ibi remedium,” which translates into, “Where there is a right, there is a remedy.” Meaning that if a legal right is violated, the law should provide a means for redress or relief to the aggrieved party.

    Yet, Ighodalo should take heed that it’s the same evidence adduced, the facts presented, and the arguments marshalled at the tribunal that’ll be laid before the Justices of the Appeal Court, and possibly the Justices of the Supreme Court for a final opinion on the matter.

    There’ll be no room for amendments or presentation of fresh or better evidence – as the petitioners attempted but failed at the tribunal – unless in very rare instances, which, nonetheless, will not affect the overall trajectory of the case. So, it’s not looking good proceeding with the appeal. Let’s learn from history!

  • Nnamdi Kanu: The courage to say ‘I’m sorry’ – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Nnamdi Kanu: The courage to say ‘I’m sorry’ – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    To say ‘I’m sorry’ takes a deep, sober introspection of one’s past and present station in life; the burden one carries on their shoulders and head; doing away with the righteous indignation of ‘I did no wrong’; abandoning one’s ego, and summoning the will power and courage to show contrition.

    It’s difficult to admit any wrong, and apologise in private, how much more in public, with all eyes on you: From family members, friends, colleagues, associates, the ethnic nationality, the entire nation, and the global community watching in awe, disbelief, anger and even spite.

    In such circumstances, one can’t escape being accused of compromise, abdication, abandonment, surrender, and betrayal of the cause and struggle promised and pledged to uphold and defend with the last drop of blood, no matter the obstacles placed on the path.

    Apropos, here we’re, talking about Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), who maybe accused by his followers in the agitation for a “Republic of Biafra,” of compromising the cause of his Igbo kit and kin in five states of the South East zone, and in areas with a sizable number of Igbo population.

    Kanu, a Nigerian-British citizen – facing charges bordering on treasonable felony and terrorism allegedly committed against the Government and people of Nigeria – has been in and out of courtrooms, and back to the solitary confinement at the Department of State Services (DSS) facilities in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital city.
    Yet, the IPOB leader – on his long road to being hunted, arrested, detained, and tried in courts – has repeatedly stated, affirmed and declared not to fall victim to those contraries and contradictions; and there’s been no indication or inclination to suggest otherwise.

    Rather, Kanu’s hardened his position as he takes on the authorities as the enemies of his people; chastises some ethnic nationalties as “slaves” and subservient to another born-to-rule ethnic nationality; and characterises Nigeria as a “Zoo” where citizens are marginalised and treated like animals. That “zoo” labelling has gone viral, and parroted by critics to despise Nigeria and its governing authorities.

    Kanu’s also railed against the Judiciary, and the judges presiding over his alleged offences, as corrupt and compromised, and called for their recusal, and reassigning of his case to new judges, who’d sooner suffer same indignities as the previous trial judges.

    Certainly, Kanu’s every reason to be angry at the trial judges, who’ve intermittently adjourned his case, with the minutest of excuses, for months unend, and returned him, again and again, to the DSS holding facilities, instead of a Correctional Centre he’s pleaded for to no avail.

    What’s more, the judges and DSS operatives have imposed restrictions on Kanu’s freedom of speech; allow him access to a limited number of visitors in weeks or months; and display a tendency to denying him medical services even in obviously-severe conditions.

    This has led Kanu to allege that the judges are teleguided by the authorities wanting to hinder a quick resolution of his case, or simply wishing him dead in detention, despite orders of courts quashing his trial, not the least his “extraordinary rendition” from Kenya on June 29, 2022, after he’d bailed from his bail, as soldiers reportedly invaded his Isiama, Afara-Ukwu community of Umuahia, capital city of Abia State, and missed him by the whiskers.

    Besides, the authorities have ignored the pleas by individuals, groups, and the apex Igbo social and cultural organisation, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, to release Kanu, to douse tension; ensure lifting of the IPOB-imposed “sit-at-home” on Mondays that’s virtually grounded the economy of the South East; and stop the rampant blood-letting in the zone by the Eastern Security Network (ESN), the armed wing of the IPOB, and a ghostly band of ‘Unknown Gunmen’ (UGM).

    In his rage against his “enemies,” Kanu hasn’t spared his lawyers, whom he’s disparaged – even in open court – as not properly handling the many continuously-amended count-charges against him, thereby changing the counsel as frequently as one changes clothes.

    But suddenly, and surprisingly on Friday, March 21, 2025, Kanu set aside his confrontational attitude, and “apologised” for his indiscretions towards the Judiciary, judges, government’s lawyers and his own counsel.
    After Kanu dispensed with his prior lawyer, and said he’s going to defend himself going forward, he hired Chief Kanu Agabi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), who conveyed Kanu’s plea for “forgiveness.”

    With a new judge, a new lawyer, amended charges, and starting his trial de novo (afresh) on a seven-count charge, to which he’s pleaded not guilty, Kanu apologised for his outburst at the last court hearing.

    Those Kanu sought their forgiveness include: the Judiciary, particularly the Federal High Court, Abuja, venue of his trial; Justice Binta Nyako, the previous trial judge, with whom he’s had a running battle over sundry issues, and who, on September 24, 2024, removed herself, based on Kanu’s insistence, and adjourned the case indefinitely; and the government prosecutor, and his own lawyers.

    In early March 2025, as reported by The Cable, Kanu’s counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, stated that the trial would start afresh following the appointment of a new judge by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, on March 8. Thus, Kanu’s arraignment on Friday, March 21, came before Justice James Omotosho.

    At resumption of trial, Chief Agabi (SAN), announced himself as Kanu’s new counsel. After Kanu pleaded not guilty to the seven-counts, Agabi told the court that the defence was ready to proceed with the trial. “And for the fact that the case has dragged on for 10 years,” Justice Omotosho granted accelerated hearing, and adjourned to April 29, May 2 and 6 for trial.

    However, Agabi had a formal apology to make, which he read out, asking the offended to forgive Kanu for his attacks against them in the open court, “as the outburst stemmed from his protracted trial.”
    Agabi’s words: “In expressing his anger, he (Kanu) attacked the federal high court, he attacked Justice Binta Nyako, he attacked the prosecutor and his own lawyers.

    “I hereby apologise to Justice Binta Nyako. She did not deserve the unjust attack. I apologise to Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN). He deserves highest respect. He was castigated without reservations.
    “I appeal for forgiveness. Kanu is a good man but all of us cannot be of one mind. He is not perfect but is defending the cause of Igbo people who are resilient, fearless and using their God-given talents to give good account of themselves.

    “We may have misgivings but we must seek forgiveness. In resolving our differences, let us employ peace and not violence to resolve our differences.”

    In response, Awomolo said he’s moved by the plea and had forgiven Kanu for all he said against him. “I’m not a persecutor but prosecutor,” Awomolo said, adding, “I will work to ensure quick resolution of the charges (against Kanu).”

    Now, the big questions: Is this the beginning of a new chapter, and a new approach by Nnamdi Kanu to handling his decade-long brushes with the authorities, and his case bothering on treasonable felony and terrorism?

    Is this the end of an altercative and bellicose attitude in and outside the courtrooms that hasn’t helped Kanu’s cause? Will the courts take judicial notice of a “changed” Kanu, and ensure an accelerated and unbiased prosecution of his case?

    Will the Government, appearing to want to take a pound of flesh from Kanu for his derring-do stoking of another secession attempt – after the failed “Republic of Biafra” and the resultant Nigerian Civil War (1967-1970) – take a clementine (merciful) view of a “new” Kanu, and consider a political rather than a judicial solution to douse tension, especially in the South East, whose leaders have been practically on their knees for Kanu’s freedom?

    And will Kanu go a step further, free himself of a deep-seated hubris that’s eaten into his psyche, and “appease” the powers that be, not to ingratiate them, but for the sake of millions of his people suffering a similar “incarceration” of their whole being outside the DSS gulag?

    If Nnamdi Kanu maintains and sustains his latest posturing, the auguries look good for his trial set for April 29, May 2 and 6 for commencement, and hopefully his release from detention. Let all sides strive for justice in the consideration and disposal of his case!

  • Edo guber dispute: Parties adopt written addresses, await crucial judicial verdict – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Edo guber dispute: Parties adopt written addresses, await crucial judicial verdict – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    As the three-man Election Petitions Tribunal (EPT) reserved judgment in the petitions against the declaration of Senator Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as winner of the September 21, 2024, governorship election in Edo State, we’re reminded, as per Muhammad JSC, in Olonade vs Sowemimo (2014) LPELR-22914(SC), 27 – in explaining the meaning of the standard of proof in civil cases, (and) the balance of probabilities – that:

    “The court decides which side’s evidence is heavier, not by the number of witnesses called by either party or on the basis of the one being oral and the other being documentary, but by the quality or probative value of the evidence be it oral and/or documentary.”

    Were the parties to the electoral dispute, especially the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), whose candidate, Dr Asue Ighodalo, came second at the poll, able to meet the Supreme Court benchmark referenced by Justice Muhammad? The people of Edo State and Nigerians in general wait anxiously and expectantly for the tribunal to answer that poser in its crucial judicial pronouncement.

    While Dr Ighodalo and the PDP are the 1st and 2nd Petitioners, accordingly; the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Governor Okpebholo and the APC are the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, respectively, with the disputants representated by many election petition-tested Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) and junior legal practitioners.

    On Monday, March 3, 2025, Justices Wilfred Kpochi (Chairman), A.B. Yusuf and A.A. Adewole, presided over the tribunal’s concluding proceeding for adoption of the final written addresses by parties to the dispute, which centres on the petition marked, EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, filed by Ighodalo and the PDP.

    The tribunal, which sits at the National Judicial Institute (NJI), Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, granted the Respondents 15 minutes each to defend their final written addresses, while the Petitioners were given 30 minutes to argue their case “in what became a heated legal battle.” Thereafter, the tribunal reserved judgment to a future date to be communicated to the Petitioners and Respondents.

    The following quotes summarise the presentations of counsel for the Respondents and Petitioners, and how the tribunal arrived at the adoption of the final written addresses:

    • Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), INEC’s Counsel:
    “The petitioners are asking to be declared winners despite simultaneously arguing that the election was invalid — two conflicting positions… Your Lordships cannot declare the petitioners as winners of the election on the grounds of their arguments that it is invalid… “Your Lordships cannot annul the election because that is not a relief that they (petitioners) sought.

    “The case of the petitioners was founded on analyses undertaken by consultants… The petitioners have not pleaded alternative results on the basis of which they can be declared the winners… The petitioners have not tendered the results they challenged… The ground of non-compliance raised by petitioners is not accompanied by consequential reliefs.

    “The number of polling unit agents (five) the petitioners called as witnesses represented a negligible number of the polling units (765) the petitioners challenged from the entire polling units (4,519) in Edo State… The polling unit agents all signed the result sheets, a clear sign that the election was organised in accordance with the law… The witnesses did not distinguish between what they heard and what they saw… They failed to prove over-voting.

    “The petition is incompetent, as it does not seek the annulment of the entire election. The grounds (for the petition) are inconsistent with one another and inconsistent with themselves. It renders them defective. On the basis of these, I urge My Lordships to dismiss the petition.”

    • Dr Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), Governor Okpebholo’s Counsel:
    “The Supreme Court has ruled that proving over-voting requires the Bimodal Verification Authentication System (BVAS) machines. Since the petitioners failed to present BVAS data, their claim of over-voting was unsubstantiated… The petitioners had not provided crucial evidence such as Form EC25D, which records ballot paper serial numbers… Instead, they relied on Form EC25B, which merely documents the quantity of election materials received and returned.

    “The petitioners tendered sensitive material exhibits with missing parts, contrary to the serial numbers they carry for identification, and tendering BVAS machines without opening any of them to prove their allegation of over-voting… Even with the polling unit records presented by the petitioners, Okpebholo still has a clear lead… This petition is a mere academic exercise. It is frivolous, baseless, unwarranted, irritating, and lacking in merit. I urge My Lords to dismiss it.”

    • Chief Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), APC’s Counsel:
    “As per Supreme Court rulings, proving non-compliance requires detailed evidence from polling unit to polling unit, ward to ward, and local government to local government… The petitioners simply dumped documents on the tribunal, instead of proving them, after calling only five polling unit agents out of over 4,000 polling units in Edo State, and calling no single presiding officer for their hearsay evidence… (Citing Ucha vs Elechi and Baba vs INEC, as the position of the law in spite of Section 137 of the Electoral Act, Ukala said)… It is clear that the case of the petitioners was not proven. I urge My Lordships to dismiss the petition.”

    • Mr Ken Mozia (SAN), PDP/Ighodalo’s Counsel:
    “Of the 4,519 polling units in Edo State, irregularities were identified in 765 — enough to invalidate the election results… The PDP, in its petition, only challenged 765 polling units with complaints of multiple incidents of over-voting, non-serialisation of ballots, and incorrect computation of results, which altered the victory of Dr. Asue Ighodalo.

    “The 2nd respondent (INEC) failed to tender any alternative result sheet nor plead any alternative forms EC25B to challenge or contradict PDP’s CTC documentary evidence of rigging across the disputed 765 polling units in the State… All the documents we tendered were duly certified by INEC, and they were admitted without objection by the maker (INEC).

    “The Supreme Court decisions in Uzodinma vs Ihedioha; Kennedy vs INEC; Johnson vs INEC; and Lawal vs Matawalle, etc., established that there must be prior recording of sensitive election materials in forms EC25B, which INEC failed to comply with in some polling units.

    “The law does not require petitioners to challenge results in every polling unit or submit alternative results… All tendered documents were certified by INEC and admitted without objection… Polling unit agents need not testify, as the disputed collation occurred at ward and local government collation centres, where polling unit agents were not present.

    “The petitioners disagreed with collation at ward and local government levels… I plead with the tribunal to holistically consider the petition on several grounds for cumulative effects… Isolating grounds and submitting that such grounds, when taken alone, will not have the cumulative effects that were prayed, and adopting that it is academic, is not true.

    “The iRev results that the petitioners have tendered, no party had impugned the results… The Supreme Court in Austin vs INEC, Kennedy vs INEC and Isah & Another vs INEC & Others, has affirmed that results uploaded to INEC’s IReV portal are credible… We urge My Lordships to grant this petition.”

    PDP/Ighodalo and five other political parties (six initially but one withdrew midway) have queried the declaration by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) that Okpebholo (APC, Edo Central) won the election, with 291,667 votes (about 51.1%) to defeat Ighodalo, a Lagos-based Lawyer and business tycoon, who polled 247,274 votes (about 43.3%).

    Specifically, PDP/Ighodalo filed petitions at the tribunal, alleging, among others, multiple incidents of over-voting, non-serialisation of electoral materials and INEC’s suppression, falsification and alteration of results across 765 polling units in Edo State, which reportedly deprived Ighodalo victory and the governorship.

    The tribunal, which began its pre-hearing on January 13, and the hearing proper on January 24, 2025, in Benin City, Edo State capital city, relocated sitting to the FCT, Abuja, on January 28 over alleged security threats posed by armed political thugs.

    During the proceedings, PDP/Ighodalo presented 19 of 99 witnesses to testify for them, and they spoke to their statements on oath, and the evidence presented as a true reflection of the poll in favour of the Petitioners, and called for justice to be done. The Petitioners closed their case on February 3.

    While the 1st Respondent (INEC) didn’t present any of the five witnesses it’d pledged, and closed its case on February 6; and the 2nd Respondent (Okpebholo) called one of his six witnesses and closed his case on February 10; the 3rd Respondent (APC) called four of 28 witnesses to testify for it before closing its defence on February 13.

    Prior to ending the hearing, a mild drama ensued, as a counsel for the Respondents (INEC, Okpebholo and APC), Chief Ferdinard Orbih (SAN), explained APC’s closure of its defence without calling the pledged 24 additional witnesses, even as he expressed confidence in the strong legal defence mounted for the poll victory of Governor Okpebholo.

    Orbih said: “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 Respondents’ application to close their case, Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN) for the Petitioners, noted, with a jab, the surprising “abandonment” of the 3rd Respondent’s scheduled 28 witnesses after calling just four of them.

    “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.

    But Orbih replied Oyeyipo’s poking: “My Lord, I’m still on the point of fact. When they (Petitioners) 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.”

    With no objections from the other Respondents (INEC and Okpebholo), Justice Kpochi – despite pleadings by the Respondents and Plaintiffs for more days to prepare their written addresses – stood his ground and closed the defence of the 3rd Respondent (APC).

    The judge, however, acceded to seven days for the Respondents, five days for the Petitioners and extra three days each to file their written addresses, which began counting on Friday, February 14, and adjourned the tribunal to Monday, March 3, for the adoption of the final written addresses. That ritual was concluded, as scheduled, and the tribunal adjourned for judgment on a date to be communicated to the Respondents and Petitioners.

    To witness the final legal fireworks were chieftains of the Edo State chapters of the PDP and APC. Among the PDP topshots were the party candidate, Dr Ighodalo, the Edo Chairman, Dr Anthony Aziegbemin, former Senator Clifford Odia (Edo Central), and Rt Hon. Friday Itulah, former Speaker of the Edo Assembly and ex-Member of the House of Representatives.

    On the APC side were former Edo State Governor and Senator for Edo North, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole, former Deputy Governor Philip Shaibu, and twice Governorship Candidate, Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu.

    Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN); Ken Mozia (SAN); Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN); Rotimi Oguneso (SAN); Larry Selekowei (SAN); A. T. Kehinde (SAN); A. K. Ajibade (SAN); Oluwole Iyamu (SAN); Oluseyi Jolaawo (SAN) and others pleaded the Petitioners’ case.

    Kanu Agabi (SAN); A. M. Aliu (SAN); E. M. Inuwa (SAN); Alhassan Umar (SAN); M. T. Abubakar (SAN); and others appeared for the 1st Respondent, INEC.

    Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN); Chief Offiong E. Offiong (SAN); Festus Kayode (SAN); Tobechukwu Nweke; Dr. Ike Chude; Edward Ireluwe; Lydia Oluwakemi; Linda Chuba-Ikpeazu and others appeared for the 2nd Respondent, Okpebholo.

    Emmanuel Ukala (SAN); E. C. Denwigwe (SAN); Chief Ferdinand Orbih (SAN); J. O. Asoluka (SAN); Echezona Etiaba (SAN); Henry Bello (SAN) and others represented the 3rd Respondent, the APC.

    As the political fate of Governor Monday Okpebholo and Dr Asue Ighodalo rests in the hands of the tribunal, may the judges dispense justice with the wisdom of Solomon and the firmness of Daniel, according to the dictates of the electoral laws and the probative value of the evidence adduced by the parties to the dispute

    (Credit: Sebastine Ebhuomhan, award-winning journalist from Edo State, reporting for Popular News (March 3); Theconclaveng (March 3, 2025); The National Update (March 3, 2025); and The Standard Gazette (March 4, 2025).

  • 2027 poll: El-Rufai slices, dices Tinubu, Ribadu, Sani (1) – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    2027 poll: El-Rufai slices, dices Tinubu, Ribadu, Sani (1) – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Chief Edwin Kiagbodo Clark, elder statesman, former Federal Commissioner, Leader of the Ijaw Nation, and Pan-Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF), died on Monday, February 17, 2025, aged 97. Since his passing, the family home in Abuja, Nigeria’s Federal Capital Territory (FCT), has become a melting port for “our leaders” to sympathise with the bereaved.

    What such a solemn occasion demands of the visitors is an expression of genuine sympathy and empathy mostly for the demised’s family members, friends and associates, the people of their tribal and ethnic nationality, State of origin and the entire country.

    This is done amid reminiscences of the life and times of the departed, especially a personality of Clark’s standing, an unpretentious patriot and nationalist, whose voice of reasoning and moderation on issues of equity, fairness, justice, and national cohesion rang loudly till he breathed his last on earth.

    Politicians – individually and severally – have been queueing to show their faces and pay last respects to the Patriarch of the Niger Delta. Friday, February 21, was “the turn” of a coterie of opposition members to pay a “condolence visit” to the Clark family.

    Peopled mainly by Northern politicians, and led by former Vice President and thrice Presidential Candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the group postures for a political platform for an alliance, a coalition or a merger that can remove the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and President Bola Tinubu from power in 2027.

    It’s debatable whether it’s Atiku that led the “condolence visitors,” but among the delegation was the new “enfant terrible” (a person who behaves in an unconventional or controversial way) of Northern politics, Mallam Nasir el-Rufai, former Kaduna State Governor (2015-2023) and ex-Minister of the FCT.

    El-Rufai boasts of rallying, for the 2027 poll, a similar opposition movement that transformed into the APC in February 2013, and defeated then-ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and President Goodluck Jonathan in 2015.

    Imbued with such a self-imposed responsibility, el-Rufai, at the condolence visit, veered into the politics of 2027 presidential contest, and craved for a North-South-South alignment to “rescue Nigeria” from the Tinubu administration.

    El-Rufai urged the people of Niger Delta to continue with the good work of Pa Clark, noting that he really played a fatherly role throughout his lifetime. “I think the legacy of E.K. Clark and the work he has done should remind us all of the importance of being courageous, standing up for justice and risking everything for Nigeria,” el-Rufai said.

    Reflecting on the historical bond between the North and South-South, and imploring political stakeholders to restore that collaboration for the nation’s survival, el-Rufai declared: “In the 60s, 70s, and 80s, the North’s traditional political partners were from the South-South. Let us not forget that. Let us go back to that. Let us save this country because it really requires saving. We need a rescue operation.”

    As a pointer to whose trumpet the group blows, el-Rufai praised Atiku for his contributions to Nigeria’s economic development, particularly during his tenure as Vice President under President Olusegun Obasanjo (1999 to 2007).

    “Atiku was at the forefront of economic reforms that repositioned Nigeria during the Obasanjo administration,” el-Rufai said, adding, “Atiku’s role in attracting investment and restructuring the economy was crucial” – implying that an Atiku presidency will replicate what he did in government over two decades ago.

    El-Rufai’s solicitation reveals the actual purpose for the opposition visit to the Clark family: To capitalise on the emotional state of the bereaved, to score political points, and backing for a Northern presidency in 2027, unmindful of the zoning of the Presidency between the North and South of Nigeria every eight years.

    Embarking on an anti-Tinubu campaign, that the president hasn’t performed, and should be replaced in 2027, el-Rufai and his Northern colleagues make nothing of the zoning arrangement between the North and South that ensures equitable representation in a diverse society as Nigeria.

    For them, that “arrangement” was blatantly “breached” in 2011 when President Jonathan and the PDP refused the North to pick a Northerner to complete the “eight-year tenure” of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, who died in 2010.

    Then-Vice President Jonathan from the South (and South-South) stepped in to complete the barely one-year remaining of Yar’Adua’s first term in office, and was supposed to pave the way for a Northerner to round-off the last four years of the Yar’Adua presidency. But Dr Jonathan refused to step down or step aside; and egged on by cheerleaders, he’s “coronated” as the PDP candidate, and subsequently won the presidential poll in 2011.

    If Northerners were mollified in 2011 to allow Jonathan to “usurp” the remaining four years of the Yar’Adua presidency, they didn’t condone a similar antic in 2015 when Jonathan wanted a “Third Term” – as critics put it, taking cognizance of his being sworn-in twice in 2010 (to succeed Yar’Adua) and 2011.

    Jonathan discountenanced his Oath of Office in 2010, whereas the amended 1999 Constitution of Nigeria states that, upon the resignation, removal or death of the President, the Vice President shall assume the position, to complete the term (not tenure), and could seek a second term if he hadn’t been sworn-in twice as President.

    Not surprising, Jonathan faced stiff opposition from within the PDP, especially in the North, during the 2015 election, to the extent that the party leadership in the region, and members of his campaign council sold out and betrayed him on Election Day.

    For instance, Atiku – who’d defected to, and run for President under then-Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) in 2007, and returned to the PDP before the 2011 election – led five PDP governors to walk out of the National Convention in 2014, and formed a factional New Peoples Democratic Party (nPDP), which later dissolved into the APC, to wrest power from the PDP and Jonathan in 2015.

    On the APC side as the main opposition, el-Rufai was a major actor in the scotched-earth campaign that prevented Jonathan from being re-elected in 2015. Going personal (as he does currently) el-Rufai, on November 9, 2013, reportedly tweeted a photo of Jonathan praying, and wrote: “The many prayers of the lazy, docile, incompetent, clueless, hopeless, useless leader.”

    That’s the kind of scenario el-Rufai and his new opposition soulmates contemplate for 2027, with consultations ongoing across the country, and members gracing all sorts of gatherings, including visits for condolences, such as they undertook to the Clark family home in Abuja.

    During the visit, el-Rufai, acting like a magician performing advanced tricks, switched from condolence to politics of 2027, for a Northerner to supplant President Tinubu, who holds a Southern ticket that Chief Clark joined in fighting for in 2023, even as he wasn’t supportive of Tinubu’s candidacy.

    Clark, though, had extolled Tinubu for some of his bold initiatives, such as the construction of the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway; renewed efforts to clean-up the Ogoniland of oil polution; establishment of a University of Environment and Technology in Ogoni; and decentralisation of the Nigerian College of Aviation Technology to the six geopolitical zones of the country.

    These projects, which favour both Ijawland and the Niger Delta, represent a subtle restructuring of Nigeria, which Chief Clark and like-minded Southern and Middle Belt leaders had advocated for decades, but opposed by the core North, whose agenda el-Rufai, Atiku and others are propagating for 2027.

    In an open letter to Tinubu on March 20, 2024, which raised some issues relating to infrastructural development of the Niger Delta, and the country at large, Clark commended the President for the coastal highway, stating that when completed, it’d change Nigeria’s landscape.

    Clark’s words: “I congratulate you (Tinubu), your Minister of Works and former Governor of Ebonyi State, His Excellency, David Umahi, for the recent award of the coastal road, which will stretch from Lagos State down to Calabar, Cross River State.

    “This is a landmark project, which if completed, will change the landscape of infrastructural development in Nigeria… I assure you, Mr President, that we will not only endorse this project but will fully extend our support, to ensure its completion, especially at the areas of the Niger Delta where it will pass through. I want to assure you that on such a noble effort, you can count on my support and that of the entire people of the South-South.”

    Surely, el-Rufai and company addressed the wrong message to the wrong audience at their visit to the Clark family. Perhaps, were the protocols of such a solemn and sober occasion to permit, the family members would’ve responded in a way that el-Rufai and his group won’t forget in a hurry in their 2027 kite-flying!

    In any case, has el-Rufai forgotten that Jonathan is from the South-South? Or does his group want to atone for the North’s “conspiracy” against him in 2015, by “offering” him another shot at the Presidency, which Tinubu’s likely to recontest in 2027?

    That’ll be a deft and clever calculation by el-Rufai and his Northern campaigners: Set a Southern challenger against a President from the South, thus paving the way for a Northerner to emerge as President in 2027!

    It’s left to be seen if Jonathan will fall for this gambit, and soil his towering and soaring reputation as a beacon and the face of “true democracy,” not only in Nigeria, but also across Africa and the global community.

     

    Mr Ezomon, Journalist and Media Consultant, writes from Lagos, Nigeria. Can be reached on X, Threads, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp @EhichioyaEzomon. Tel: 08033078357.

  • Edo guber dispute: Social media partisan reporting shapes narrative – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Edo guber dispute: Social media partisan reporting shapes narrative – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    In a week’s time, on Monday, March 3, 2025, the three-man Election Petitions Tribunal (EPT) looking into alleged malpractice at the September 21, 2024, governorship election in Edo State, will preside over the adoption of written addresses by Petitioners and Respondents to the dispute.

    At the close of the hearing proper on February 13, the Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Wilfred Kpochi (with him Justices A.B. Yusuf and A.A. Adewole), gave seven days to the Respondents, and five days to the Plaintiffs to write their addresses, and extra three days each to file their written addresses, for adoption on March 3. The days started counting from Friday, February 14.

    The tribunal – which began hearing on January 21, and closed its sitting on January 24 in Benin City, Edo State capital city, over reported security reasons, and relocated to Abuja on January 28 – considers petitions filed by seven political parties against the declaration of Senator Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as winner of the governorship.

    In the results declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on September 22, 2024, Okpebholo (APC, Edo Central) scored 291,667 votes (about 51.1%) to defeat the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Dr Asue Ighodalo (a Lagos-based Lawyer and business magnate), who polled 247,274 votes (about 43.3%).

    The PDP, however, claims that those figures were manipulated against Ighodalo, arguing that barring alleged massive anomalies at the poll, Ighodalo defeated Okpebholo, and should be declared as Governor of Edo State.

    So, the public focus is on PDP/Ighodalo, who, in their petition, marked, EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, allege irregularities in 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.

    Meanwhile, coming from the tribunal is somewhat out-of-place reporting – well, is there anything like that – on social media that’s at best sensational, and at worst partisan, slanted to indicate that APC/Okpebholo are no hopers, regarding the tons of documentary evidence presented by PDP/Ighodalo, and testified to by their witnesses as a true reflection of the poll.

    From the onset of the hearing, social media reports have talked about: “Stunning and explosive revelations… quantum of evidence tendered so far… proceedings intensifying political tension in Edo State… palpable fear in the APC leadership… Oshiomhole storms out in fury… revelations stir intense reactions, and shockwaves in the APC camp… analysts describe allegations as a potential game-changer… all not well with the Edo State APC… Governor Okpebholo feeling the heat… as Ighodalo gains ground… APC leaders hold frantic meetings at Government House… to stem onslaught against the party at the Tribunal.”

    Thus, from January 21 to February 13 – the period covered herein (with a bit of lull from Monday, February 3 after the Plaintiffs closed their case) – the bombastic headlines, and the lead paragraphs or parts thereof were an obviously-partisan reporting for PDP/Ighodalo. Check below:

    • ‘Breaking: 2,840 PDP votes unlawfully excluded by INEC, witness testifies’ (January 21, 2025) • ‘Edo Tribunal: APC weighs options as tribunal continues to receive massive evidence of electoral fraud’ (January 21, 2025) • ‘APC lawyers cut short cross-examination as PDP’s witness exposes rigging in Okpebholo’s LGA’ (January 23, 2025) • ‘Esan North East collation agent narrates how INEC officials altered polling unit results for APC’ (January 23, 2025).

    • ‘Edo Gov Poll: Tribunal berates PDP for failure to produce witnesses, as PDP queries 765 of 4,519 polling units in Edo State’ (January 28, 2025) • ‘PDP witness stuns tribunal with explosive testimony, Oshiomhole storms out in fury as Ighodalo gains ground’ (January 31, 2025) • ‘Edo Tribunal: Fear of INEC’s BVAS grips Okpebholo, Oshiomhole’ (February 1, 2025) • ‘Edo Tribunal: Expert witness demolishes APC, Governor Okpebholo as tribunal resumes in Abuja’.

    • ‘Witness proves with mathematical accuracy that Asue Ighodalo won the election by total number of valid votes cast’ • ‘Under cross-examination, witness establishes evidence of over-voting, non-serialisation and incorrect computation of scores by INEC.’ • ‘Edo Election Petition Tribunal: APC closes defence amid over-voting admissions, widespread non-compliance with Electoral Act (February 13, 2025).

    Now, let’s sample a full reporting on social media on the tribunal proceedings that’s unabashedly, sensational, partisan, unnuanced and unbalanced, reflecting only one side to the electoral dispute, as follows:

    “Over the week, it has been a floodgate of expositions of electoral fraud at the tribunal. On 21st January, a PDP witness and LGA collation agent revealed and tendered copious evidence on how INEC unlawfully excluded a total of 2,840 votes scored by the PDP candidate, Dr. Asue Ighodalo, in 76 polling units (PUs) in Ward 2, Ikpoba Okha LGA.

    “Similarly, the LGA collation agent for Akoko Edo LGA disclosed that there was over-voting in 8 polling units, as INEC BVAS report of accreditation and other certified documents showed clearly that the total number of votes cast and declared by INEC in result sheets Forms EC8A are in excess of the total accreditation figures captured by BVAS in 8 polling units in Akoko Edo LGA.

    “In the same vein, the LGA collation agent for Owan West LGA led documentary evidence in proof to show how INEC breached its own Manual and Guidelines, including the Electoral Act 2022, by their failure and inability to record serial numbers and particulars of all sensitive materials deployed for the guber election in seven (7) polling units in Owan West LGA.
    “The failure of INEC to record the serial numbers and other particulars of result sheets, as shown through forms EC25B and EC40A, renders the election in the affected polling units invalid, for failure to comply with the requirement of prior recording.
    “Fresh facts emanating from proceedings have now laid bare more reasons why the APC was desperate to prevent PDP witnesses to testify at the Tribunal with their evidence. This is as it has been shown clearly that Deputy Governor Dennis Idahosa only won his ward through fraudulent means.

    “During his testimony at the Tribunal, the LGA collation agent for Ovia South West LGA, relying on INEC certified CTC copies of result sheets Form EC8A-C in the area, original IReV results, CTCs of BVAS accreditation report, among other document extracts, was able to show that the total number of votes cast far exceeded the total number of accredited voters in many polling units in Idahosa’s Ward 2 and Ovia South West LGA. The Electoral Act states clearly that any unit where over-voting is established will be cancelled.

    “These developments and the quantum of evidence tendered so far have struck palpable fear such that APC leaders are now holding frantic meetings at Government House, to find a way forward to stem the onslaught against the APC at the Tribunal.

    “Apparently, all efforts by APC chairman and its leadership to intimidate and prevent witnesses from testifying and the evidence from being tendered have proved abortive, hence the sense of despair within the fold.

    “As the proceedings continue, with Edo people and Nigerians at large watching with keen interest, it is clear that thuggery and brigandage can never take the place of solid evidence which is now unravelling before the court.”

    And now, let’s sample a counter-reporting – not on social media but based on the same tribunal proceedings – that’s not wholesale sensational, partisan and one-sided, but nuanced and balanced, reflecting both sides to the electoral dispute, as follows:

    “On Tuesday, January 21, at the resumed hearing of PDP/Ighodalo’s petition, the PDP collation agent for Ikpoba Okha Local Government Area (LGA) in Edo South senatorial district, who appeared as first Prosecution Witness (PW1), alleged that INEC unlawfully excluded 2,840 votes scored by Ighodalo in 76 polling units in Ward 2 of Ikpoba Okha.

    “To substantiate claims of deliberate vote exclusion, the witness submitted Certified True Copies (CTCs) of result sheets obtained from INEC’s IReV portal and duplicate copies of Form EC8A issued to polling unit agents, stating that, ‘The results from 76 polling units in Ward 2, Ikpoba Okha LGA, were duly declared and uploaded on IReV but were unlawfully excluded by INEC at the LGA and state collation levels.’

    “The witness, who explained that he examined duplicates provided to polling agents and verified the scores with INEC’s CTCs, noted that the ‘manipulation of the process’ deprived the PDP of rightful votes during collation for Forms EC8B, EC8C, and EC8D.

    “Cross-examined by Kanu Agabi (SAN), counsel for the Respondents, the witness maintained his position, emphasised his active role as a collation agent, and tendered his identification tags, BVAS accreditation records, and IReV-certified documents, as exhibits, to support his testimony.

    “Similarly on the same day, PDP’s second Prosecution Witness (PW2), who served as the collation agent for Akoko Edo Local Government Area of Edo North, cast doubt on the credibility of results declared in the LGA, alleging incorrect vote collation in favour of the APC in 48 polling units in Wards 4 and 9 of the LGA.

    “Stating that evidence of over-voting in eight polling units showed that votes declared by INEC exceeded BVAS-accredited figures, the witness added that, ‘5,724 votes were overstated for the APC, while 2,171 votes were unjustly deducted from the PDP’ – indicating that the results declared by INEC on Forms EC8A ‘were significantly higher than accreditation figures in 8 polling units.’

    “Besides, the witness claimed that INEC failed to record mandatory details, ‘including serial numbers of sensitive materials and BVAS machines, in 17 polling units,’ arguing that this oversight ‘rendered the results from these units null and void under the Electoral Act 2022 (as amended).’

    “Cross-examined, the witness maintained his role as the collation agent, affirmed his thorough review of INEC’s documents, including Results Forms EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, and EC8D, stood by his assertion that ‘the discrepancies in results were glaring,’ and demanded accountability.

    “Despite strong objections from counsel to the Respondents, including Kanu Agabi (SAN) and Oyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), the tribunal, as it did after the testimony by PW1, admitted all documentary evidence by PW2, marking them as Exhibits Pn 1-46, and adjourned sitting to the next day (Wednesday, January 22, 2025).”

    In summary, socical media reporting of the main proceedings, which the three-man tribunal closed on Thursday, February 13, was salaciously-slanted, portraying PDP/Ighodalo to’ve rubbished and made a mincemeat of INEC’s declaration of Okpebholo as the poll winner, thus shaping such a narrative in the polity.

    On that account, it bears repeating that, if election petitions – and elections – are won on social media, PDP/Ighodalo would’ve breasted the tape even before filing their petition at the Election Petitions Tribunal!

  • Edo guber tribunal: All eyes on Okpebholo as PDP, Ighodalo, INEC unexpectedly close cases – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Edo guber tribunal: All eyes on Okpebholo as PDP, Ighodalo, INEC unexpectedly close cases – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Today, Monday, February 10, 2025, is the first D-Day for Governor Monday Okpehbolo at the Election Petitions Tribunal (EPT) sitting in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) of Nigeria. The ex-Senator (APC, Edo Central) is expected to begin defence of his declaration by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the winner of the September 21, 2024, governorship election in Edo State.

    Members of the public, especially the people of Edo State, are watching and waiting with bated breath, to see whether Okpebholo will toe the INEC line and close his defence without calling any witnesses to testify for him.

    The INEC – which declared Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the poll winner, having scored 291,667 votes (about 51.1%) – failed to call any of the five witnesses it slated to testify, despite persuading the three-man tribunal on January 5 to adjourn the case to January 6, as “the witnesses would come to Abuja from Benin,” Edo State capital city.

    At the resumed proceeding on January 6, INEC’s lead counsel, Kanu Agabi (SAN), said 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,” Agabi told the tribunal.

    Counsel for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Dr Asue Ighodalo, didn’t express surprise by the turn of events, with Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN) saying, matter-of-factly, 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.”

    But in an undisguised elation, the PDP unsolicitedly offered expert’s opinion, pointing to the risk INEC’s failure to call witnesses poses for the Respondents. “This abrupt end to INEC’s defence leaves the electoral body relying solely on cross-examinations and arguments from APC and Okpebholo’s lawyers,” the party said.

    The PDP, however, noted its pathway to claiming its “stolen mandate,” explaining that, “The tribunal has already admitted critical BVAS machines into evidence, devices that will expose over-voting and discrepancies in the declared results.”

    The party added: “Testimonies from PDP witnesses, including local government agents and an expert witness (PW12), detailed systemic manipulation during result collation. Independent monitors, such as Athena Centre and TAP Initiative, have corroborated these claims, further denting INEC’s credibility.

    “By opting not to call witnesses, INEC appears to be taking a gamble, leaving its defence in the hands of APC and Governor Okpebholo’s legal teams. Analysts suggest this approach could backfire, as INEC must now contend with its own certified records and the BVAS data, which clearly contradict the declared results,” the party added.

    Yet, PDP/Ighodalo had similarly suddenly closed their case on Monday, February 3, after calling 19 witnesses to testify to their claim of winning the governorship poll, though Ighodalo, going by INEC’s declaration, scored 247,274 votes (about 43.3%) to place second to Okpebholo.

    It’s uncertain how many of the 290 witnesses – earmarked to testify for the eight political parties appearing before the tribunal – belonged to PDP/Ighodalo. But as the main challengers of the poll, surely, hundreds were primed to testify for them!

    Recall that the tribunal had adjourned in Benin City on Friday, January 24, after taking the testimonies of PW11 and PW12, and relocated sitting to Abuja on Tuesday, January 28, with the Plaintiffs expected to call more witnesses, some of who refused to show up to testify the previous week.

    But alas on Monday, January 3, a counsel for the Plaintiffs, Robert Emukpoeruo (SAN), offering no rationale, told the tribunal that his clients had concluded their case (in just 10 days), having called 19 witnesses, thus dampening the proceedings that’d captured public attention since the hearing proper began on January 21.

    Left to guess the ‘whys’ and ‘hows’ of the Plaintiffs’ action, several questions then arose: If PDP/Ighodalo called only 19 witnesses, did they cover the 765 of the 4,519 polling units, whose votes they query in their petition? Did the 19 witnesses supply and adduce enough evidence that rendered calling more witnesses unnecessary?

    We’re reminded, though, as per Muhammad JSC, in Olonade v Sowemimo (2014) LPELR-22914(SC), 27 – in explaining the meaning of the standard of proof in civil cases, (and) the balance of probabilities – that:

    “The court decides which side’s evidence is heavier, not by the number of witnesses called by either party or on the basis of the one being oral and the other being documentary, but by the quality or probative value of the evidence be it oral and/or documentary.”

    So, in deciding to close their case after calling 19 witnesses, did PDP/Ighodalo think they’d met the legal threshold set out above, to prove their allegations of manipulation of the election?

    “No, they didn’t,” declared the Acting Chairman of the Edo chapter of the APC, Emperor Jarrett Tenebe, whose voice was muffled when PDP/Ighodalo held the tribunal spellbound with evidential claims of electoral heist by the INEC, APC and Police, telling the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) on January 3 that PDP/Ighodalo “abandoned their case abruptly because they have no case ab initio.”

    Boasting that “the whole country and the people of Edo in particular would know that the APC won the election” when the Respondents open their case, Tenebe said: “They (PDP/Ighodalo) were called to testify but couldn’t produce more witnesses, so closing their case at this point amounts to abandonment of the case.

    “If you are challenging about seven hundred and something polling units and you call only 19 witnesses, does that not amount to abandonment? I think they do not have a case, that is why they hurriedly closed their case today (January 3), which is a good thing for the APC.”

    But it appears that Tenebe (like the PDP) was too early to guess the outcome of the petition, as the INEC on January 6 closed its defence without calling any witness, leaving the tribunal chairman, Justice Wilfred Kpochi, to rule that: “The request (by INEC) is granted and the first Respondent’s case is hereby closed,” and adjourned the matter to today, Monday, January 10, for Okpebholo to open his defence.

    The three-man panel of Justices Wilfred Kpochi (Chairman), A.B. Yusuf and A.A. Adewole considers mainly alleged irregularities in 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.

    While six parties question the credibility of the election in which INEC returned Okpebholo as the winner; the focus is on Ighodalo, who came second with 247,274 votes (about 43.3%) at the poll, with the PDP claiming those figures were manipulated to disfavour Ighodalo.

    As hearing commenced in Benin City, the tribunal’s proceedings had witnessed the expected legal fireworks, with PDP/Ighodalo striving to unmask alleged massive rigging of the process that threw up Okpebholo as Governor, who’s sworn-in on November 12, 2024.

    The party avers that – but for disenfranchisement of voters; suppression of votes; over-voting; vote-buying; and connivance of the APC, INEC and Police to “gift” victory to Okpebholo – Ighodalo won the election, and should be declared as Governor of Edo State.

    Going by testimonies of the Plaintiffs’ witnesses, PDP/Ighodalo seemed to hold their ground: That they won the election and INEC should’ve so returned. The witnesses tried to demonstrate alleged suppression, inflation and alteration of votes by the APC, INEC and Police, to the detriment of Ighodalo, a Lagos-based Lawyer and business tycoon.

    Exuding confidence – and taking a page from PDP/Ighodalo’s sweeping allegations against APC/Okpebholo – the witnesses were even judgmental, pointing out votes that should’ve been counted or cancelled, and claiming that INEC’s reported rigging of the process amounts to a brazen breach of the Electoral Act 2022 (as amended).

    Thus, if election petitions – and elections – are won on social media, PDP/Ighodalo would’ve breasted the tape before they closed their petition marked: EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, as reports on the proceedings were salaciously-headlined, portraying PDP/Ighodalo to’ve rubbished and made mincemeat of INEC’s declaration of Okpebholo as the poll winner.

    Hence, there’s fear and anxiety that Okpebholo may also fail to call witnesses, and rely on the alibi that PDP/Ighodalo’s documentary evidence, and oral testimonies by the witnesses didn’t prove the Plaintiffs’ case “beyond reasonable doubts,” and “in substantial compliance with the electoral laws.”

    Prior to the start of hearing on January 21, the Respondents, via Ferdinand Orbih (SAN), had asked the tribunal to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ petition on grounds of “incompetence” and “not filed in accordance with the extant law,” and to hands-off the petition for “lack of jurisdiction?”

    An inkling to such a possibility was the prayer by Okpebholo’s counsel, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), on Thursday, January 6, for the tribunal to grant him a date next week (this week), to enable him open defence, saying, “I never envisaged the first Respondent (INEC) would close its case today.”

    “I have not arranged for witnesses to be moved from Benin. A date next week would be okay,” Ikpeazu said, even as he promised “not to use the entire 10 or five days” allotted to the second Respondent (Okpebholo) for his defence.

    Reacting, Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that adjourning till Monday (today) would be too long, and urged the matter be adjourned to Saturday (January 8) for Okpebholo to open his defence. But the tribunal rejected the plea, and subsequently fixed February 10 for Okpebholo to open his defence.

    So, will Okpebholo advance his defence today by limiting the number of witnesses to be called, and reducing the alloted number of days thereoff; relitigate the pre-hearing call for the tribunal to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ petition; or align with INEC’s counsel, Agabi’s claim, and aver that his (Okpebholo’s counsel, Ikpeazu) “did justice to the case during the cross-examination of the petitioners’ witnesses?”

    Members of the public are anxiously waiting for Okpebholo’s moves on his first D-Day at the tribunal, which may be a harbinger of what to expect on his second D-Day during the tribunal’s judgment to close out the 180 days (six months) allotted by law to consider and decide the petitions!

     

    Mr Ezomon, Journalist and Media Consultant, writes from Lagos, Nigeria. Can be reached on X, Threads, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp @EhichioyaEzomon. Tel: 08033078357.

  • Attempts to link Obasa’s impeachment to Seyi Tinubu’s ‘guber aspiration’ mischievous (3) – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Attempts to link Obasa’s impeachment to Seyi Tinubu’s ‘guber aspiration’ mischievous (3) – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Removed Speaker Mudashiru Obasa (Agege Constituency 1) of the Lagos State House of Assembly may fail to get back his exalted office, yet, he’s succeeded in forcing an unplanned shift of the House plenary indefinitely, thus sowing tension and confusion among the lawmakers, and splitting the close-knit Governance Advisory Council (GAC) of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) in the state.

    This comes after new Speaker Mojisola Meranda (Apapa Constituency 1) formally assumed office on Monday, January 27, 2025, amid majority of the lawmakers chanting: “Madam, continue your work; your work is appealing to us. You are the Speaker, you are the Speaker, you are the Speaker. Speak for Lagos. Continue with your work.”

    With Obasa reportedly absent from the Assembly, the lawmakers posed for photographs with Meranda, and accompanied her to the Speaker’s office, “where intense prayers were offered as she settled into her new role.” The plenary was then postponed, “to douse tension in the state.”

    The lawmakers’ public rallying for Meranda was a “kick in the groin” for Obasa, whose fate appears sealed since losing power on Monday, January 13, and returning from the United States of America to insist that he remains the Speaker until due process is observed in his removal, in line with the amended 1999 Constitution of Nigeria.

    Welcomed back to town on Saturday, January 25, by hundreds of jubilant supporters at the official residence of the Lagos Speaker in the GRA, Ikeja, Obasa slammed his ouster, in absentia, as unconstitutional.

    In an “A luta continua; vitória é certa” (“The struggle continues; victory is certain”)-like mood, Obasa told his supporters: “I’m still the Speaker until the right thing has been done,” and the crowd cheered.

    “I am not afraid of being removed. After all, it is not my father’s chieftaincy title. I am representing my people and they have returned me six times. If you want to do anything (remove him), do it well.”

    Obasa insinuated that were he present in the Assembly, the lawmakers wouldn’t succeed in removing him as Speaker. He queried: “They did the removal all because I was out of the country. Why did they have to break the chamber and use a fake mace to carry out the removal?

    “If they say they don’t want me anymore, that’s fine, but let them follow due process. I still believe I am the Speaker until the right procedure is followed. Lagos is a special place, we cannot denigrate the state.”

    Obasa held his ground, as he addressed his 2027 governorship ambition he tactically broached when Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu presented the 2025 Budget proposals to the House, thus sparking the instant flurry of activities in the Lagos polity.

    Saying, “Having ambition to become a governor is not a sin,” Obasa declared: “However, I said on the floor of the House, when the budget was presented, that I had no thoughts of governorship. But that does not mean I am not qualified or that I lack experience; I still maintain that (stand).”

    Citing a breach of fair hearing, Obasa claimed he wasn’t given a chance to respond to the charges the House leveled against him, and challenged his colleagues to substantiate the allegations, and afford him a chance to respond.

    “They (lawmakers) should not discredit an innocent person (Obasa); they should prove their allegations against me. The Lagos State House of Assembly is above the common standard of excellence. I believe in the image of our institution; we must not destroy it and I will never partake in it’s destruction.”

    Obasa also criticised the Police for “conniving with the lawmakers” to oust him from power, alleging that besides the Lagos State Commissioner of Police, Olanrewaju Olawale Ishola, “leading police officers to invade the Assembly,” over 200 policemen allegedly invaded his private residence in Agege, blocked the gate, and prevented members of his family from going out of the house.

    Obasa referenced other Presiding Officers of the Lagos Assembly removed without deployment of the police. “When former Speaker, Rt Hon. Jokotola Pelumi, was removed, he was in the Assembly and we did not invite policemen. When my sister, former Deputy Speaker of the House, Hon. Adefunmilayo Tejuosho, was removed, we did not invite the police,” Obasa said.

    Even with his eyes red, Obasa appreciated members of the GAC and Governor Sanwo-Olu, “who is my brother,” and who “always calls me his younger brother,” and thanked President Tinubu, “who will always be my father.”

    Obasa said he’d been with Tinubu from his days in the Social Democratic Party (SDP) under which Tinubu’s elected Senator in the Third Republic, noting that he never expected to be Speaker in 2015, but “Tinubu supported me even when everyone was against me.”

    Tinubu’s the acclaimed head of the shadowy and powerful GAC of the Lagos APC, which acts as a clearing house for the party affairs, including elective and appointive positions. But there appears a split in the GAC, as two of its members have criticised Obasa’s ouster as illegal.

    As reported by The Nation on January 30, a member, Chief M.A. Taiwo, faulted the process of Obasa’s removal, noting that, “The act of the lawmakers is illegal. It shows total disregard and clear disrespect for leadership. The GAC is split over the matter, but we will all defer to our leader, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, to resolve the crisis.”

    Another GAC member, former Senator Anthony Adefuye, described the removal as illegal, stating, “What he (Obasa) is saying is that he was illegally removed, and the procedure was faulty. I agree with him.”

    Meanwhile, former Lagos Speaker and ex-Minister of State for Health, and Minister of Science and Technology, Dr Olorunnibe Mamora, faults Obasa’s claim that his removal flouts the 1999 Constitution, saying that only the removal of President, Vice President, Governor and Deputy Governor is specified therein, and the procedure to effect the removal.

    In an interview with Vanguard on January 25, Mamora, who’s Speaker from 1999 to 2003, and Senator from 2003 to 2011, said Obasa’s removal was constitutional, clarifying that though impeachment and removal are used inter-changeably, the removal of Principal Officers of the Senate, House of Representatives, and State House of Assembly requires only the support of two-thirds of members to succeed.

    Mamora’s words: “Let me correct the impression. I have heard people say this in media discourse. If you look at the Constitution, you would not find impeachment. What you find is removal. There is a difference between removal and impeachment.

    “Impeachment connotes bringing allegations of wrong doing formally, and presenting (them) before an offending public officer. But allegation does not necessarily amount to guilt. It only says that these are the allegations that have been brought formally, which the officer has to respond to; that is impeachment.

    Recalling how former United States President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House but the conviction was defeated in the Senate over his sex affair with Monica Lewinsky, Mamora explains that allegations brought through impeachment may not necessarily lead to removal, adding, “If you are now convicted on the basis of allegations and a kind of sentence is passed, then it may lead to removal.”

    “It (Constitution) does not even say you should explain. It is just a simple process, because the Speaker is just first among equals. That is why the process for removal of the Speaker or Senate President is different from the removal of Mr. Governor, Deputy Governor or President, or Vice President,” Mamora says.

    “Because, in the case of the Governor, it is the whole state that voted to put him in office; that is why the procedure for his or her removal is a complex process. The allegations must be supported by one-third to be brought and served notice on the holder of the office, wait for his or her response, set up a panel, report comes back to the House and the House comes with a two-third majority of the members. So, you see it’s a complex process.

    “The removal of a Speaker in the House of Assembly or the National Assembly Speaker or Senate President is simple. Once members bring a motion that is supported by two-thirds of members, then the Speaker vacates the seat; that’s all.”

    “The Constitution does not even say you should state the allegations. It only says if you have the support of not less than two-thirds majority of the members, in support of the motion for the removal of the Speaker, and the Speaker vacates. It does not even say you should confront him with the allegations.

    “Obasa was impeached and removed because there was presentation of allegations against him. And it was on the basis of the allegations that the House decided to remove him.”

    Mamora adds: “We need to get it clear. What we do here is that we use the words, impeachment and removal, inter-changeably, as (if) they are the same. I need to correct that.

    “There could be impeachment without removal. The Constitution, under Section 92, sub- section two or thereabout, talks of removal; that the Speaker shall vacate if a motion is presented, supported by two-thirds of members. That’s all.

    “So, allegations were presented against Obasa and on that basis, the members went ahead to remove him in consonance with the Section 92 of the Constitution. So, the removal of Obasa is constitutional.”

    Presented with a seeming fait accompli, shouldn’t Obasa rethink and retool his strategy, and give peace a chance in the Assembly and entire Lagos State? This poser comes on the back of a statement by majority of the House members on January 27, decrying Obasa’s alleged sabre-rattling, capable of heating up the polity.

    Vowing to stand by Meranda as the new Speaker, a statement by Ogundipe Olukayode (Oshodi-Isolo Constituency II), on behalf of members, urged Obasa to shelve his bellicose stance and toe the path of “Peace we want in Lagos and Peace we will achieve.”

    The statement partly reads: “It is imperative to clarify that over 2/3 of the members of the Lagos State House of Assembly are solidly united behind the new Speaker, Rt Hon. Mojisola Lasbat Meranda, therefore we stood by the decision taken on the 13th of January where Rt Hon. Mudashiru Ajayi Obasa was impeached and we shall defend our positions to the latter.

    “The position of the House remains the same and nothing has changed. The position being canvassed by former Speaker, Rt Hon. Obasa, is uncalled for and unparliamentary.

    “The majority of members elected Rt. Hon. Mudashiru Obasa as Speaker for the 10th Assembly and we also, at the said Plenary, took the majority decision to remove him and stand by the new Speaker. So, nothing has changed.

    “All members were elected from their various constituencies across the state and we all have the inalienable rights under the necessary Statutory orders to remove their Principal Officers, including the Speaker.

    “I (we) therefore appeal to the former Speaker to toe the line of peace and harmony as being followed by others, as the current intransigent posture will heat up the polity and not augur well. Any attempt to heat up the polity will be resisted by the majority of distinguished members who unanimously elected Rt Hon. Meranda,” the statement said.

    Will Obasa heed this timely warning, even if he wants to bid for Governor and square up against Seyi Tinubu, who remains taciturn about his alleged aspiration till date? Let Obasa’s political case not be like the dog’s which refused to listen to its master’s whistle! (END)

     

    Mr Ezomon, Journalist and Media Consultant, writes from Lagos, Nigeria. Can be reached on X, Threads, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp @EhichioyaEzomon. Tel: 08033078357.

  • Attempts to link Obasa’s impeachment to Seyi Tinubu’s ‘guber aspiration’ mischievous (2) – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Attempts to link Obasa’s impeachment to Seyi Tinubu’s ‘guber aspiration’ mischievous (2) – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    In the first installment of this header on Monday, January 20, 2025, several reasons were adduced to establish that there’s no nexus between Seyi Tinubu’s alleged aspiration for the 2027 Governorship of Lagos State, and the January 13 impeachment of Lagos State House of Assembly Speaker Mudasiru Obasa, over his reported ambition for the same position of Governor.

    First, the 32 members of the Assembly, who voice-voted unanimously to replace Obasa (Agege Constituency 1) with erstwhile Deputy Speaker Mojisola Meranda (Apapa Constituency 1), categorically blamed him for sundry legislative misbehaviours, managerial lapses and finacial infractions.

    These include: highhandedness; gross misconduct; poor leadership; lack of commitment to legislative business; lack of regard for fellow lawmakers; intimidation; suppression of legislative staff; financial impropriety; misappropriation of funds; lack of transparency; gross abuse of office and privileges; and authoritarianism.

    Second, with Obasa said to’ve faced several allegations of corruption in the course of his Speakership, it’s apt to ask quintet questions: One, was there a Seyi governorship aspiration on October 8, 2020, when the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) invited and grilled Obasa for alleged “offences of conspiracy, diversion of funds, abuse of office and money laundering,” for which the anti-graft agency obtained a court order, freezing Obasa’s three accounts in Standard Chartered Bank?

    Earlier on September 15, 2020, Justice Nicholas Oweibo of the Federal High Court, Lagos, via an ex-parte order, placed a ‘lien/Post No Debit’ on the three accounts viz: (US Dollars) 0001852063; (Current) 0001852056; and (Saving) 5002309624, which order – upon an application by the EFCC to withdraw the charges without public explanation – Justice Oweibo discharged in the chamber on August 16, 2023, and unfreeze the accounts.

    Two, was there a Seyi bid for Governor in 2020 when Obasa appeared before the Lagos Assembly panel of enquiry on corruption allegations, including an N80m estacode, which he admitted was approved for the “training of the wives of 20 lawmakers in Dubai”?

    As reported by PUNCH on October 8, 2020, Obasa explained: “We gave N4m to each of the participants for air tickets, hotels, feedings and local travel. Air ticket to Dubai alone costs about N2m. Some of these allegations were raised for a crusade to get the Speaker out of office.

    “The House of Assembly is above common standard of excellence and we have to train people (including wives of lawmakers?), and this comes at a cost. Learning is not cheap and I have never collected N80m for estacode at a go before.” The House committee subsequently cleared Obasa, sparking protests by several anti-corruption groups.

    Three, for Obasa’s ambition for Governor, he allegedly floated the “Obasa Support Group,” for which he’s built structures across the 20 local government areas and 37 local council development areas (LCDAs) of Lagos State. But was it a Seyi aspiration that prompted Obasa to reportedly instruct lawmakers to “purchase festive gifts for his political movement”?

    This was despite reported warnings from President Bola Tinubu and the ruling APC’s Governor’s Advisory Council (GAC) in Lagos, for Obasa to refrain from using his position to advance personal interests, thus underscoring his alleged “defiance of party directives, and disregard for the party leadership and internal rules,” The ConclaveNg reported on January 20, 2025.

    Four, was it a Seyi aspiration that allegedly induced Obasa to propose empowering the House of Assembly to remove the Lagos State Independent Electoral Commission (LASIEC) chairman and “pressure Governor Sanwo-Olu to sign the bill”?

    Five, when Tinubu, during his Yuletide holiday in Lagos, reportedly convened a parley to reconcile the shadow-boxing parties, was it Seyi, on account of his aspiration, who advised Obasa to show, via “body language,” that he’s not disposed, amenable, and prepared to finding a common ground with those he’s up against in arms?

    Obasa, who’s spent over 17 years as a lawmaker, having first been elected in 2007 and re-elected four times, “has had a frosty working relationship with Sanwo-Olu in recent years.” This, coupled with his alleged disrespect for the governor, “caught the attention of the GAC, who reported him to President Tinubu.”

    Thus, from the numerous allegations leveled against him prelude to his impeachment on January 13, Obasa’s his own undoing, and nobody else – not the least Seyi for his alleged governorship aspiration – should be blamed for his perceived “political downfall.”

    Meanwhile, with his father and mother as President and First Lady of Nigeria, respectively, is Seyi – who remains close-mouthed over his aspiration – qualified to bid for any elective position, especially the Governor of Lagos State? Absolutely, if he satisfies the criteria to be Governor!

    Former Presidential aide, Lauretta Onochie, in a post to her X handle @Laurestar on January 14, 2025, explains that: “To become a Governor in Nigeria, the law does not exclude those whose parents were (or are) Governors or Presidents. Let us be guided by the law when we argue about Lagos State succession. We cannot have a set of laws for Nigeria and a different set for Lagos.”

    The requirements for qualification for and disqualification from the office of Governor are set out in Sections 177 and 182, accordingly, of the amended 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, which, in a nutshell, are as follows:

    Section 177 states that, “A person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a State if – (a) he is a citizen of Nigeria by birth; (b) he has attained the age of thirty-five years (c) he is a member of a political party sponsored by that party; and (d) he is educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent.

    However, Section 182(1) states that, “No person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a State if – (a) he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of and declared allegiance to another country; (b) he has been elected twice to such office; (c) he is legally adjudged a lunatic or declared to be of unsound mind; (d) he is under a court or tribunal-imposed sentence of death in Nigeria or imprisonment for dishonesty or fraud; (e) within less than ten years before election for Governor, he has been convicted and sentenced for dishonesty or found guilty for contravening the Code of Conduct; (f) he is an undischarged bankrupt under any law in Nigeria; (g) he has not resigned, withdrawn or retired from the public service of the Federation or of any State, at least thirty days to the election; (h) he is a member of any secret society; (i) he has officially been indicted for embezzlement or fraud; (j) he has presented a forged certificate to the independent National Electoral Commission.”

    Yet, there’s a caveat to the disqualifying conditions in Section 182(1), as Section 182(2) states that, “Where in respect of any person who has been (a) adjudged to be a lunatic; (b) declared to be of unsound mind; (c) sentenced or declared bankrupt, (d) adjudged or declared bankrupt, an appeal against the decision is pending in any court of law in accordance with any law in force in Nigeria, subsection (1) of this section shall not apply during a period beginning from the date when such appeal is lodged and ending on the date when the appeal is finally determined or, as the case may be, the appeal lapses or is abandoned, whichever is earlier.”

    So, rather than link Obasa’s impeachment to his aspiration to be Lagos Governor, which Seyi also allegedly aspires to, the question to ask is: Does Seyi meet the requirements for Governor? If he does, then he’s good to go for the position!

    But should Seyi run for Governor, as his father seeks re-election for President in 2027? Besides such being novel in our clime, Seyi’s ambition can jeopardise Tinubu’s chances at the poll. Hence some advise he shelves his still secretive aspiration to at least 2031.

    One Wale S Akerele, with X moniker, @akerele_s – who claims to be a loyal member of the APC since 1999, and his brother a childhood friend of President Tinubu – believes that, “this is not the appropriate time for Seyi to run for Governor of Lagos State.”

    Akerele says: “If the APC proceeds with this decision, it may jeopardise our electoral success. While I acknowledge that the party has its preferences, prioritising our interests is crucial. After Baba @officialABAT’s tenure, Seyi may pursue his ambitions.

    “It is uncommon for a father running for President to have his son seeking another political office simultaneously, as this could adversely impact Baba Tinubu’s election campaign. Let us refocus our efforts on supporting Baba Tinubu’s reelection. I trust that he (Seyi) will not make this critical mistake.”

    Both for its inappropriate and inauspicious timing, it’s imperative for Seyi to rebut his alleged aspiration for Lagos Governor in 2027, first, to put a break on the campaign by a horde of partisans and youths, who view him as a role model for his charitable activities across Nigeria, and second, to distance himself and President Tinubu from Speaker Obasa’s ouster allegedly tagged to Seyi’s governorship ambition. Let wise counsel prevail and take control!

     

    Mr Ezomon, Journalist and Media Consultant, writes from Lagos, Nigeria. Can be reached on X, Threads, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp @EhichioyaEzomon. Tel: 08033078357

  • Attempts to link Obasa’s impeachment to Seyi Tinubu’s ‘guber aspiration’ mischievous (1) – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Attempts to link Obasa’s impeachment to Seyi Tinubu’s ‘guber aspiration’ mischievous (1) – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    On Monday, January 13, 2025, members of the Lagos State House of Assembly – bandying allegations of gross misconduct, financial mismanagement, and poor leadership – defied the MKO Abiola dictum of “not shaving a man’s head in his absence,” and impeached Speaker Mudashiru Obasa, who’s away in the United States of America.

    Since then, the spinning goes on in political circles, and especially on social media that, the dramatic impeachment was a hatchet job executed by the “political machine” of President Bola Tinubu, intent on “installing” his son, Seyi Tinubu, as Governor of Lagos State in 2027.

    Mind you, that’s the same 2027 in which Tinubu – God sparing his life, and has performed averagely in the estimation of Nigerians in his first term in office – may seek re-election, to round-off an eight-year tenure (in 2031) allowed by the amended 1999 Constitution of Nigeria.

    The alleged Tinubu political machine is a conclave of Elders of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) in Lagos State, reportedly instituted by Tinubu during his Governorship (1999-2007) as the clearing house for elective and appointive positions and other political matters of the party.

    Regarded by Lagosians as an appendage and rubber-stamp for Tinubu’s suzareignty in Lagos, those endorsed by the GAC members are as good as “already elected or appointed” for the positions so earmarked for them. There lies the party elders’ power, which you test or ignore at your own political risk or peril!

    Perhaps in their haste to nail President Tinubu as deploying the GAC to scapegoat Obasa, the spinners of the conspiracy theory about “Obasa being sacrificed for Seyi” have completely ignored the reasons members of the House of Assembly advanced for ending Obasa’s 10-year speakership.

    Media reports indicate that, moving the motion for Obasa’s removal – raised under “Matter of Urgent Public Importance” – Femi Saheed (Kosofe Constituency 2), citing the 1999 Constitution, accused Obasa of lateness to legislative sessions, misuse of funds, abuse of office, and creating divisions among the lawmakers.

    Noting Obasa’s absence from the plenary – when his impeachment move was in progress – as further evidence of his disregard for the Assembly’s duties and proceedings, the lawmakers listed, among others, Obasa’s “sins”, as follows: highhandedness; gross misconduct; poor leadership; lack of commitment to legislative business; lack of regard for fellow lawmakers; intimidation; suppression of legislative staff; financial impropriety; misappropriation of funds; lack of transparency; gross abuse of office and privileges; and authoritarianism.

    With a unanimous voice vote by 32 members, Obasa was removed from office in his absence, and replaced with Deputy Speaker Mojisola Meranda (Apapa Constituency 1), making history as the first female Speaker in Lagos State.

    While Fatai Mojeed (Ibeju-Lekki Constituency) was chosen as Deputy Speaker, the Assembly suspended the Clerk, Olalekan Onafeko (a reported close ally of Obasa), and picked Abubakar Ottun as Acting Clerk.

    Amid deployment of armed security personnel, including officers from the Rapid Response Squad (RRS) and Lagos Task Force, to secure the Assembly complex, some aggrieved supporters of Obasa attempted to disrupt the proceedings, but were intercepted and arrested, with charms and amulets reportedly recovered from them.

    Obasa allegedly cowered his colleague-lawmakers to the extent that one of them, who aspired to contest the Speakership with him, confessed he thereafter contemplated suicide, as he’s ostracised in the Assembly for daring to challenge Obasa for the gavel.

    Obasa accusingly extended his highhanded leadership style to banning journalists covering the Assembly activities for over two years, and clashing with the state executive arm – an attitude he notably displayed in 2023 during the Assembly screening of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu’s Commissioner-nominees; and the governor’s presentation of the 2025 Budget proposals to the House in 2024.

    In 2023, Obasa – seeming to flaunt his “immense powers” by testing the independence of the Assembly, “based on the principles of separation of power, and checks and balances” – rejected some of the nominees, thereby “taking the governor much of appeasing by tradeoffs” for Obasa and the House to reconsider the designees for clearance.

    The GAC elders, who reportedly took notice of Obasa’s “intransigence,” bided their time until the opportune moment came for Sanwo-Olu to present the 2025 Budget estimates to the Assembly, with Obasa, once again, allegedly playing his hand unhidden in rigmarole.

    Obasa reportedly kept shifting Sanwo-Olu’s request to present the Budget. And when he finally agreed on a date for the ceremony, he didn’t only keep the governor waiting for over four hours, but also used the session “to launch his governorship ambition.”

    Obasa told Sanwo-Olu and his aides, and the lawmakers his intention for the Governorship, declaring that, “I am not too young or inexperienced to be governor, and I am more qualified than some of those people who are there” – a direct shot at Sanwo-Olu, “and, by extension, past Lagos governors, including Tinubu.”

    Obasa, who, in the course of his Speakership, has faced several allegations of corruption, willy-nilly, opened his flanks for the powerbroker-GAC in the Lagos APC to intervene in his shadow-boxing with Sanwo-Olu, and ambition to run for Governor in 2027.

    Obasa’s governorship bid “further alienated him from colleagues,” one of the lawmakers, Abiodun Tobun (Epe Constituency 1), told journalists after the impeachment, adding that Obasa’s ouster as Speaker “was necessary to restore order and preserve the Assembly’s integrity,” even as he assured Lagosians of the lawmakers’ “commitment to transparency and effective governance under (new Speaker) Meranda’s leadership.”

    As the GAC operation is akin to Labour Movement’s motto of “Injury to one is injury to all,” its members didn’t only consider Obasa’s public outburst as disrespect to Sanwo-Olu, but also indecorous to the entire GAC members, who then convoked, and decided it’s time to clip Obasa’s wings, by “returning him to floor membership in the House of Assembly en route to quashing his governorship ambition.”

    So, how does Seyi’s aspiration for Governor connect Obasa’s alleged underhand legislative behaviours and ambition for the Governorship? From the allegations leveled against him prelude to his impeachment on January 13, Obasa’s his own undoing, and nobody else, not the least Seyi for his alleged governorship aspiration, should be blamed for Obasa’s perceived “political downfall.” Still, these and more will be explored in the second installment of the article!

     

    Mr Ezomon, Journalist and Media Consultant, writes from Lagos, Nigeria. Can be reached on X, Threads, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp @EhichioyaEzomon. Tel: 08033078357.

  • Edo 2024 guber petitions: Let the legal fireworks begin (2) – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Edo 2024 guber petitions: Let the legal fireworks begin (2) – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) certainly has its work cut out, as the hearing proper begins today, January 13, 2025, into the petitions filed by seven political parties against the declaration of Senator Monday Okpebholo as winner of the governorship election in Edo State on September 21, 2024.

    While six of the parties question the credibility of the poll, the focus is on the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), whose candidate, Dr Asue Ighodalo, came second with 247,274 votes to Okpebholo’s score of 291,667 votes – giving a margin of lead of 44,393 votes.

    The PDP claims that those figures were manipulated by the APC, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the Police, to favour Okpebholo and disfavour Ighodalo, who the PDP says won the election in a landslide.

    The PDP avers that – save cheating via disfranchisement of voters; suppression of votes; over-voting; vote-buying; and connivance of the APC, INEC and the Police to “gift” victory to Okpebholo – Ighodalo won the poll, and should be declared as Governor of Edo State.

    Ighodalo also asserts on a Channels TV’s ‘Politics Today’ on September 12, 2024, that: “There was a collusion between the INEC and the police to suppress the will of the people of Edo State. People of Edo State purposely voted for us (PDP). We won the election clearly.

    “But we have serious collusion by INEC and the APC working towards votes not counting… But this time around, we will go through the judicial process and the vote will count. We are quite clear that with the evidence we have, we will show clearly that we won the election. And the mandate of the people will be upheld.”

    In the United States, the burden of proof most generally places obligation on a party to prove its allegations at trial. In a civil case, as per Wikipedia, “the plaintiff sets forth its allegations in a complaint, petition or other pleading. The defendant is then required to file a responsive pleading denying some or all of the allegations and setting forth any affirmative facts in defence. Each party has the burden of proof of its allegations.”

    Similarly in civil cases in Nigeria, the burden of proof is generally cast on the party “who asserts the affirmation of a particular issue.” In other words, “the burden rests on the party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who substantially asserts the affirmative of an issue,” the Supreme Court ruled in Senator Smart Adeyemi (Appellant) and the APC, INEC and Ahmed Usman Ododo (Respondents).

    As reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Report (NMLR) (An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.), Adeyemi, a defeated contestant in the April 14, 2023, APC primary in Kogi State, contended that failure to conduct the primary in substantial compliance with the law, the burden was on the APC to prove how Ododo won the primary.

    But in the judgment by a five-member panel of Justices, delivered by Emmanuel Akomaye Agim (JSC) on Monday, October, 23, 2023, the Apex Court held that, “the party that has the primary legal burden to prove the existence or non-existence of any facts, is the one who desires a court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence or non-existence of facts which he asserts.”

    The Court held further that Section 133(1) of the Evidence Act specifically provides that whether the Appellant is making an affirmative assertion i.e., the existence of a fact or a negative assertion i.e., the non-existence of a fact, “the burden of first proving either of the two lies on the party against whom the whole judgment would be given if no evidence is led on either side.” (Egharevba v Osagie (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) at 299).

    The Court referred to its decision in Shitta-Bey v A-G Federation (1978) 7 SCNJ 264 Pg. 287, that apart from the presumption of regularity, “there is the presumption that where there is no evidence to the contrary, things are presumed to have been rightly and properly done.”

    “The Court also held that where allegations of crime are made in an election matter, the standard of proof is even high, as election matters are not exempt from the law that says that an allegation of crime in any proceedings must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

    “On the whole, the Court held that in the instant case, the Appellant (Adeyemi) made certain assertions regarding the conduct of the 1st Respondent’s (APC) primary election, and by the provisions of the law, he ought to adduce evidence to support these assertions. However, he claimed that since there was no primary election, he did not have any result to tender, when he could have tendered other affidavit evidence from his agents in the wards all over Kogi State to substantiate his claim.

    “The Court found that, on the other hand, the Respondents produced evidence which proved the fact that the primary election was indeed, conducted, with the 2nd Respondent (INEC) tendering before the trial court the primary election results and reports on the conduct of the primary election in the various local governments duly signed by its electoral officers.”

    Also, in a piece, “Analysis of the Burden of Proof on Defendants in Criminal Cases: The Dust not Settled,” published on July 21, 2017, Jide Bodede, Managing Partner at Lawfields Solicitors & Advocates, cited Muhammad JSC, in Olonade v Sowemimo (2014) LPELR-22914(SC), 27, as explaining the meaning of the standard of proof in civil cases, the balance of probabilities, thus:

    “My Lords, in a civil matter such as this, the court decides the case on the balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence. The trial court does this by first deciding which evidence it accepts from each of the parties, putting the accepted evidence adduced by the plaintiff on one side of the imaginary scale and that of the defendant on the other side of the scale and weighing them together.

    “The court then decides which side’s evidence is heavier, not by the number of witnesses called by either party or on the basis of the one being oral and the other being documentary, but by the quality or probative value of the evidence be it oral and/or documentary.”

    From the foregoing, it’s clear that the burden of proof in the Edo governorship petitions is no less imperative on APC/Okpebholo than it’s on PDP/Ighodalo; both sides are required to prove their counter-petitions. But while PDP/Ighodalo have the burden to “prove beyond reasonable doubt,” APC/Okpebholo have the evidential burden to prove “the probability of the defence or to create a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution.”

    Thus, APC/Okpebholo should have the facts and evidence to counter PDP/Ighodalo’s claim that unlike the figures the INEC declared for the parties on September 22, they won the votes in each of the polling units, wards and councils in contention, and that their total votes are authentic, and a true reflection of the votes cast on September 21.

    Meanwhile, in their defence, APC/Okpebholo, apparently picking the “low-hanging fruit” first, have urged the tribunal to dismiss the PDP/Ighodalo petition on grounds of “incompetence, and not filed in accordance with the extant law.” The APC counsel, Ferdinand Orbih (SAN), canvassed this position on December 18 at the close of pre-hearings into the petitions.

    Orbih, as reported by the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), while noting that further grounds for seeking the dismissal of the petition are contained in the motion paper dated November 30, and supported by a seven-paragraph affidavit, also prayed for expunging of some paragraphs of the petition, and urged the tribunal to rule on the motion before it commenced hearing into the petition, even as he asked the tribunal to hands-off the petition “for lack of jurisdiction.”

    But Ken Mozia (SAN), a lead counsel for Ighodalo, who’d also moved four different motions, for the tribunal to expunge various paragraphs in the replies of INEC, APC and Okpebholo to PDP’s petition, urged the tribunal to discountenance the APC submission, as the PDP had filed a reply and counter-affidavit to challenge APC’s motion, which he sought its dismissal “for lack of merit.”

    APC/Okpebholo’s cause may be helped by the INEC, which’s expected to defend its declaration of Okpebholo as Governor, and debunk the PDP/Ighodalo allegation that the APC and the Police pressured top officials of the commission to manipulate the collated figures in favour of Okpebholo.

    Governor Okpebholo’s denied PDP/Ighodalo’s charge of rigging his way to the Osadebey Avenue Government House in Benin City, claiming the PDP’s caught up in the web of writing and announcing “fake results” sourced from an equally “fake IReV” portal, which mimicked the official IReV portal, and yet “crying that somebody rigged the election.”

    At a reception in his honour by the Esan people of Edo Central at Irrua, headquarters of Esan Central local government area on November 30, Okpebholo stated: “The people, who wrote results and were announcing fake results on the internet, are the same people crying today that somebody rigged the election.

    “It is sad to say that the criminals are crying today that they have lost, and will continue to lose. They are spending money day and night and wasting their money, and they will wait in vain. Edo people have spoken. They have chosen the path of development, peace, and unity. This is what Edo people have chosen, and that is how it will remain.”

    Recall, also, the APC’s allegation that then-outgoing Governor Godwin Obaseki cut short his terminal leave overseas in October 2024, and returned with a “Sophisticated Infrared-Driven Technology, with preloaded results, to manipulate the INEC database.”

    As posted by “Akpakomiza Media Strikers” – one of pro-Okpebholo political groups, “credible sources have raised concerns about the true intent behind Obaseki’s recent trip to Italy, shortly after the Edo State gubernatorial election.”

    “Obaseki is said to have access to a specialised software capable of interfering with the INEC portal. It is claimed that this infrared-driven software has been pre-configured to alter the election data once Obaseki gains access to the relevant systems,” the group added.

    What about APC’s claim on October 10 – during the political parties’ inspection of INEC’s materials used for the September 21 poll – that the commission conveyed the materials with Edo State government’s vehicles from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to the INEC office in Benin City, thus raising suspicion of possible tampering with the evidence by the PDP/Ighodalo team?

    The inspection of the poll materials was postponed from October 9 to 10, to 11 and then indefinitely due either to disruption by armed thugs, APC-PDP couldn’t agree to the modalities for the inspection, or the APC refused to proceed until its petition – regarding use of government’s vehicles to convey the BVAS machines and other materials – was attended to by the INEC, the Police and the Department of State Services (DSS).

    Counsel to APC/Okpebholo, Victor Ohionsumua, told journalists on October 10 that the Edo APC chairman, Emperor Jarrett Tenebe, had observed that the electoral materials were brought into the INEC complex in Edo government’s vehicles, and “on that basis, we raised an objection that the party would only return for the inspection once the petition was addressed.”

    “The INEC legal officer wanted to move forward with the inspection without directives from the REC (Resident Electoral Commissioner). We insisted on hearing from the REC, and that our petition must be addressed before proceeding. During this, the situation became chaotic, and we began hearing gunshots outside the complex. The INEC Director of Operations then decided to adjourn the inspection indefinitely, citing security concerns.”

    Why would the INEC convey very sensitive electoral materials – billed for inspection by avowed rival parties – with vehicles of the state government that’s led by the PDP and Governor Obaseki, who’d “anointed” Ighodalo to succeed him in November 2024?

    If true to their conviction, APC/Okpebholo can connect the “figures” bandy by PDP/Ighodalo to the alleged “pre-configured infrared-driven software capable of interfering with election data,” and the probable altering of the BVAS machines and other voting materials reportedly conveyed in Edo government’s vehicles to the INEC office in Benin City.

    Nonetheless, APC/Okpebholo should worry that PDP/Ighodalo’s allegations could alter the status quo, in light of Ighodalo’s claim that, “we are quite clear that with the evidence we have, we will show clearly that we won the election, and the mandate of the people will be upheld.”

    APC/Okpebholo need to rebutt the PDP/Ighodalo allegations, seriatim. Did they manipulate the process to disenfranchise voters, suppress votes, over-vote and buy votes? And did they connivance with the INEC and the Police to reduce Ighodalo’s votes and inflate Okpebholo’s scores?

    Surely, the three-man tribunal of Justices Wilfred Kpochi A.B. Yusuf and A.A. Adewole will, from today, January 13, have their hands full in PDP/Ighodalo’s avowal to “retrieve our stolen mandate,” which APC/Okpebholo dismiss they didn’t have in the first place!

    The panel, chaired by Justice Kpochi, has barely four months remaining of the six months (180 days) mandated by the electoral law to consider the petitions and return a verdict that should reflect the will of Edo people, as exercised through the ballot on September 21, 2024. Let the legal fireworks begin!

     

    Mr Ezomon, Journalist and Media Consultant, writes from Lagos, Nigeria. Can be reached on X, Threads, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp @EhichioyaEzomon. Tel: 08033078357.