Following the adoption of their ultimate written addresses by all of the counsel, the Justice Wilfred Kpochi-led three-member panel of the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja has reserved judgment.
The petition was filed by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its governorship candidate, Dr. Asue Ighodalo, difficult the result of the September 21, 2024, governorship election within the state.
According to Justice Wilfred Kpochi, the date for judgment will likely be communicated to all events concerned by the tribunal’s secretary.
He mentioned: “The tribunal stands adjourned until then.”
Persecondnews experiences that on the resumed listening to, Mr. Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN), counsel to the petitioners, knowledgeable the tribunal that the day’s agenda was to undertake ultimate written addresses.
Counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mr. Kanu Agabi(SAN), proceeded to undertake the ultimate handle on behalf of the fee.
In his submission, Agabi urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition, arguing that it lacked advantage.
He argued that the tribunal lacked the authority to annul the September 21, 2024 governorship election, as this treatment was not requested by the petitioners.
The senior lawyer emphasised to the tribunal that it lacked the authority to declare the petitioners as winners, given their very own declare that the election was invalid.
Speaking on the declare of non-compliance, Agabi argued that the petitioners’ plea was weak because it was not accompanied by the mandatory aid, particularly the nullification of the election.
He additionally said that the petitioners’ declare of getting acquired the vast majority of lawful votes was moot, given their concurrent declare that the election itself was invalid.
Agabi argued that the variety of polling unit brokers referred to as as witnesses represented an insignificant and even negligible % of the variety of polling items in Edo.
He argued that the petition must be dismissed on the grounds that each one polling unit brokers, who have been referred to as as witnesses, had signed the end result sheet, and but they may not differentiate between what they personally witnessed and what they merely heard.
Agabi mentioned: “This is a transparent indication that the election was performed in compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022.
“The outcomes have been duly collated in any respect ranges of collation. The petitioners haven’t pleaded any different outcomes on the idea of which they are often declared as winners.
“The case of the petitioners is based on analysis undertaken by hired consultants.”
Furthermore, Agabi argued that the paperwork relied upon by the petitioners have been merely dumped on the tribunal with out correct basis, rendering them inadmissible as proof of their favour.
Agabi urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition in its entirety, emphasizing that it lacked advantage.
Counsel to Gov. Monday Okpebholo, Mr. Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition, arguing that it had change into an educational train, primarily rendering it moot and with out sensible significance.
He said that in their analysis, they meticulously extracted the polling items for which the petitioners submitted paperwork and in contrast them to those offered, revealing that his consumer maintained a big lead over the petitioners within the polls.
Ikpeazu clarified that Form EC25B solely requires the amount of electoral supplies acquired and returned, opposite to the petitioners’ declare that serial numbers of delicate supplies should be offered.
He emphasised that, based on a Supreme Court ruling, proving over-voting requires the Bimodal Verification Authentication System (BVAS) machines, however satirically, not one of the machines have been opened for the tribunal to look at their contents.
According to him, the petitioners’ failure to submit the mandatory paperwork meant they may not show over-voting.
Speaking on behalf of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Mr. Emmanuel Ukala contended that the petitioners’ case rested nearly fully on allegations of non-compliance.
He mentioned: “By the nature of the case they pleaded, the Supreme Court has over the years laid down that they need to prove this by polling unit to polling unit, ward to ward and local government by local government.”
He, nevertheless, held that relatively than show this, the petitioners dumped paperwork on the courtroom.
He mentioned that with out polling unit brokers testifying to these paperwork, they have been ineffective and the case remained unproved.
Ukala mentioned the petitioners’ case was weak, noting that regardless of having over 4,000 polling items in Edo, they solely offered 5 polling unit brokers and didn’t name a single presiding officer as a witness.
He additional argued that because the petitioners didn’t reveal how the BVAs labored, it was evident that that they had not confirmed their case, and due to this fact, it must be dismissed.
Responding to the tribunal, counsel to the petitioners, Mr. Ken Moze (SAN), highlighted that out of the 4519 polling items in Edo, the petitioners’ grievance solely pertained to 765 of them, which represents roughly 16.7% of the overall polling items.
According to him, the legislation states that efficiently prosecuting an election petition just isn’t in regards to the share of complete polling items within the state, however relatively the affect of constantly establishing the grievance.
He additionally argued that the petition must be evaluated holistically, contemplating it as a complete, relatively than breaking it down into separate elements.
He mentioned: “So the submission of isolating grounds and labeling them alone as academic is not well founded.”
On the difficulty of not presenting the tribunal with another end result, the senior lawyer mentioned that it was on file that each one the outcomes earlier than the tribunal have been tendered by his consumer
The petitioners’ counsel defined that they solely referred to as 5 polling unit brokers as a result of their principal challenge was with the occasions that unfolded on the collation facilities, not the polling items themselves, thereby negating the necessity for added testimonies.
He mentioned: “We concede that elections took place at the polling units but how 25 votes metamorphosed to 525 votes at the collation center is what we are quarrelling with.”
Moze countered the declare that they dumped paperwork on the tribunal, stating that each one the paperwork they submitted have been correctly licensed by INEC and have been accepted with none objection from the fee, which is the very physique that created the paperwork.
He additionally held that the tribunal had the mandatory authority to listen to the petition, because the allegations offered have been associated to post-election points, relatively than pre-election issues, which might fall exterior the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Having thought-about all of the arguments, Justice Kpochi introduced that the tribunal would reserve judgment on the matter, with the date for the decision to be communicated to the events by the tribunal’s secretary.
Persecondnews recollects that INEC had declared Gov. Okpebholo of the APC the winner of the election.
Dissatisfied with this consequence, the PDP and its governorship candidate, Dr. Ighodalo, petitioned the tribunal to nullify INEC’s declaration of the APC and Okpebholo as winners.
They argued that the governorship election was invalid as a result of alleged non-compliance with the Electoral Act’s provisions.
In the petition, EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, additionally they claimed that Okpebholo didn’t obtain the very best variety of lawful votes forged within the election.
The petitioners offered 19 witnesses to testify that over-voting and incorrect vote computation occurred in additional than 700 polling items throughout the election.
INEC, the primary respondent, opted to not name any witnesses, as a substitute submitted 153 Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines utilized in 133 disputed polling items as proof.
Okpebholo, the 2nd respondent, offered only a witness in his defence, whereas the APC referred to as 4 witnesses to testify on their behalf.
The petitioners and respondents have been scheduled to undertake their ultimate written addresses on March 3, after which the tribunal will set a date for judgment.