UPDATE OF THE EDO STATE GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION TRIBUNAL, JANUARY 22, 2025

UPDATE OF THE EDO STATE GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION TRIBUNAL, JANUARY 22, 2025 

On Wednesday, January 22, 2025, the Edo State Governorship Election Tribunal continue hearings on the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate following the September 21, 2024, gubernatorial elections. The petition is registered as suit No. EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024 and is titled Ighodalo Asuerinme & Anor vs. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & 2 Ors.

The tribunal session commenced with the appearances of numerous counsel representing both petitioners and respondents. The PDP, represented by its state chairman Dr. Tony Azegbeimi, called its witnesses to further substantiate its claims of electoral malpractices. Notably, the third respondent, was represented by Hon. Lawrence Okah, the APC state secretary.

In a courtroom filled with legal representatives, the atmosphere was charged as the first witness, Mr. Destiny Oghayerio Enabulele, took the stand. Under the leadership of counsel A.J. Owonikoko, the witness began his testimony but not without revealing several critical inconsistencies within his original witness statement. 

During his examination, witness PW4 identified typographical errors in his witness statement, particularly in paragraphs 4, 5, and 18. When asked to clarify, he stated: “Before I adopt the statement as my evidence I have some typographical errors, a stark admission that raised eyebrows in the courtroom. The tribunal provisionally accepted his statement, though the respondents objected, reserving their arguments for later in the proceedings.

As the examination continued, Mr. Enabulele confirmed his understanding of the events of October 11, 2024, the day he signed the witness statement. He referred to various documents including the voters' register and other exhibits that he claimed to have thoroughly reviewed to prepare for his testimony.

During cross-examination by the respondents’ legal teams, profound contradictions emerged. A representative from the first respondent confronted Mr. Enabulele about his knowledge regarding the documents he cited, revealing that not a single one had been personally authored by him. Instead, he acknowledged that he only signed form EC8C in his capacity as a local government agent, leading to a series of challenging queries about his claims of voting irregularities, particularly over-voting in specified polling units.

In a tense exchange, it was elicited that agents from his party had registered protests regarding the integrity of the results. However, when pressed about the absence of documented protests on the result sheets, Mr. Enabulele remained firm in his assertion that there were indeed protests ignored by the presiding officers, a point that will likely be pivotal when determining the credibility of his testimony.

Questions regarding over-voting claims in polling units 028 and 034 further showcased the witness's frailty under pressure. The Respondents highlighted that the alleged votes from these units had been canceled at the ward collation center. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Mr. Enabulele maintained his assertion of over-voting.

His testimony faced additional scrutiny when addressing the Voter Biometric Authentication System (BVAS). He admitted that he had never operated a BVAS machine, contrasting the expectations laid out by the INEC operational protocols and suggesting a disadvantage in the cognitive framework of his claims.

The proceedings of January 22 brought to light the complexities surrounding the state’s election outcome and underscored the burdens of proof that petitioners must meet in electoral tribunals. With the evidence presented thus far, the opacity surrounding electoral processes continues to complicate the discourse on electoral integrity in Edo State. As the tribunal navigates the challenges posed by testimonies riddled with contradictions, the ultimate decision looms large over the political landscape, anticipating the next steps in this high-stakes legal battle. 

With additional hearings scheduled, the tribunal's next moves will be closely monitored as both parties prepare to defend their positions, each vying for vindication in the court of public opinion as much as in the court of law.