Edo Gov Election: Okpebholo Again Floors PDP, AP, AA At Tribunal

By Ayodele Oni

The Edo Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja, on Wednesday dismissed the petitions filed by Accord Party, People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and Action Alliance against the declaration of Governor Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as winners of the Sept. 21, 2024 governorship election.

Delivering judgment, the Justice Wilfred Kpochi-led three-member tribunal held that Accord Party and its governorship candidate, Mr Bright Enabulele made weighty allegations but failed to defend them.

The tribunal said that the petitioners failed to name a single perpetrator to substantiate their allegations of thuggery, stuffing of ballots, harassing and molesting voters.

According to the tribunal, the two petitioners were so inconsistent in their claims with allegations of non compliance with the Electoral Act 2002 and calling for nullification of the election on one hand while seeking to be declared winners on the other hand.

“On the other hand, they are seeking to be declared winners of the election they claimed to have been conducted without compliance with the Electoral Act.”

The tribunal held that there was no meaningful evidence for it to act upon to nullify the election of Okpebholo and APC and subsequently dismissed the petition in its entirety.

The tribunal thereafter affirmed the election of Okpebholo as being valid and conducted in compliance with the law.

The petition of AA was dismissed for being frivolous and lacking in merit.

The Tribunal said that the PDP petition challenging the outcome of the 2024 governorship election also failed, because of insufficient evidence to substantiate claims of electoral malpractice.

The petitioners had alleged that the failure to properly record electoral materials prior to the election had affected the results.

However, the Tribunal found that while documents were submitted, no witnesses were called to properly authenticate them, rendering the evidence inadmissible.

Of the 19 witnesses presented by the petitioners, 14 were ward and local government agents, while their star witness, who claimed to be a director of strategy, played no direct role in the conduct of the election.

The Tribunal noted that none of these witnesses provided testimony on the alleged failure of prior recording of electoral materials, deeming them incompetent to testify on the matter.

Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized that for allegations of over-voting to be proven, petitioners must provide oral evidence, in line with the precedent set by the Supreme Court.

It stressed that it was bound to adhere strictly to the Supreme Court’s roadmap in adjudicating election disputes.

Additionally, the tribunal observed that the witnesses called by the petitioners had no direct knowledge of events at the polling units, as they were not physically present during the election.

It held that the petitioners should have called witnesses with firsthand accounts to substantiate their claims.

Based on these findings, the Tribunal ruled that the petitioners failed to meet the required burden of proof and subsequently struck out their petitions.