By Sebastine Ebhuomhan
Thursday, 30th January, 2025. Abuja. The Election Petitions Tribunal holding at the National Judicial Institute (NJI) in Abuja formally received and adopted 151 BVAS machines used for disputed election in 133 polling units on Thursday in continuation of hearing into the petition filed by Asuerinmen Akintunde Ighodalo, petitioner and candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2024 Edo State governorship election, against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Governor Monday Okpebholo, and the All Progressives Congress (APC), the respondents in that order.
While the petitioner’s hope of overturning the resounding election of Mr. Okpebholo was buoyed by the dramatic adoption of the BVAS machines, very little was observed to have been done in the box and bar towards achieving the petitioners’ slim hope judging, at least, from the performance of his two witnesses whose poverty of intelligence could not be salvaged by his team of lawyers made up of about 15 Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN) and even more junior lawyers. Okpebholo is the immediate past legislator of Edo Central District in the Senate of the Federal Republic, the first Esan indigene to be elected governor of Edo State, and the second Esan indigene to legally attain governorship, historically.
The petitioners’ counsel requested for the machines by way of subpoena to INEC on the 9th of January. But the histrionic delivery, acceptance, tendering and adoption of the BVAS machines, which unveiled through hours of “deadlock” as Justice Wilfred Kpochi aptly called it, was marked with arguments and counter-arguments, anger and laughter, objections and alignments, as well as banters by the opposing legal combatants. It was not devoid of controversy, too, especially after the number of the machines was given for various reasons as 151, 133 and 148 respectively by the INEC official saddled with the authority of delivery. By the time they were finally laid on the table, INEC’s Senior Technical Officer, ICT Department, Anthony Itodo, arranged them on the central table of the tribunal’s Registrar against noted objections.
Following the adoption, Ighodalo is now expected to produce witness(es), who will speak to the machines when hearing continues today, Friday. But before then, the tribunal would have meticulously mark the BIVAS machines one-by-one, however.
Earlier on Thursday, prosecution witness (PW) 13 mounted the box. The statement on oath of Victor Esegbe, a 43-year-old farmer, politician and resident of Uneme in Akoko Edo Local Government Area, challenged the results of 28 polling units of ward 9, where he was a party agent, on over-voting. Despite being an agent, Mr. Esegbe did not sign form PCAB for his ward like other agents did, thereby lacking the critical proof of participation under the cross-examination of Kanu Agabi, SAN, counsel to the 1st respondent.
As Justice Kpochi asked him, “Is there any evidence that you participated in the election,” he unknowingly said, “No.” Esegbe further admitted that the collated result was okay at unit level even though he could not confirm same at ward level. He claimed in his iRev-based statement that there were 71 accredited voters in unit 001 of ward 9. But the BIVAS report submitted by the petitioners showed 252 accredited voters. Similar inconsistencies were observed in units 003, 004 and others. Many of his documents did not bear INEC stamp. Furthermore, the CTC of the exhibits showed that the PDP local government agent for Akoko Edo okayed and signed the result sheet just as INEC’s presiding officers also endorsed them.
To cap PW13’s irrelevant testimony, the petitioner’s counsel, by omission or commission, forgot to ask him to tell the tribunal the basis of his summon and testimony. This led to the objection of his agent tag with deferred justification when the question was finally popped after his testimony was taken.
The second witness or PW14, Uyigue Imasuen, an apparently educated gentleman, farmer and resident of No. 28, Zagbayo Street in Benin City, would undoubtedly sellout a circus of skit and comic enthusiasts with his smiles and comedy. Unlike the case of Esegbe, the petitioners’ counsel confirmed and adopted his statement and agent tag at the beginning of his testimony, though with deferred objection from respondents’ counsels too.
Mr. Uyigue made reference to 39 polling units in which he claimed results were altered of the total 72 units in the ward as exhibit PHA29 to PHA67 and exhibit PBL1, a Certified True Copy of Form EC8B for Oredo Local Government Area, certified for Form EC8C, revealed.
Under cross-examination, and contrary to the signature of other agents and returning officers, PW14 admitted that he did not sign Form EC8E for ward 1 (the result sheet) and that he was not the maker of any of his tendered documents even though he claimed to have received reports from all the polling agents in his deposition that made no mention of BIVAS.
The testimony took a dramatic twist when 2nd respondent’s counsel, Oyinyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, pointedly accused the witness of not being physically present in Benin City on 11th October 2024 when his oath was signed. His denial did not assuage the probing lawyer, who gave him a blank white paper to reproduce his purported signature on the oath by signing five times on the paper. The paper was admitted in evidence despite the objection of the petitioner’s counsel, Robert Emuakperuo, SAN.
Imasuen’s calculation did not take entries from BIVAS machines into account. He claimed he did not sign his ward’s result sheet “under protest against over-stated and under-stated vote figures” before sending it to his party’s local government agent, even though it bears a signature to that of the PPA agent, as he admitted. Worse still, he did not support his protest with a written letter even as the PDP local government agent and INEC returning officers signed the result sheet.
“Did you prepare the correct figures”? Ikpeazu teased him. He replied affirmatively that he did it in his rough work and added that he left it in Benin when the lawyer asked for a copy of the rough work. “I was not asked to bring it,” Imasuen replied to send the tribunal into a roar of laughter that gave his testimony the look of a comedy show.
Particularly, Imasuen did not show the tribunal his agent’s copy; he did not obtain the CTCs he identified as Forms: EC8A, EC8B, and EC8C; and did not know the day they were obtained; even as none of them were available to him during collation except the agent’s copy. He ended his testimony on a wide, roaring laughter after which the petitioners’ counsel waved re-examination for him.
Meanwhile, the lead counsel of the petitioners, Ken Mozia, SAN, had protested at the beginning of the hearing that their witnesses were being intimidated, once the name, day, and time of appearance became known. But he could not substantiate the phantom allegation, however.
Dr. Ikpeazu dismissed the allegation as a baseless, blank statement.
He said, “My lord, it is unfortunate that my learned friend is involving us in this phantom allegation,” even as he counter-complained about the petitioners’ failure to furnish the respondents with a list of particular witnesses they plan to call.
Mr. Ukala also dismissed the allegation, insisting that the petitioners knew what to do if their witnesses were truly threatened.
“My lords, if there are criminal activities going on, they know what to do and who to meet. It is not for them to come here to make blanket statements.”
The tribunal has continued to provide a platform for strong political presence and influence. The Deputy Governor of Edo State, Right Hon. Dennis Idahosa, personally represented his principal, Governor Okpebholo. He led two other past deputy governors, Chief Lucky Imasuen, Dr. Pius Odubu; Edo State Attorney-General and Commissioner of Justice, Hon. Samson Osagie as well as Edo APC Chairman, Emperor Jarette Tenebe to the tribunal. Others that were there include: Edo APC Secretary, Mr. Lawrence Okah; Okpebholo Campaign Director-General, Senator Matthew Urhoghide; Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu; Hon. Ehiozuwa Agbonayinma, Hon. Patrick Aisowieren; Hon Odi Okogie; Hon. Joefel; Mr. Charity Amanyaevbo; Mr. Kelly Okungbowa, alias Ebo Stone (Mr. Capacity); and Mr. Pikolo among others.
There was a strong political presence of PDP leaders also, led by the of House of Representatives lawmaker, Hon. Marcus Onobun; ex-Representative, Friday Itula; immediate past Commissioner of Science and Technology, Mr. Ogbeide Ifaluyi-Isibor; ex-council chairman, Hon. Destiny Enabulele; Edo APC chief researcher, Oseyili Anenih; and youth leader, Mr. Pharez Okpere among others.
The tribunal reconvenes on Friday for continuation of hearing.
Mr. Sebastine EBHUOMHAN is an award-winning journalist and media consultant from Edo State. He can be reached on: usie007@yahoo.com and 08037204620.