Clinton Osawe, write from Benin City
Last week, the Justice Wilfred Kpochi led Edo Election Tribunal finally delivered its judgement on the September 21st Governorship Election in Edo State.
The Judgement did not come as a surprise to keen observers as it merely confirmed the fears of many Nigerians about recent Judicial pronouncements and the blatant compromise of our judicial system under the ruling APC.
First, an unsigned copy of the judgement was leaked to the public indicating that there was a split among the three Tribunal judges with two in favour of incumbent Governor Okpebholo and a dissenting judgement which opined that Asue Ighodalo won the election having scored the highest number of lawful votes cast.
Inside sources indicated that following the leakage, serious pressure was mounted on the dissenting Judge to align and ensure a unanimous decision to avoid exposing the Tribunal and the judiciary at large, to further embarrassment and growing public ridicule.
For starters, the case of the petitioners, PDP and Ighodalo, is that INEC failed to record the serial numbers of particulars of results sheets, ballot papers and other sensitive electoral materials in 395 Polling Units contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 73(2) of Electoral Act.
Secondly, there were multiple incidents of Over voting in 133 polling units which ought to be cancelled in line with section 51(2) of the Electoral Act 2022. Thirdly, there was incorrect computation of scores in favour of APC by INEC.
In their judgement, which has now turned out to be a bundle of contradictions and travesty of justice, the Kpochi led Tribunal admitted all the certified true copies of INEC documents including BVAS Machines tendered by PDP. They acknowledged that the petitioners did a good job by arranging their evidence chronologically with a proper Tabulation of the incorrect computation of Results by INEC. However, the tribunal turned around, in a shocking and bizarre manner to arrive at very strange and outrageous conclusions which do not align with evidence placed before them.
On the issue of Non serialisation, the Tribunal wrongfully held that PDP should have called Polling Unit witnesses to testify over a serialisation that ought to have been done by INEC officials at the RAC centers on the eve of election. It is instructive to note that the Petitioners never complained about polling units and the statutory duty to prior record is at the Registration Area Centre (RAC) by INEC. The Tribunal goofed!
On issue of Over Voting, the Tribunal expressly agreed with the petitioners that BVAS accreditation and INEC Result sheets are crucial for establishing over voting. Surprisingly, the Tribunal, after admitting the evidence, refused to evaluate and attach probative value to the BVAS evidence and INEC CTCs brought before them by the Petitioners in proof of over voting, saying that it was dumped on them. Pray, tell how does anyone who is keen on delivering justice exclude crucial evidence on the flimsy technical ground that the evidence was ‘dumped’ on them?
On the issue of Incorrect computation of scores, the Tribunal carefully avoided and side stepped all substantive issues raised by the Petitioners’ asking them to recompute INEC certified Result sheets, brought before them, showing that figures were wrongfully computed in favour of APC by over 40,000 votes. Simply put, Tribunal saw INEC certified results placed before it and refused to do a simple calculation of the scores.
To justify their compromise, the Edo Tribunal proceeded to cite an irrelevant case law of Tanko vs INEC which neither the Petitioners nor the defendants cited and which is not relevant to the case at hand, to argue that you must call witnesses to tender oral evidence. This position runs foul of Section 137 of the Electoral Act, which clearly states that where there is documentary evidence or documents relevant to the claim made, there will be no need to back it up with oral witness testimony.
This piece of legislative innovation has been reinforced by the Appellate courts in Yohanna & Anor. v. Cliff & Ors, where it was held that the Appellants having tendered the Result Sheets(Form EC8A) of the polling units complained of, they were not expected to call further witnesses or even their party Agents.
Section 137 of the Electoral Act 2022 relieves a party the burden of calling oral evidence if the originals or Certified True Copies of the documents tendered manifestly disclose the non-compliance alleged.
It is indeed bad enough that the Tribunal decided to side step justice and take sides with the mandate bandits in Edo State. All eyes are now on the Appellate Courts to uphold the law and restore the people’s trust and confidence in our democracy.
