Supreme Court Affirms Okpebholo’s Election As Edo Governor
THECONSCIENCE NG reports that The Supreme Court has affirmed the victory of Senator Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the last governorship election held in Edo State on September 21, 2024.
A five-member panel of the apex court, held in a unanimous judgment on Thursday, that the appellants – the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the election, Asue Ighodalo – failed to establish their case with sufficient and credible evidence as required.
The court resolved four out of the five issues, identified for determination, against the appellants.
In the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba found that the Court of Appeal was right in setting aside the decision of the election tribunal to admit the bimodal voters accreditation system (BVAS) tendered by the appellants from the bar without prior consent of the respondents.
Justice Garba als found that the appellants’ allegations of non-compliance was based on the provision of Section 51(1) and (2) and Section 73(2) of the Electoral Act to which Section 137 of the Electoral Act applies on the need to call oral evidence in proof, but which they failed to do.
The judge said: “In this particular appeal, the appellants called a total of 19 witnesses, out of which only five were polling unit agents, whose testimonies were related to over voting.
“They did not testify on the issue of no prior recording of serial numbers and other particulars of the result sheets, the BVAS machines and other sensitive election materials as prescribed by the Electoral Act 2022.
“13 of the 19 witnesses called by the appellants were wards and Local Government agents, who did not witness the election at the polling units to be able to testify and or demonstrate the documents as it relates to the complaints of the appellants.
“Petitioner witness (PW) 12 who happened to be the appellants’ star witness, who was the Director of Research and Strategy of the first appellant’s campaign organisation, played no role in the voting at the polling units.
“In the circumstances, all the documents tendered before the tribunal, in respect of sundry allegations of not filling the form, of over voting, etc were documents that were dumped on the tribunal,” he said.
Justice Garba held that it is the law that to prove over voting, which was one of the allegations made by the appellants, they were required to tender voters register for the affected polling units (to show the member of registered voters), BVAS machines used in those polling units (to show the number of accredited voters) and result sheets of the said polling units in Form EC8As (to show the number of votes cast and recorded in the election).
He added that it is when these documents are tendered that the court will have the opportunity of comparing the number of votes recorded in Form EC8A, the primary source and the number of accredited voters in the BVAS matchines to ensure that those figures tally and do not exceed the number of registered voters.
The judge said the failure of the appellants to tender any of the documents mentioned above was fatal to their effort to prove allegations of over voting.
He held that in the instant case, the appellants failed to tender admissible and credible evidence in the disputed polling units to show the number of registered and accredited voters and extracts of the BVAS machines as required.
The judge held that not only did the appellants tender the BVAS machines in an unlawful manner, they failed to demonstrate it before the tribunal to establish their case.
Justice Garba said: “In this case, the BVAS machines were merely tendered from the bar, without being opened and demonstrated before the tribunal and so, they were clearly dumped on the tribunal.”
He faulted the appellants’ claim that the Form EC25B was not completed by INEC officials as required before the election.
The judge said contrary to the appellants’ claim Form EC25B did not contain columns for the filling of information about sensitive election materials before the actual election. He noted that form for such purpose was Form EC40A, which was duly filled as required.
He held that even if the appellants were able to establish their claim of non compliance in relation to the 395 polling units where they challenged the results declared by INEC, they were still required to demonstrate that the said non compliance substantially affected the entire results of the election.
Justice Garba said it was apparent that from the evidence tendered by the appellants in support of their attack of the results from the 395 polling units, the non compliance even if proves could not be said to have substantially affected the result of the election which was conducted in 4519 polling units across the state.
He added that in that regard, the appellants did not satisfactorily discharge the burden of proof as required by the law.
Justice Garab said the other allegations of exclusion and reduction of votes were also not established with credible and admissible evidence.
He held that the appeal lacked merit, dismissed it and affirmed the May 29 judgment of the Court of Appeal, which earlier upheld the judgment of the election tribunal, affirming Okpebholo’s election.
Reacting to the judgment, Ighodalo said he was not convinced that the Supreme Court did justice in its judgment in the appeal he filed.
In a statement on Thursday, Ighodalo said: “My dear people of Edo State, today, the Supreme Court has ruled.
