The counsel to the All Progressives Congress (APC), Emmanuel Ukala, SAN, has adopted his final written address at the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, urging the panel to dismiss the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). He argued that the petitioners had failed to provide substantial evidence to prove their claims of over-voting and non-compliance with electoral laws.
The tribunal was set up to hear the petition challenging the victory of Senator Monday Okpebholo of the APC, who was declared the winner of the Edo State Governorship Election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The PDP and its candidate had approached the tribunal, alleging that the election was fraught with irregularities, including over-voting and the failure of INEC to comply with electoral laws in the conduct of the polls.
In his submission, Ukala, SAN, contended that the petitioners’ case was built entirely on allegations of non-compliance with electoral guidelines but lacked the necessary evidence to substantiate these claims. He cited the Supreme Court decision in Ucha v. Elechi, which states that claims of over-voting must be proven from polling unit to polling unit, ward to ward, and local government to local government. According to him, the PDP failed to provide such detailed proof as required by law.
The APC counsel also referenced Baba v. INEC, where the Supreme Court ruled that an appellant has an enormous duty to prove electoral malpractice by presenting concrete evidence from specific polling units. He argued that instead of fulfilling this obligation, the petitioners simply submitted documents to the court without properly linking them to their allegations, a legal flaw known as “dumping evidence.” He insisted that such documents were ineffective and could not support the petition.
Furthermore, Ukala stated that the testimonies of the petitioners’ witnesses (PW1 to PW14) were weak and largely based on hearsay. He explained that under Nigerian law, hearsay evidence is inadmissible and unreliable, making the testimonies insufficient to support the claims of the petitioners. Without strong evidence, he maintained, the case should be dismissed.
He also pointed out that Form EC25D, a critical election document, was not referenced in any of the petitioners’ witness statements on oath. He emphasized that this omission further weakened the PDP’s case, as the form plays a crucial role in determining the credibility of election procedures.
Additionally, Ukala highlighted the failure of the petitioners to demonstrate the BVAS (Bimodal Voter Accreditation System) records and the voters’ register to support their allegations of over-voting. He noted that BVAS is a primary tool for verifying voter accreditation and ensuring election credibility, and without presenting its records, the petitioners’ claims could not stand.
On these grounds, Ukala urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition, stating that no concrete evidence had been established to support the allegations against the electoral process
The tribunal proceedings have been closely followed by political stakeholders in Edo State, as the outcome could have significant implications for the state’s political landscape.
With the final written addresses now adopted, the tribunal is set to deliver its judgment in the coming weeks.
