Edo Election Tribunal Judges Accused of Corruption for Sidestepping Electoral Act in Dismissing Evidence
The recent judgment by the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, which upheld the election of Governor Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC), has sparked considerable controversy and raised questions about the integrity of the judicial process in electoral matters. This article critically analyses the tribunal's decision, focusing on the handling of evidence and witness testimonies, and referencing the Electoral Act 2022 to support the argument that Dr Asue Ighodalo of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was the rightful winner of the 21 September 2024 gubernatorial election.
Overview of the Tribunal's Decision
On 2 April 2025, the tribunal dismissed the petition filed by the PDP and its candidate, Dr Asue Ighodalo, challenging the election's outcome. The tribunal asserted that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence of non-compliance with the Electoral Act and other alleged irregularities. Specifically, it noted that the PDP did not call competent witnesses, such as polling unit officers or voters, to substantiate claims of electoral malpractice. Additionally, it criticised the reliance on documentary evidence without proper demonstration of their relevance to the case.
Points of Contention
Several aspects of the tribunal's judgment warrant critical examination:
Dismissal of Witness Testimonies: The tribunal's outright dismissal of the 19 witnesses presented by the PDP as providing hearsay evidence raises concerns. Eyewitness accounts from party agents and local government collation officers, who were directly involved in the electoral process, should hold substantial probative value. The tribunal's failure to accord due weight to these testimonies undermines the evidentiary process.
Handling of Documentary Evidence:
The tribunal criticised the PDP for "dumping" documents without proper demonstration. However, Section 137 of the Electoral Act 2022 states that a petitioner alleging non-compliance with the provisions of the Act need not call oral evidence if the original or certified true copies of documents manifestly disclose the non-compliance alleged. This provision was designed to ease the burden of proof on petitioners by allowing documentary evidence to suffice in proving electoral irregularities. The tribunal's reluctance to thoroughly examine these documents suggests a lack of commitment to uncovering the truth.
BVAS Machines and Overvoting Allegations: The tribunal stated that the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines tendered remained "dormant" and did not access the data within. Given that BVAS devices are integral to verifying voter accreditation and detecting overvoting, the tribunal's failure to scrutinise these devices indicates a neglect of critical evidence. The Electoral Act 2022 mandates the use of BVAS for voter accreditation to enhance the credibility of the electoral process. Ignoring data from these devices undermines the purpose of their deployment and the transparency they are meant to ensure.
Allegations of Bias and Corruption
The judgment has led to allegations of judicial bias and potential corruption. The PDP's national leadership described the verdict as a "violation of judicial impartiality" and a miscarriage of justice. Such assertions reflect a broader concern about the integrity of the judiciary in adjudicating electoral disputes.
International and Civil Society Reactions
The judgment has attracted criticism beyond Nigeria's borders. The U.S. Embassy in Nigeria expressed concerns about the tribunal's ruling, highlighting "serious lapses in the collation process" and emphasising the need for transparency to maintain public confidence in democratic institutions. Civil society organisations have echoed these sentiments, accusing the ruling party of electoral fraud and questioning the judiciary's role in legitimising disputed election outcomes.
Conclusion
The tribunal's judgment in the Edo State gubernatorial election petition appears to have overlooked substantial evidence and dismissed critical testimonies that could have altered the election's outcome. The handling of documentary evidence and BVAS data raises questions about the thoroughness and impartiality of the adjudication process. These concerns, coupled with allegations of bias and corruption, undermine public confidence in the judiciary and the democratic process. A meticulous and unbiased review by the appellate courts is imperative to restore faith in Nigeria's electoral jurisprudence and ensure that the will of the people is accurately reflected in electoral outcomes.
You must be logged in to post a comment.