In a move that has ignited public outrage and intensified political debate, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has taken a controversial stance at the ongoing Edo 2024 Governorship Election Tribunal by deciding not to present any witnesses in defense of its actions during the election. This decision has come at a time when serious accusations of collusion with the All Progressives Congress (APC) are being leveled against INEC, claiming that the electoral body manipulated the results to favor Governor Monday Okpebholo.
The move to close INEC’s case without presenting witnesses was made by the electoral body’s legal counsel, and the Tribunal granted this request, leaving the defense entirely to the APC and Okpebholo’s legal representatives. This bold decision places INEC in a vulnerable position, as it relies heavily on the cross-examinations and legal arguments made by the opposing parties, which could further undermine its credibility and the perceived legitimacy of the election results.
The PDP, which has been vocally challenging the election outcomes, accuses INEC of orchestrating widespread electoral fraud. The party claims that the election process was tainted by massive irregularities, vote manipulation, and systematic malpractices aimed at ensuring Okpebholo’s victory. The PDP’s legal team is leveraging a combination of documentary evidence, as stipulated in the 2022 Electoral Act, to build its case. The Act prioritizes documentary evidence over oral testimony in election disputes, and the PDP is keen to exploit this legal provision to secure a favorable ruling.
Key provisions of the 2022 Electoral Act are central to the PDP’s argument. Section 137, which places significant emphasis on the weight of documentary evidence, and Section 73(2), which mandates the annulment of results where discrepancies in ballot papers and BVAS serial numbers are found, are vital components of the PDP’s petition. These sections form the crux of the party’s allegations and have provided the legal framework for challenging the legitimacy of the election results.
In particular, the PDP has been focused on the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), which was used to authenticate voters and verify the accuracy of vote counts during the election. The Tribunal has accepted crucial BVAS data as part of the evidence, which the PDP argues will expose significant instances of over-voting and other irregularities in the election results. Testimonies from PDP witnesses, including local government agents and an expert witness (PW12), have described a systematic effort to manipulate the election results during the collation process. These claims have been corroborated by independent election monitors such as the Athena Centre and TAP Initiative, who have similarly criticized INEC’s handling of the election, further damaging the body’s credibility.
By deciding not to present any witnesses, INEC is now left with no direct defense against the mounting evidence brought forth by the PDP. Analysts argue that this could have severe repercussions for the credibility of the election, particularly as the PDP continues to press its case, using certified records and BVAS data that contradict the declared results. Many are now questioning how INEC will handle the mounting evidence against it, especially as the evidence supplied by the PDP appears to expose discrepancies and electoral malpractice at multiple levels.
Moreover, reports from the Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ) have revealed even deeper layers of potential corruption within INEC, alleging its complicity in vote inflation in favor of the APC. The FIJ investigation uncovered contradictory evidence, which suggests that the conduct of the election was flawed from before Election Day and continued throughout the process. A key part of the report highlights the claim that INEC did not have the collated results for several local government areas (LGAs), yet went ahead to announce the final results, causing widespread doubts about the accuracy of the announced totals.
For instance, in one LGA, the APC was declared the winner with 32,107 votes, while the PDP secured just 17,483 votes, creating a massive gap of 14,624 votes. However, the validity of these results is called into question by the FIJ report, which alleges that INEC did not possess the authentic results for this LGA’s 12 wards at the time of the announcement. This claim was supported by the discovery of certified true copies (CTCs) of collated results from all LGAs, which exposed anomalies, including the presence of a “Replacement Copy” label at the top of the Etsako West result page and the absence of an official stamp on the bottom right corner, which was inconsistent with other LGAs’ result sheets.
With the Tribunal now in full swing, all eyes are on INEC, as its failure to present witnesses could severely weaken its defense against the growing body of evidence against it. The PDP has made it clear that it will continue to push for the nullification of the results, emphasizing the overwhelming documentary evidence that points to systemic flaws in the election process. With the possibility of the Tribunal ruling in favor of the PDP, the fate of Governor Okpebholo and the legitimacy of the entire Edo 2024 governorship election are hanging in the balance.
This case has far-reaching implications for the future of Nigeria’s electoral process, particularly as it sheds light on possible vulnerabilities within INEC’s operations. The decision to forgo witnesses and rely solely on legal arguments could set a troubling precedent for future elections. Furthermore, if the allegations of electoral fraud are proven to be true, it could severely damage public trust in the electoral system and lead to increased calls for reform in the country’s electoral laws.
Stay informed with the latest news from Nigeria and beyond! Join us on WhatsApp or Telegram for real-time updates. Have a report or article? Send it to report@trendingnaijanews.com. Follow us on X (Twitter), Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, TikTok, and Facebook for more updates.