IGHODALO'S CASE DEAD ON ARRIVAL, THIS ARE THE MAJOR REASON
Reasons why the Tribunal will dismiss Ighodalo’s petition
By John Mayaki
The following reasons and many more will form part of the reasons why the Edo State governorship election petition tribunal sitting in Abuja will trash the petition by the candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Asue Ighodalo, challenging the victory of Governor Monday Okpebholo.
First, Ighodalo’s petition did not ask for the annulment of the election - this is a fundamental requirement for overturning results and as such, the tribunal cannot grant reliefs that we’re not sought by the petitioners - remember, they are not “Father Christmas”.
Secondly, Ighodalo and the PDP called witnesses from only five polling units out of over 4,000 in the state, which is legally inadequate to prove widespread electoral malpractice. Remember the Supreme Court precedents require that claims of non-compliance must be proven at the polling unit, ward, and local government levels, which Ighodalo failed woefully to do.
Thirdly, Ighodalo’s petition relied heavily on analyses from television analysts or “contracted” consultants who never participated in the election - and so, they failed to submit an alternative result showing that Ighodalo won the election - upon this, the tribunal cannot declare Ighodalo the winner - again, remember they are not “Father Christmas”.
Fourth, no doubt Ighodalo made efforts to submit BIVAS machines as evidence but he failed to analyse or open them to explain or demonstrate his claim of over-voting. Ighodalo failed to show concrete discrepancies in voter accreditation and actual votes cast and as such, his claim remains unproven. The court cannot help him.
Fifth, the few polling unit agents who testified agreed that they signed the official election results, which simply means that their was no irregularities - the testimonies of these witnesses weakened Ighodalo’s case - they agreed that the election was conducted fairly at their various polling units. Ighodalo cannot benefit from this.
Sixth, you would also notice that during the proceedings, some material exhibits submitted by Ighodalo’s legal team were incomplete or had missing parts - this would made it difficult for the tribunal to rely on them as valid evidence and as such, the court would dismiss the petition since it was defective abinitio with unsubstantiated claims.
And so, based on the issues raised above, the tribunal is bound to dismiss Ighodalo’s petition at substantial cost for wasting the time of the court and for embarking on an academic exercise when the courtroom is not a classroom.
Is there any remedy? Can Ighodalo’s legal team remedy the situation? Can they turn back time and restart the process? Can they present stronger and better admissible evidence before their petition is thrown out the window? If the windows are closed and the petition isn’t thrown out, what about the trash cans? They seem closer to the justices. Who can hazard a guess?
