The Parliament Diary

The Edo State Governorship Election Tribunal sitting witnessed an interesting phase this week, as the decision of one of the petitioners sent a wrong signal to its supporters who went haywire, jubilant after it submitted a bulk of documents purported to serve as evidence. But legal experts and seasoned observers were quick to point out that such tactics, often misunderstood by the public, do not automatically signify success.

Submitting documents in bulk, a procedure better labelled as “dumping evidence,” is not uncommon with petitioners in election Tribunal proceedings. One lawyer says, “It is primarily employed to save time during trials. However, it is important to clarify that this stage involves presenting documents for consideration, not immediate action”. At the end of the case, counsel to all parties will address the tribunal on the validity and relevance of the documents, leaving it to the tribunal to decide their admissibility during the judgment stage.

Legal Experts emphasize that these documents dumped without being linked to specific witnesses willy nilly lack evidential weight or probative value. For instance, while the Certified True Copies (CTC) of election results submitted by the petitioners, they were not tendered through witnesses who could have been cross-examined by the respondents. As a result, these documents remain unsubstantiated claims rather than compelling evidence.

Legal practitioners note that the absence of witnesses to validate the documents means that respondents can easily challenge their authenticity. For example, polling unit agents or ward collation agents, who could explain discrepancies or validate figures, were not called upon. This omission definitely undermine the documents’ credibility and limits their impact during the tribunal’s deliberations.

Additionally, preliminary assessments of the evidence by parties indicate no serious cases of alterations or mutilations in the submitted forms. Minor over-voting cases, as alleged by the petitioners, appear statistically insignificant and do not alter the monumental lead of the All Progressives Congress (APC). Furthermore, the petitioners’ figures presented in their tables do not match the entries on the original result sheets, raising doubts about the strength of their case.

As jubilations erupt among hypocritical supporters of the petitioners, legal experts caution that such celebrations are premature and based on a lack of understanding of election petition procedures. Without credible witnesses and verifiable evidence, the petitioners’ case is dead on arrival. Dumping documents on the tribunal is no guarantee of victory.

By
Progressive Media Squad

About Author

admin2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *