The ongoing Edo State Governorship Election Tribunal (case EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024) has revealed glaring weaknesses in the petitioners’ case, as successive witnesses falter under cross-examination. With the tribunal hearings to date, the proceedings so far however, highlight serious challenges to the credibility of the petitioners’ evidence.
At the heart of the drama was the testimony of the petitioners’ first two witnesses. The first witness (PW1), from Ikpoba Okha Local Government Area, admitted he was neither a polling unit nor ward agent, but merely observed election results in a “situation room.” This detached role raised questions about the accuracy and reliability of his evidence. Under scrutiny, PW1 admitted that crucial materials like the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) were not inspected in the situation room, further undermining the credibility of his claims.
The second witness (PW2), from Akoko-Edo Local Government Area, claimed to have coordinated results from 241 polling units and 10 wards in one day, despite not being directly involved in collation. His inability to explain key discrepancies or clarify the methodology used for compiling results led to skepticism about his testimony.
Further diminishing the petitioners’ case was the performance of the third witness (PW3), Mr. Issekwa, a farmer from Uhonmora, Owan West Local Government Area. Although he cited documents such as polling unit result sheets and voters’ registers to highlight alleged irregularities, he conceded that his analysis relied on reports rather than firsthand knowledge. His admission of relying on BVAS reports instead of the machines themselves weakened his argument, as the respondents’ counsel exposed gaps in his methodology.
The fourth witness, Destiny Enabulele, a former member of the Edo State House of Assembly, presented a narrative that both supported and undermined the petitioners’ case. Enabulele, whose political history includes a tribunal annulment for electoral irregularities, claimed electoral malpractices in 19 polling units. However, his testimony revealed contradictions, as he simultaneously supported claims of victory while disputing the election’s validity.
Enabulele cited documents such as voter registers and INEC forms to substantiate claims of over-voting, but his reliance on second-hand information and his admission that he did not prepare many of the documents weakened his evidence. The respondents’ legal team highlighted his lack of operational knowledge of BVAS machines and inconsistencies in his analysis, leaving his credibility in question.
His testimony, while extensive, failed to address fundamental contradictions in the petitioners’ claims.
Analysts say the tribunal proceedings so far underscore a critical weakness in the petitioners’ case: reliance on second-hand information and witnesses with limited direct involvement in the electoral process.