The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja, on Thursday accepted 148 Bimodal Verification Accreditation System (BVAS) machines used for the conduct of the September 21, 2024 governorship election in 133 polling units of Edo state.
The three-member panel of the tribunal led by Justice Wilfred Kpochi, accepted the BVAS machines after they were tendered by a subpeaned official of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The presentation of the BVAS machines followed a subpoena by the tribunal made on January 9, 2025, directing INEC, which is the 1st respondent in the pet filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the governorship election, Mr Asue Ighodalo.
Ighodalo and his party are challenging the declaration of the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Senator Monday Okpebholo as governor over alleged non-compliance with the Electoral Act, that, Okpebholo did not secure the highest number of majority votes cast at the election as required by law and over voting, which the BVAS machine is expected to cure.
At the resumed hearing of the petition on Thursday, the PDP after calling two witnesses drew the court’s attention to the compliance of INEC to the order, adding that its next witnesses would be given evidence in respect of over voting and would need the BVAS machine in that regard.
Presenting the machines, an INEC official from the Information Communication Technology (ICT) Department, one Anthony Itodo, who claimed to be a Senior Technical Officers, informed the court that in compliance with its orders, “what I have brought here is a total of 148 BVAS machines used in 133 polling units”.
Responding, the petitioners’ lawyer, Robert Emukpoeruo, SAN, told the court that what the official told him was 151 machines.
However, INEC lawyer, Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, explained that while 151 machines were brought, only 148 applied to the 133 polling units.
While INEC did not object to the submission of the devices, lawyers to the governor and APC objected, adding that their reasons will be made known later.
In a short ruling, the three-member panel accepted the devices as exhibits.
Meanwhile, the first petitioners, witness at Thursday’s proceedings, WW1M/9, Eseigbe Victor, from Akoko Edo Local Government Area of Edo state identified and confirmed the submission of Form EC8A for 28 polling units, including certified copies and agents’ copies as exhibit.
During cross-examination, INEC’s counsel, Kanu Agabi, SAN questioned the authenticity of the witness’s role, noting that he had not signed Form EC8B for Ward 9, which is used for ward collation.
ALSO READ: We ‘sacrificed’ Tinubu for Yoruba presidency, he didn’t want it — Akande
“Since you did not sign, what proof do you have that you were a ward collation officer?” Agabi asked and the witness responded that he noticed irregularities, which made him to refrain from signing the document.
Agabi further pressed on the validity of his testimony, emphasizing that he had not personally documented any of the election reports.
The discrepancies in accreditation figures emerged when the counsel to the governor, Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN pointed out contradictions between figures recorded in BVAS reports and those declared by INEC.
For instance, while the witness cited 71 accredited voters in Unit 001 of Ward 1, BVAS reports showed 252 accredited voters. Similarly, Unit 003 had 262 registered voters, but only 116 were reflected in BVAS records.
Emmanuel Ukala, SAN representing the APC raised further concerns about inconsistencies in the document, noting that some tendered exhibits, such as Forms EC8B and EC8C, contained figures that did not correspond with their counterparts in Form EC8A.
“Can you confirm if the figures in Form EC8B match those in EC8A?” Ukala asked and the witness said, “It is the incorrect figures that we complained about.”
The defense also questioned whether BVAS and hard copies were presented for reconciliation at the ward level. The witness confirmed that they were but said there was no proper compilation.
In his evidence, another witness, Oyigwe Imasue, a PDP agent from Oredo Local Government Area confirmed that a certified true copy of an election result was included in his witness statement.
When INEC’s counsel asked the witness if he signed the Ward 1 result sheet, he answered in the negative and added that, he was not the maker of the document and when asked whether other party agents and the presiding officers signed the results, the witness confirmed that they did and however admitted that the word ‘BVAS’ was not mentioned in the documents presented.
The tribunal adjourned till Friday for the continuation of hearing.
READ MORE FROM: NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
