By Andy Asemota
Inconsistencies during cross-examination of the three witnesses that testified for the Accord Party on Wednesday are some of the reasons the party may miss out on the weight of the evidence of the witnesses at the Edo State 2024 Governorship Election tribunal.
The Head of Monday Okpebholo Media Team (MOMET), Ofure Osehebo, who doubles as the deputy publicity secretary of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), stated this yesterday in Benin shortly after the tribunal chaired adjourned proceedings on the petition.
The tribunal started the day with Dr. Bright Enabulele & Accord Party versus Governor Monday Okpebholo and two others wherein the three witnesses testified.
According to Osehebo, the first witness, Mr. Egbigere, admitted ignorance of polling unit numbers, lacked an INEC agent tag, and failed to report ballot theft incidents.
In his words: “The second witness, Ms. Daisy Nwachuku, identified Senator Okpebholo as the winner but lacked detailed election knowledge. The third witness, Mrs. Victoria Ogbebor, contradicted her testimony and struggled with voting details.”
In all, the tribunal addressed three petitions this Wednesday and adjourned four others to January 16, 2025.
Also on Wednesday, pre-hearing for petition No. EPT/ED/GOV/03/2024, Action Alliance and another petitioner versus INEC and two others, was conducted by the tribunal, while pending motions were reserved for final judgment, and the case was adjourned to January 18, 2025, for hearing.
In the petition No. EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, Ighodalo Asuerinme, the flag-bearer of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and others against Goernor Monday Okpebholo, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and INEC, the tribunal directed all the parties to verify documents submitted by the petitioners by nominating two representatives.
The tribunal said the verification should commence immediately as it adjourned proceedings on the petition to January 17, 2025, due to the volume of the documents.
At the hearing, petitioners’ counsel submitted certified electoral documents, requesting them to be marked as exhibits but the respondents’ counsel objected, citing the need for proper filing as petitioners argued prior submission of the documents.
The tribunal then instructed both parties to nominate two representatives for immediate verification, while respondents blamed delays on petitioners’ procedural lapses.
About The Author
