PDP Calls Five Witnesses to Prove Alleged Over-voting as APC Disproves Rejected Votes

Alex Enumah in Abuja

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its governorship candidate, Mr. Asue Ighodalo, yesterday called in five witnesses to prove their allegations of over-voting in the September 21 governorship election that produced Senator Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as governor of Edo State.

The five witnesses which include; Haruna Ibrahim, Okuo Taiye Esther from Igara, Akoko-Edo LGA, Abubakar Uzairu from Owan East, Asuluka Righteousness and Mautairu Yusuf from Etsako West LGA, all told the Edo State Election Petition Tribunal that the results recorded at the polling units were different from what was recorded at the words.
Documents they tendered to prove their allegations include; screenshots of polling unit results, BVAS (Bimodal Voter Accreditation System) reports, and Forms EC8A and EC8B for their various wards.

According to the witnesses, the alleged over-voting was occasioned by the exclusion of rejected votes in the final results that was used to declare Okpebholo winner.
But, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) which conducted the election and Governor Okpebholo and his party presented documents proving that there was no incident of rejected votes as was claimed by the petitioners.

After adopting their witness’ statement on oath, the witnesses were subsequently cross examined by lawyers to the respondents.
Under cross examination, while one of the witnesses said she didn’t sign her result sheet because of alleged over-voting, others claimed that they signed in order to obtain copies to forward to their party.

Meanwhile, the witnesses admitted not being makers of the documents on which they based their evidence.
They also admitted not having the ability and capability of handling the BVAS machine.
Asuluka, under cross examination by APC’s lawyer, Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN stated that he signed the result sheet, “because they said if we don’t sign they will not give us our copy,” adding that he protested to his party over the alleged over-voting incident.

“I didn’t make any entry into the BVAS, but I witnessed everything in the polling unit,” he said.
He admitted also that there is no indication from his deposition that he protested about the outcome of the election.
Under cross examination by Okpebholo’s lawyer, Mr. Oyenchi Ikpeazu, SAN, witness admitted that the number of accredited voters was 274 and “if all total voters cast their votes it will be 274, “total valid vote is 274”.

Righteousness, however, pointed out that the rejected votes were not added to the final results thereby resulting in over-voting.

Ikpeazu asked, “If one rejected vote is added then it will be 275,” the witness answered, “yes sir”

Ikpeazu then tendered the CTC of EC8A for Ward 8, unit 4 Akoko Edo, showing that the number of rejected ballots is showing zero.

The witness rejected, saying “But this is not the result that appeared at the polling unit.”

When asked to confirm if he saw a signature correcting the rejected vote, the witness said the signature was not there at the polling unit.

When asked if he had the BVAS machine at the time he made his deposition the witness said no.

He explained that he observed the over-voting during the sorting of the votes at the collation center.

He also admitted not seeing form EC8B.

Responding to questions from APC’s lawyer, Chief Ferdinand Orbih, SAN, witness claimed he saw the original Form EC8A at the time of collation of results, adding that it was a yellow coloured document.

Ikpeazu again asked, “That original result you saw, that is why you said there was over voting? And witness answered: “Yes, I saw it during the sorting and counting of results.” Ikpeazu continued, “You said your party took a screenshot of your results? And witness said: “Yes, because that was what was given to me.”

While he confirmed that CTC was given to PDP on January 8, the witness admitted making his statement on oath on October 11, 2024, adding that, “we are expecting that what is given to us was what would be uploaded in the IREV.”

Meanwhile, Mutairu Yusuf, testified along a similar line with the other witnesses.

He explained that there was no column for agents to register their protest.

Ikpeazu asked,”Your gross was that 200 people were accredited but 218 voted and that is over voting? And witness answered: “Yes.

The APC lawyer asked again, “Those over voting were made part of the final results? And witness answered, “Yes.”

EC8B for Ward 7 unit 10 was then shown for witness to confirm that APC scored 120, PDP 80, total valid vote 200, total votes cast 200.

Responding, the witness claimed that, “the result is not correct because it did not contain rejected votes. What is recorded in EC8A is not what was recorded in EC8B”.

On the rejected votes column witness said he saw zero but what was uploaded to IREV was different, adding that, “the presiding officer showed us the BVAS machine, the BVAS was not in my position but I saw it on the day of the election”.

Under cross examination by Orbih, witness said he did not tender the original copy of the result to the tribunal because it is with INEC.

Meanwhile, he claimed not to be aware that all other copies are compared with the original.

When asked to confirm if he saw the screenshot of the BVAS before he made his deposition, the witness said no.

Also, when asked if he still stood by paragraph four of his witness statement wherein he claimed to have seen the CTC of the BVAS, the witness said no.

Meanwhile, further hearing has been fixed for February 3.