By John Mayaki
Yesterday, a handful of the remnant supporters of Ause Ighodalo were “high on something” over the testimony of Senator Monday Okpebholo’s witness, Usman Majek, from Usen in the Ovia South-West Local Government Area who admitted that there was over-voting in his unit but that INEC cancelled the result.
The witness who testified before the governorship election petition tribunal sitting in Abuja has simply done the damage on Ighodalo’s petition unknowingly to his motley supporters because this testimony weakens Ighodalo’s case. I know you will ask me how?
I have covered election petitions for the past two decades and I understand what it means when a respondent agrees to the petitioner’s allegation of over-voting but also stating that the result was canceled. Now, can over-voting in one unit alone, as in this case, enough to cancel the entire election? The answer is NO.
Don’t forget that the petitioner’s case was built around widespread over-voting and that it affected the outcome of the election – be it substantially or minimally. And so, if INEC already cancelled the results in affected areas such as in the polling unit of Usman Majek, then over-voting had no impact on the final declared results. Over-voting has been addressed by INEC.
What the tribunal would look at is the final certified result and also consider whether unlawful votes were included in the final figure – don’t forget that the petitioner must show over-voting was widespread – you can’t do that with 19 witnesses and without evidence that it was large scale, and enough to affect the declared winner, the petition would collapse.
Now, what happened yesterday is this – the tribunal was told that INEC already followed due process by canceling unwanted results and that became a reinforcement for the legitimacy of the election. INEC worked correctly by identifying and rectifying irregularities – it’s as simply as that.
It is therefore an illusion of victory when in reality, the admission of Okpebholo’s witness weakens their case. This is the definition of a people who want to see what they want to see instead of what actually exists in reality.
Since the petitioner and the respondent agreed that INEC cancelled over-voting, have they not indirectly validated the credibility of the election process?