Toba Owojaiye reporting
Abuja, Nigeria
The Edo State Election Tribunal, relocated to Abuja, resumed sitting on Tuesday in what was expected to be a rigorous legal contest. However, instead of dismantling the PDP’s case, the defence counsel—representing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the All Progressives Congress (APC), and the APC candidate, Senator Monday Okpebholo—found themselves struggling to counter the testimony of the PDP’s star witness, PW12.
Truth Live News gathered that, at the center of proceedings was PW12, whose witness statement formed the crux of the petitioner’s case. Over the course of cross-examinations, the defence lawyers inadvertently strengthened the PDP’s arguments, failing to shake the credibility of the witness.
INEC’s counsel, the first to cross-examine PW12, attempted to discredit the witness by questioning whether his testimony was based on reports from polling agents and experts. PW12, however, clarified that his findings were derived from a direct examination of election documents.
Shifting tactics, INEC’s lawyer then queried how PDP candidate Dr. Asue Ighodalo could claim victory if the majority of votes were deemed unlawful. PW12’s response was decisive:
“After removing the invalid votes—those rendered unlawful by INEC’s non-compliance—Asue scored the majority of lawful votes.”
The courtroom fell silent, and with no effective rebuttal, INEC’s counsel cut short his 40-minute cross-examination after just 24 minutes.
Senator Okpebholo’s legal team fared no better. Seeking to challenge the PDP’s claims of electoral non-compliance, his counsel focused on Form EC25B, a document meant to record the serial numbers of sensitive election materials. The lawyer directed PW12 to Exhibit PJF, INEC’s manual for election officials, arguing that Form EC25D was sufficient for the process.
However, PW12 calmly turned to page 20 of the same manual, highlighting INEC’s explicit instruction that Form EC25B—not EC25D—was the required document. The defence had inadvertently validated the petitioner’s argument.
In a further misstep, Okpebholo’s counsel asserted that no EC25Bs had been completed at all. PW12 swiftly countered by referencing Exhibit PJE1-11, which contained partially filled EC25Bs—confirming inconsistencies in INEC’s adherence to electoral guidelines.
By the time APC’s legal team took over, the tone of the tribunal had shifted in favor of the petitioner. The defence lawyer’s opening statement claimed that 4,519 polling unit results had been uploaded to INEC’s Result Viewing Portal (IREV). PW12 immediately corrected the figure, stating that only 4,466 results had been uploaded—exposing an error in the defence’s argument.
Attempting to undermine the credibility of the witness, the lawyer presented polling unit agent copies, highlighting that only three out of 16 were stamped. PW12 acknowledged the observation but dismissed its significance, arguing that 16 polling units represented less than 1% of the total and could not serve as a statistical basis for invalidating the broader claim.
In a final attempt to discredit the witness, APC’s lawyer argued that, since PW12 was not physically present at polling units or RAC centers, his testimony was unreliable. PW12’s composed response sealed the moment:
“In this tribunal sitting in Abuja, you identified that 13 out of 16 documents were not stamped. Did you need to be at the polling unit to make this determination? My testimony is based on my personal examination of election documents—documents that show Asue won.”
What was anticipated as a meticulous deconstruction of the PDP’s case instead became a challenging session for the respondents. INEC’s lawyer cut short his cross-examination, Okpebholo’s counsel inadvertently reinforced the petitioner’s claims, and APC’s legal team struggled to recover from critical errors.
As the tribunal proceedings continue, the credibility of PW12’s testimony remains largely intact, while the defence is left to reassess its strategy. The next sessions will determine whether the respondents can regain control or if the PDP’s case will gain further momentum.