Attempts by the Labour Party (LP) and its governorship candidate, Chijioke Edeoga, to correct significant errors in their final written address were rebuffed by Governor Peter Mbah, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), resulting in a minor spectacle at the Enugu State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal.
The petition filed by Edeoga and his group to challenge the validity of Mbah’s election as the elected governor of Enugu State included INEC, Governor Mbah, and PDP as the first through third respondents.
Following the parties’ final written addresses, Justice K. M. Akano, who presided over the Tribunal, reserved judgement on the Chijioke Edeoga of LP’s petition.
The petitioners accidentally asked the court to proclaim LP the winner of the Rivers State governorship election rather than the Enugu State governorship election, which caused a slight uproar throughout this procedure.
The principal attorney for the petitioners, Chief Adegboyega Awomolu (SAN), filed a request to amend several material errors in their previously submitted final written address after the Respondents adopted their final written addresses.
In line 1 of paragraph 4.4, the Petitioners used the word “negative” rather than “positive” in addition to referencing Rivers instead of Enugu. They also pointed out a ‘mistake’ in paragraph 4.3 (a) line 2, where they referred to the second respondent (Peter Mbah) as the ‘Petitioner’.
The application was contested by INEC, who was represented by Abdul Mohammed Rafindadi (SAN), who claimed that it sought to change the position the Petitioners had first stated in their written addresses. INEC emphasised that it was improper to ask for a change to a final written address and urged the court to reject the application.
INEC argued that this wasn’t just a typo—rather, the Petitioners were admitting defeat, according to INEC.
Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), the principal attorney for Mbah, also opposed the application, claiming that allowing it would result in an irreparable injustice to the Respondents.
He claimed that the Respondents had already delivered their final written addresses, thereby putting an end to the matter, when the Petitioner tried to introduce new arguments.
In its last written argument, the LP team alleged that Mbah’s National Youth Service (NYSC) release certificate had been forged. They further alleged that there was over voting in some polling places and that election results had been rigged.
In their written responses, the Respondents—INEC, Mbah, and PDP—contradicted these accusations, denying the allegations, and criticising the petitioners’ witnesses, particularly the LP Polling Unit agents. The Respondents argued that the Petitioners had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims of overvoting and manipulation of results.
The Respondents characterised Mbah’s NYSC discharge certificate as “irrelevant,” asserting that it was neither a requirement for the governor’s job nor an educational credential stated in Section 177 of the 1999 Constitution. This was in response to the Petitioners’ reliance on it.
The Respondents further argued that the Governor was not guilty of forgery as claimed by the Petitioners.