![At 3-33 on 9th oct, some children Playing inside Aayin Camp Benue [Photo Credit Popoola Ademola Premium Timesv]](https://i0.wp.com/media.premiumtimesng.com/wp-content/files/2026/03/WhatsApp-Image-2026-03-07-at-05.54.10.jpeg?resize=360%2C180&ssl=1)
On Thursday, Victor Eseigbe, a politician from Akoko Edo Local Government Area of Edo State, testified as the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)’s witness at the ongoing governorship election tribunal, insisting that irregularities marred the poll.
Mr Eseigbe, who had the witness code WW1M/9, gave his testimony while being led in evidence by the petitioners’ counsel, Ken Mozia, SAN, in Abuja.
|
|
The News Agency of Nigeria reports that the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal was moved to Abuja following reports of violence at the tribunal venue in Edo.
The petitioners – Asue Ighodalo and the PDP – are challenging the victory of Governor Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the governorship election.
|
|
|---|
At today’s sitting, three witnesses testified.
While giving his evidence, Mr Eseigbe identified and confirmed the submission of Form EC8A for 28 polling units, including certified copies and agents’ copies as exhibits.
During cross-examination, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)’s counsel, Kanu Agabi, SAN, questioned the authenticity of the witness’s role.
He observed that the witness did not sign Form EC8B for Ward 9, which was used for ward collation.
“Since you did not sign, what proof do you have that you were a ward collation officer?” Mr Agabi asked.
The witness responded that he noticed irregularities, which led him to refrain from signing the documents.
Mr Agabi further asked about the validity of his testimony, emphasising that he did not personally document any of the election reports.
Discrepancies in accreditation figures
The discrepancies in accreditation figures emerged when APC’s counsel, Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, pointed out contradictions between figures recorded in the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) reports and those declared by INEC.
While the witness cited 71 accredited voters in Unit 001 of Ward 1, BVAS reports showed 252 accredited voters.
Similarly, Unit 003 had 262 registered voters, but only 116 were reflected in BVAS records.
Emmanuel Ukala, SAN, who appeared for Governor Okpebholo, raised further concerns about inconsistencies in the document.
Mr Ukala said some tendered exhibits, such as Forms EC8B and EC8C, contained figures that did not correspond with their counterparts in Form EC8A.
“Can you confirm if the figures in Form EC8B match those in EC8A?” Mr Ukala asked.
“It is the incorrect figures that we complained about,” the witness responded.
The defence also questioned whether BVAS and the hard copies were presented for reconciliation at the ward level.
The witness confirmed that they did but said there was no proper compilation.
During the proceedings, Mr Mozia sought to tender the witness’s agent tag to prove his role in the governorship election.
However, Mr Agabi and other defence lawyers objected to the tendering of the document, arguing that it had not been previously mentioned in the witness’s testimony.
Despite the objection, the tribunal, chaired by Justice Wilfred Kpochi, ruled in favour of the petitioners and admitted the agent’s tag as evidence.
Another witness, Oyigwe Imasue, a PDP agent from Oredo Local Government Area, confirmed that his witness statement included a certified true copy of an election result.
The defence counsel subjected the witness to rigorous scrutiny.
Mr Agabi questioned Mr Imasue’s credibility and role in the collation process.
The third witness was a subpoenaed witness from INEC (1st respondent) who produced the BVAS machines used in 133 polling units.
The witness, Anthony Itodo, a senior technical officer from INEC’s ICT Department, said he produced BVA machines and other electoral materials.
READ ALSO: INEC official tenders BVAS machines at Edo election tribunal, PDP witnesses allege irregularities
He informed the court that he was present with the device used for the election.
The tribunal, accordingly, admitted the subpoena documents tendered by the witness as evidence and reserved ruling on the objection raised by the respondents.
The tribunal adjourned until Friday for the continuation of the trial.
