The Edo State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal on Thursday ordered the recount of ballot papers used for the conduct of the September 28, 2016, election in four local government areas of the state.
The order followed an oral application made by the Peoples Democratic Party and its candidate, Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu, urging the tribunal to allow the recounting of the ballot papers used by accredited voters in the areas.
Counsel for the petitioners, Mallam Yusuf Ali (SAN), had listed the affected areas as Egor, Akoko-Edo, Etsako-East and Etsako-West.
The Independent National Electoral Commission had declared the candidate of the All Progressives Congress, Godwin Obaseki, as the winner of the poll, a decision being contested by the PDP and its candidate.
Counsel for the respondents, had on Wednesday opposed the application and prayed the tribunal to reject it.
Counsel for INEC, Onyinye Anumonye, had urged the tribunal to reject the application, arguing that the petitioners should have filed a motion on notice.
Anumonye had also argued that the powers of the tribunal to admit the application should be within the ambit of the law.
In his submission, counsel for Obaseki, Mr. Ken Mozia (SAN), said that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the application, adding that an oral application should not be accepted by the tribunal.
On his part, counsel for the APC, Rotimi Oguneso, stated that the petitioners’ application was unknown to law and would amount to torturing the respondents in assisting the petitioners to recount the materials.
But the tribunal, in its ruling read by the Chairman of the panel, Justice Ahmed Badamasi, said that it was clear that the respondents were of the view that the petitioners’ application be rejected.
It, however, held that while the application was orally made, it did not make it incompetent.
While citing Paragraph 47 (2) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), it said that the content of the paragraph was not of general application.
It explained that it was important to note that the petitioners had in their paragraph 753 made it abundantly clear that it would, before or at the trial of this petition, apply and pray the tribunal to order the production of the ballot papers and a consequent recount with a view to showing that the second respondent was not duly elected.
“The first respondent did not, in his reply, oppose the paragraph. They are, therefore, deemed to have consented to the recounting of the ballot papers,” it added.
Similarly, the tribunal noted that the second respondents, in their paragraph 811, had stated that counting of ballot papers was acceptable to them, provided that the ballot papers remained intact.
It also noted that the allegation of tampering with ballot papers was another issue that required proof.
It said, “What is important is that the second respondent had accepted the recounting of ballot papers. The third respondent, in their paragraph 499, opposed the recount on the grounds that the counting of the votes only takes place at the polling units and not in court.
“The position of the third respondent is not tenable in law because in the case of Ekeh Vs Enang and two others, the Court of Appeal allowed recounting of the ballot papers on the orders of the tribunal.”
(PUNCH)
