2,840 votes cast by the PDP in the impacted PUs in the LGA were overlooked by officials.
The court accepts the witness’s evidence of CTC results sheets, Bvas, and IREV copies of results.
Today, January 21, 2025, the hearing at the three-member Edo State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal, led by Justice Wilfred Kpochi, continued with startling disclosures of how INEC illegally disqualified 2,840 votes cast by PDP candidate Dr. Asue Ighodalo in 76 polling units in Ward 2, Ikpoba Okha LGA, during the September 21st Edo State Governorship Election.
A PDP witness and LGA Collation Agent for Ikpoba Okha testified during the petition’s resumed hearing, designated EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, and provided vivid proof that INEC had illegally excluded 2,840 PDP votes during the collation process from the Ward to the LGA levels.
As supporting documentation, he presented the duplicate copies of the polling unit result sheets (form EC8A) that INEC provided to the polling unit agents as well as the Certified True copies of the results sheets that IREV had acquired from INEC.
While the IREV duly Certified True Copies (CTCs) declared and uploaded at the various Polling Units contain the correct scores, it was discovered that the incorrect scores were later calculated in favor of APC at the Ward to state level (Forms EC8B-E).
As a collation agent, the witness said he carefully reviewed agent duplicate copies and INEC verified CTCs of all election-related result sheets Forms EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, and EC8D. He found that while results from 76 polling units in Ward 2, Ikpoba Okha LGA, were declared at the PU levels and uploaded on IREV before being transmitted to Ward Level for collation, INEC did not ultimately collate the results at the LGA and State levels.
The witness confirmed that he was a Collation Agent in the election and independently reviewed the result sheets while being cross-examined by respondents’ counsel, Kanu Agabi (SAN).
In addition, he submitted his agent identity tags, original IREV result sheets, BVAS accreditation, and CTCs of INEC.
Despite the lawyers’ strong objections to the First Respondents (INEC) and Second Respondents (Monday Okpebholo), respectively, the Court accepted all of the evidence.
