INEC official tenders BVAS machines at Edo election tribunal, PDP witnesses allege irregularities

An official of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on Thursday presented 148 Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines before the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal in Abuja.

The machines used for the disputed election in 133 polling units during the 11 November 2024 election were produced before the tribunal at the instance of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate for the diaputed poll, Asue Ighodalo.

BVAS machine is a crucial technological tool used for biometric accreditation of voters across polling units in elections, keeping accreditation data and promptly transferring photographic copies of election result to INEC result view (IReV) portal accessible by members of the public.

The PDP and Mr Ighodalo are, by their petition lodged at the tribunal, challenging the outcome of the poll, which the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared was won by Governor Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

The petitioners contended that contrary to the results declared by INEC, Mr Okpebholo did not secure the majority of valid votes.

Anthony Itodo, a senior technical officer at INEC, subpoenaed to produce the BIVAS machines, appeared as the petitioners’ 15th witness on Thursday.

“I was directed to produce the BVAS machines as ordered by the subpoena, and I hereby present 148 machines for 133 polling units,” Mr Itodo told the three-member tribunal, chaired by Wilfred Kpochi.

Discrepancy in BVAS machines

INEC’s lawyer, Kanu Agabi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), said he had no objection to tendering of the machines by Mr Itodo.

However, Mr Okpebholo’s lawyer, Onyechi Ikpeazu, a SAN, counsel for the second respondent, objected but reserved his grounds for final address in the case.

APC’s lawyer, Emmanuel Ukala, a SAN, also objected, arguing that Mr Itodo was not in court to testify but merely to present the machines.

For his part, petitioners’ lawyer, Adetunji Oyeyipo, a SAN, pointed out a discrepancy. He said that INEC had previously stated it would present 151 BVAS machines but had now produced only 148.

He said further that only the machines—not their storage boxes—be brought before the tribunal.

The tribunal chair, Mr Kpochi, went on to admit the BVAS as exhibits “and the objection raised by the second respondent is reserved for ruling.”

On the issue of whether the witness would have to speak, Mr Kpochi said, “We will only record what the witness has presented in court, not any discussions that happened outside these proceedings.

“There will be no cross-examination of Mr Itodo. We are recording that he was summoned and produced 148 BVAS machines for 133 polling units.”

PDP witnesses dispute election results

Earlier in the proceedings, petitioners’ witnesses 13 and 14—Eseigbe Victor and Uyide Imaseun, respectively—testified regarding alleged irregularities in the election.

The PDP and its candidate, Mr Ighodalo, alleged in their petition that the election was marred by non-compliance with the Electoral Act .

Mr Victor testified that irregularities occurred in 28 polling units in Akoko Edo Ward 9.

“I discovered discrepancies in the figures recorded on Form EC8A and EC8B, which is why I refused to sign it,” he told the tribunal.

Under cross-examination by INEC’s lawyer, Mr Agabi, the witness said he did not personally create the documents he was presenting as evidence.

Mr Ikpeazu, representing the APC, asked Mr Victor about the number of accredited voters in Ward 9, Unit 001, according to INEC’s I-Rev portal.

Mr Victor said that 71 voters were accredited. However, when asked about Unit 003, he noted a discrepancy: 262 voters were registered, but only 116 were recorded on BVAS.

Similarly, Mr Imaseun, from Oredo Local Government Area, testified that he refused to sign Form EC8B due to inconsistencies with Form EC8C. He said only INEC could explain the contradictions.

“I didn’t sign the form. I protested because Form EC8B contradicts Form EC8C,” he said.

When pressed by Mr Ikpeazu about whether he had a correct computation of his ward’s results, Mr Imaseun said he did but leftit behind in Benin City on a rough sheet of paper.

He also conceded that he did not obtain the certified true copies of key electoral documents—Form EC8A, EC8B, EBL1, EC8C, and EA14—from INEC.

He added that he did not prepare the evidence of the irregularities he alleged to be true.

PDP, APC clash over alleged witness intimidation

At the beginning of the tribunal proceedings, the proceeding was disrupted by accusations of witness intimidation.

Ken Mozia, a SAN and member of PDP’s legal team, alleged that some of his party’s witnesses had been threatened, discouraging them from testifying.

“We coded their names using acronyms, but their identities became known due to their roles in the election. Some of them are now afraid to testify,” Mr Mozia told the tribunal.

His claim provoked sharp rebuttals from APC lawyers.

Mr Ikpeazu dismissed the allegations as baseless. “My lord, this is unfortunate. My learned friend is involving us in a phantom allegation,” he said, insisting that the petitioners had not provided a list of the witnesses expected to testify.

Mr Ukala argued that if witnesses were being threatened, the petitioners should report to law enforcement agencies rather than raise the issue in court.

READ  ALSO: Edo Election Tribunal: PDP witnesses allege irregularities in three LGAs

“If criminal activities are happening, they know what to do and whom to report to,” he said.

However, Mr Mozia insisted that he had already shown Mr Ukala video evidence of the alleged threats.

“My lord, I even sent him videos of the threats. To call it phantom is unfair,” he said.

Mr Ukala countered, stating that the video did not pertain to the witness list.

“The video he shared with me had nothing to do with the schedule of witnesses. At that time, the witness schedule had not even been filed,” he said.

Mr Kpochi sought to defuse the tension, urging the petitioners to provide the respondents with witness lists in advance.

“My appeal is that you give them the list of witnesses prepared for the next day,” he said.

The tribunal adjourned to continue hearing evidence tomorrow (Friday).