By: Owaen Fred Itua
In the ongoing legal proceedings of the Edo State Governorship Election Tribunal (case EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024), the testimony of the petitioners’ fourth witness, Destiny Enabulele, brought forward a complex narrative that highlighted contradictions in the petitioners’ claims.
Enabulele, a development worker and former Edo State House of Assembly member, presented a documentary evidence while grappling with the paradox of his party simultaneously claiming victory in a disputed election and contesting its validity.
Enabulele, whose 2023 election was annulled by a tribunal due to electoral irregularities, testified that his party, the PDP, questioned the election’s credibility while asserting it had won. This dual stance raised concerns about the consistency of the petitioners’ arguments.
Though the tribunal allowed corrections to initial errors in his deposition, the testimony faced intense legal and procedural scrutiny.
Citing documents such as voter registers, BVAS accreditation reports, and INEC forms EC8A, EC8B, and ECAC, Enabulele alleged over-voting and other irregularities in 19 polling units within his local government.
He also pointed to canceled votes. However, during cross-examination, he admitted he had not personally prepared these documents except for Form EC8C, which he signed as a collation agent. This weakened his argument by revealing his reliance on second-hand information.
The first respondent’s counsel emphasized inconsistencies in Enabulele’s testimony, including his acknowledgment that his party’s protests at polling units were ignored by presiding officers. Additionally, his admission that the results he signed were derived from polling unit tallies conflicted with claims of invalidity in the broader process.
The second respondent’s counsel scrutinized specific claims of over-voting, focusing on units 028 and 034. Enabulele conceded that votes in these units were canceled at the ward collation center as documented in exhibits PB06 and PB04. His inability to access BVAS machines used for accreditation during his analysis further undermined his evidence.
The third respondent’s counsel exposed gaps in Enabulele’s knowledge of BVAS operations. His admission of having no operational experience with BVAS machines and the irrelevance of serial numbers in most referenced forms revealed procedural shortcomings in his analysis. These deficiencies cast doubt on the reliability of his evidence.
After cross-examination, the petitioners declined to re-examine Enabulele, signaling an acknowledgment of the weaknesses in his testimony. While his evidence illuminated aspects of the petitioners’ claims, it also highlighted contradictions and procedural gaps that could undermine their case before the tribunal.
As the proceedings continue, the duality of claiming victory while contesting validity remains a critical issue.
Fred Itua is the Chief Press Secretary to Edo State Governor.
