The Delta State Election Petition Tribunal regrettably upheld the election of Sheriff Oborevwori of the PDP as Delta State Governor. Reacting to the development, Obarisi Ovie Omo-Agege and the All Progressives Congress APC rejected the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal ruling. Ovie Omo-Agege described the tribunal’s verdict as “unfair” and “a miscarriage of justice” and has since appealed against the judgment.
On closer examination of the decision of the tribunal, it becomes obvious that the laws governing the election were abused, misused, or manipulated in order to arrive at the final verdict. Clearly, the judgment defied the spirit of the 2022 Electoral Act, as well as common sense and logical reasoning.
A crucial question arises: Can an unmarked ballot paper, lacking a signature, stamp, and date, be deemed a valid vote?
Apparently, the Delta State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal might have been unaware of the recent amendments to the electoral law as reflected in the 2022 Electoral Act, which applied to the 2022 Governorship Election.
There were at least three key provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 that were an improvement over the Electoral Act 2010, which the judges refused to rely upon: Specifically, section 137 and paragraph 46(4) of the First Schedule.
Section 137 states, "It shall not be necessary for a party who alleges non-compliance with the provisions of this Act for the conduct of elections to call oral evidence if originals or certified true copies manifestly disclose the non-compliance alleged.
Relatedly, paragraph 46(4) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022 stated thus: “Documentary evidence shall be put in and may be read or taken as read by consent, such documentary evidence shall be deemed demonstrated in open court and the parties in the petition shall be entitled to address and urge argument on the content of the document, and the Tribunal or Court shall scrutinize or investigate the content of the documents as part of the process of ascribing probative value to the documents or otherwise.
Notably, under Section 53(2) of the 2010 Electoral Act, over-voting is defined as when the votes exceed the number of registered voters, allowing the presiding officer to nullify the votes in that polling unit. However, the 2022 Electoral Act, Section 51(2) defines over-voting as votes exceeding BVAS accredited voters, with similar provisions for nullification. The tribunal's reluctance to consider the BVAS report and voter register is puzzling.
Obviously, from the tribunal's judgment, it is evident that these considerations were not taken into account. This is especially true in light of the humongous bribes they had collected.
There is hope that Obarisi Ovie Omo-Agege, CFR, APC members, and Deltans will prevail at the Appellate Court. This will strengthen public trust in the judiciary and ensure electoral integrity.
On closer examination of the decision of the tribunal, it becomes obvious that the laws governing the election were abused, misused, or manipulated in order to arrive at the final verdict. Clearly, the judgment defied the spirit of the 2022 Electoral Act, as well as common sense and logical reasoning.
A crucial question arises: Can an unmarked ballot paper, lacking a signature, stamp, and date, be deemed a valid vote?
Apparently, the Delta State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal might have been unaware of the recent amendments to the electoral law as reflected in the 2022 Electoral Act, which applied to the 2022 Governorship Election.
There were at least three key provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 that were an improvement over the Electoral Act 2010, which the judges refused to rely upon: Specifically, section 137 and paragraph 46(4) of the First Schedule.
Section 137 states, "It shall not be necessary for a party who alleges non-compliance with the provisions of this Act for the conduct of elections to call oral evidence if originals or certified true copies manifestly disclose the non-compliance alleged.
Relatedly, paragraph 46(4) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022 stated thus: “Documentary evidence shall be put in and may be read or taken as read by consent, such documentary evidence shall be deemed demonstrated in open court and the parties in the petition shall be entitled to address and urge argument on the content of the document, and the Tribunal or Court shall scrutinize or investigate the content of the documents as part of the process of ascribing probative value to the documents or otherwise.
Notably, under Section 53(2) of the 2010 Electoral Act, over-voting is defined as when the votes exceed the number of registered voters, allowing the presiding officer to nullify the votes in that polling unit. However, the 2022 Electoral Act, Section 51(2) defines over-voting as votes exceeding BVAS accredited voters, with similar provisions for nullification. The tribunal's reluctance to consider the BVAS report and voter register is puzzling.
Obviously, from the tribunal's judgment, it is evident that these considerations were not taken into account. This is especially true in light of the humongous bribes they had collected.
There is hope that Obarisi Ovie Omo-Agege, CFR, APC members, and Deltans will prevail at the Appellate Court. This will strengthen public trust in the judiciary and ensure electoral integrity.
Comments
Post a Comment