Governor Monday Okpebholo’s triumph at the tribunal has been characterized by Edo State House of Assembly member Destiny Enabulele, who represents the Ovia South West seat, as a rape on the collective will of voters.
Enabulele was quoted as saying that Nigerians’ belief that the judiciary is the hope of the average person was crushed by the tribunal’s decision.
Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) senator said the tribunal’s requests were straightforward and simple to decide in an interview with News Central on Thursday.
“You see, many Nigerians, like myself, believe that what happened yesterday (Wednesday) was a rape on the people’s collective will. If you’ve been following this tribunal journey from the start, you concur with me that our plea was fairly straightforward. It was found in only two main pillars. The non-serialization or non-compliance is the reason. And it’s fairly straightforward that the majority of votes were not reflected. According to what you witnessed yesterday, Wednesday, there was a massive injustice. You will witness the lead judge, or the tribunal chairman, stating as his colleague that this is a unanimous decision if you are present from the start.
In my opinion, I am past 40 and almost fifty. I have been watching the processes in courts and tribunals. “I have never witnessed such a disdain for the legal system,” he remarked.
Read Also: WTO Monitoring Trump’s Trade Policies – Says Okonjo-Iweala
Enabulele rejected the tribunal’s argument that the PDP and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo, had not provided evidence to support their assertions. “They dumped the evidence without speaking or attesting to them,” he denied.
“The Electoral Act made it clear that certified documents submitted as exhibits did not need oral testimony,” he said.
“I strongly disagree with the head of the tribunal. since I am an advocate for civil society. Politics is where I end up by accident.
“As you can see, if you look at the Electoral Act, specifically section 137, which says—and I quote—that oral evidence is a secondary, not a necessary, problem if a petitioner makes a claim and provides the supporting documentation. Therefore, we made sure that the BVAS, IReV, and outcomes were certified true copies of these documents even after they were certified. He continued, “They are in front of the court.
