Transcription
The Ado State Election Petition Tribunal adjourned for judgment on the petition filed by the People's Democratic Party (PDP) and their governorship candidate, Asalo, challenging the outcome of the 2024 state governorship election. The tribunal chair, Justice W, made the adjournment after both parties adopted their final written addresses. The adjournment was slated for Monday, March 3rd, 2025, in Abuja.
The tribunal noted the petitioners failed to show any alternative result sheets, evidence, or plead any alternative EC25B forms to challenge the PDP’s documentary evidence of rigging across 765 polling units in Ado State. The PDP petition only challenged 765 polling units with issues like over-voting, un-serialized ballots, and mis-computation of results, which allegedly altered Dr. Asalo's victory. The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in cases like *Kennedy v. John* and *Baba v. ZC*, arguing that sensitive election materials, including EC25B forms, were missing from some polling units during the September 21st governorship election.
The PDP governorship candidate, Dr. Asen Galo, presented 19 witnesses and tendered 154 exhibits to demonstrate over-voting, un-serialized ballots, and incorrect computation of results during the hearing of petition EP/ED/G2202/4. Conversely, the first respondent offered no evidence to defend Senator M's victory in the September 21st governorship election. The second respondent, Governor Mulu, only admitted under cross-examination that over-voting occurred in some polling units, corroborating the petitioners' claims. Upon resuming for final written addresses on Monday, the petitioners’ counsel, Ado S, presented their arguments. The first and second respondents' counsels, Kanu Agabi, S.O.I.U., and Emmanuel Okala, respectively, also presented their arguments.
PDP spokesperson, Honorable Fuo, and APC legal advisor, Steven Uro, stated their satisfaction with the court proceedings. They highlighted the court's allowance of 15 minutes for each counsel to present their closing arguments and expressed pleasure that the testimonies corroborated their claims of over-voting and incorrect collation of scores in several polling units, along with the failure to adhere to established guidelines. They petitioned 756 out of over 4,000 polling units, referencing Supreme Court cases (*Kennedy v. ..., Baba v. ZC*, and *Johnson v. ZC*) where the percentage of witnesses did not determine the outcome, as long as the evidence was substantiated. They expressed hope for a swift judgment.
The petitioners (PDP) and respondents (APC) both had motions, but mutually decided to withdraw them to avoid further delaying the judgment. The respondents' final written addresses argued the petition was weak, noting only 765 out of 4,519 polling units (16.7%) were challenged, and only five polling unit agents were presented as witnesses out of the 760 units in question. They highlighted that even the 50 units alleged to have over-voting were cancelled.
Adam, a former Governor of the State, commented on the proceedings, noting the plaintiff’s need to prove their allegations. He emphasized the requirement for eyewitnesses from each contested unit and criticized the petitioners for calling fewer than 20 witnesses out of an alleged 170, with only five being polling unit agents. He concluded the petition was weak and lacked sufficient evidence. The counsels adopted their final written addresses, and the case was adjourned for final judgment on a date to be communicated to the parties. As seen and reported by TMC TV, no blame is attributed to this reporting.