RE: Revelations of Bayelsa, Imo, and Kogi Elections by Law School Student, Chidoka, A Mere Tabulation of Personal Opinion of an Extern

On November 11, 2023, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) conducted off-circle governorship elections in Bayelsa, Imo, and Kogi States, which resulted in the election of Duoye Diri, Hope Uzodinma, and Usman Ododo as governors, respectively. While Governor Duoye Diri is of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Hope Uzodinma and Usman Ododo represent the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Dissatisfied with the election outcomes, the runners-up in these elections approached the governorship election tribunals in their respective states. The tribunals affirmed the elections of the governors as announced by INEC, validating them as duly elected. The aggrieved candidates then appealed the tribunals’ judgments to the Court of Appeal, which, after thoroughly reviewing the tribunal’s decisions, resolved the grounds of appeal against the appellants, thereby affirming the tribunal’s judgment. Dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s ruling, the appellants have now appealed to the Supreme Court, which is expected to provide a final resolution to the issues arising from the governorship elections in Bayelsa, Imo, and Kogi on November 11, 2023, in the days ahead.

The Apex Court is set to commence hearing on the appeal filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and its candidate Murtala Yakubu Ajaka on August 19, 2024, and may deliver its judgment on the appeal shortly thereafter.
Once the Supreme Court renders its decision, it will mark the end of the legal journey, as no further appeals can be made within the Nigerian legal system. In accordance with the provisions of Sections 285 (6) and (7) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended by the First Alteration Act No. 1 of 2010, election petitions must be disposed of within 180 days, with 60 days allocated for the disposal of any appeals arising therefrom.
While awaiting the judgment of the Apex Court, political pundits, data analysts (both trained and untrained), party loyalists, and supporters have engaged in actions that are prejudicial. Some seek to influence the court, while others aim to garner public sympathy in an attempt to sway the court’s decision. However, the law is impartial and remains blind to the identities of those seeking redress or protection. It is a well-established principle that “Lex Non Logit ad Impossibillia” — “The law does not compel the doing of impossibilities.”

On Sunday, November 18, Osita Chidoka, a current student at the Nigerian Law School, Bwari Campus, and a former Minister of Aviation and PDP governorship candidate in Anambra State, appeared on Channels Television’s Politics Today, where he presented what he termed the “Revelations of Bayelsa, Imo, and Kogi Elections, 2023.”

Chidoka’s presentation was, in essence, an academic tabulation of personal opinion of an extern regarding the elections held in Bayelsa, Imo, and Kogi on November 11, 2023. As a card-carrying member of the opposition party, Chidoka’s analysis was devoid of factual evidence and lacked any probative value.
Osita’s analysis, bereft of factual data, was nothing more than the opinion of an opposition party member lamenting the dwindling fortunes of his political party.

Let us dissect his blatant misrepresentation from an empirical perspective, utilizing common sense and analytical knowledge. Three elections were conducted simultaneously in three states on November 11, 2023, with two won by the APC and one by the PDP (Chidoka’s party). In his short-sighted analysis, Chidoka claimed there was over-voting in all three elections. According to his arithmetic, if the over-voting figures were removed from the announced results, the APC candidates in Imo and Kogi States would lose their seats, while the PDP candidate in Bayelsa would still emerge victorious despite the over-voting irregularities in that election.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) deployed 46,084 ad hoc and regular staff for the off-cycle governorship elections in Bayelsa, Imo, and Kogi States in 2023. These ad hoc staff included data analysts, election officers, mathematicians, enumerators, and other experts in the conduct of these elections. Apart from Chidoka, all other election observers commended the conduct of the elections, particularly in Kogi State, which was widely regarded as the most peaceful. Credible election observers, such as Yiaga Africa and other Civil Society Organizations, provided positive assessments of the elections.

One wonders how Chidoka, with his obscure NGOs, Athena Centre that were not even present during the conduct of the elections, came up with such incongruent and biased data.
Let us consider Kogi State as an example; there are 21 local government areas in the state, 239 wards, and 3,508 polling units. INEC deployed staff to conduct and observe elections in all these polling units in Kogi State. Civil society organizations like Yiaga Africa had a significant presence in most of these polling units during the election.

It is pertinent to question where and how Osita Chidoka obtained his data, especially given that he was not present in Kogi, Imo, or Bayelsa States on the day of the elections. What was the staff strength of Chidoka’s obscure organization, and how many personnel were deployed to cover the elections? Assuming Chidoka was in Kogi during the election, how could he possibly have covered all 3,508 polling units? Even if we assume Chidoka was in Lokoja, he is not omnipresent, capable of being at one polling unit while simultaneously observing the other 3,507.

People should be aware of Osita Chidoka’s notoriety for imposing his opinions on others. As a law student currently at the Nigerian Law School, Bwari Campus, Chidoka has had heated exchanges with his lecturers and fellow students, where he criticized the Justices of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, arguing that it was wrong for the Courts to require election petitioners to present polling unit witnesses in proving election petitions. Osita claimed to have been an agent for the Labour Party during the 2023 presidential election and witnessed election rigging. He was surprised to hear the court demand that petitioners must call polling unit witnesses to prove their case. The lecturer, in his wisdom, explained the impracticality of proving election irregularities at polling units without polling unit agents and emphasized that even if all witnesses cannot be called, a substantial number of those who deposed to witness statements on oath should be present during hearings for examination and cross-examination, where necessary.

One of the grounds of the SDP and its candidate’s petition against Ahmed Usman Ododo is for the court to determine “Whether the Governorship Election conducted on November 11, 2023, was conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022.” Having failed to prove this ground beyond even the petitioner’s doubt at the governorship election petition tribunal and the Court of Appeal, Osita Chidoka’s attempt to sway public opinion has also failed woefully due to the accidental inexactitude that enveloped his presentation.

While challenging the outcome of the election results in Kogi, the SDP candidate tendered Certified True Copies of Voters’ Registers, BVAS screenshots, BVAS Reports, Form EC8As downloads from the IREV portal, and a host of other documents from the Bar as Exhibits P1 – P155, P200 — P253, P254 – P305, and P313 to P349. The Petitioners also called 25 witnesses who testified as PW1 – P25, through whom they tendered BVAS Machines as Exhibits P159 to P199 and other Electoral documents as Exhibits P306 – P312, P350 – P359 in order to prove over-voting.
The petitioners were unable to call competent witnesses to relate the documents to specific areas of the Petition in respect of which the documents were tendered. It is well-established beyond any doubt that a Petitioner who alleges non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act is duty-bound to call witnesses polling unit by polling unit, ward by ward, and to do so, the Petitioners are required to call polling unit agents or the Presiding Officers of the affected polling units. In this case, the Petitioners, who challenged the results of the election in 5 or 6 Local Government Areas, namely, Adavi, Ajaokuta, Lokoja, Okehi, and Ogori/Magongo and Okene Local Government Areas, filed 660 witness depositions, of which only 24 witness depositions were adopted, representing 3.6% of the witness depositions filed. In other words, 96.4% of the witness depositions filed by the Petitioners were abandoned. It follows that the Petitioners abandoned 96.4% of the case they set out to make. The witnesses the Petitioners are required to call are those who witnessed the events on the day of the election, not those who obtained their information secondhand from other eyewitnesses. Both forms and witnesses are vital in establishing the allegations of over-voting. One cannot be a substitute for the other. It is not enough for the Petitioner to tender only the documents. It is incumbent on him to lead evidence in respect of the wrongdoings or irregularities, both in the conduct of the election and the recording of the votes; wrongdoings and irregularities which substantially affected the result of the election.

In PDP V. INEC (2022) 18 NWLR (PT. 1863) 653, the Supreme Court held thus:
“On the alleged failure by the 1st and 2nd Respondents to comply with the provisions of the Electoral Act in relation to accreditation, verification, and counting of votes, etc., the Court cannot act on a perceived infraction of the Electoral Act, 2022 without proof of the facts alleged.”
In my view, the Election Petition Tribunal and the Court of Appeal were correct in refusing to ascribe probative value to the documentary evidence adduced by the Petitioners. The Petitioners’ evidence was bereft of any probative value in relation to the allegations in the Petition as the documents relied on are worthless pieces of paper without oral evidence relating to the document to the facts pleaded in the Petition.

In conclusion, while Osita Chidoka has indeed done well by inspiring most of his Law School classmates to begin electoral matters as their areas of interest upon Call to Bar, his analysis of the elections conducted in Bayelsa, Imo, and Kogi on November 11, 2023, was nothing more than the personal opinion of a law school extern, who, at best, was motivated by his political affiliation. Therefore, it should not be taken as fact or given any serious consideration in any meaningful discussion of the actual events or outcomes of those elections. It is left for the Nigerian judiciary to decide the ultimate fate of those who have challenged the results in court.

Samuel Omachi, Esq

Writes From Lokoja
Kogi State
19 August, 2024