By Fred Itua
I must admit from the outset that I am neither a lawyer nor a legal luminary. I also acknowledge my bias in this matter; however, I intend to anchor my position on legal precedents and superior arguments, as the learned minds would say. That said, here is my take on the above subject.
The principle of onus probandi (burden of proof) is a well-established tenet in Nigerian law. As rightly stated, he who asserts must prove (Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat). The burden of proof in an election petition rests squarely on the petitioner— in this case, the PDP and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo. It is not the responsibility of the declared winner, Senator Monday Okpebholo, nor that of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which merely conducted the election.
The PDP’s case suffers from a fundamental deficiency: a lack of credible evidence. Their witnesses were plagued by contradictions, assumptions, and hearsay—none of which can stand the rigorous test of judicial scrutiny. As the courts have repeatedly held, mere allegations, no matter how loudly echoed in the media, cannot substitute for proof. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible (Section 38 of the Evidence Act, 2011), and speculative claims have no place in a court of law.
Moreover, media propaganda does not translate to legal authority. A parallel trial conducted by bloggers, commentators, and analysts who lack legal grounding is an exercise in futility. The law does not recognize social media noise as a substitute for factual evidence. As the courts have consistently ruled, justice is blind to sentiments and emotions; it is determined by the weight of legal arguments and proof (Adeleke v. Oyetola (2023) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1868) 55).
The PDP has hung its case on alleged overvoting—a claim that lacks both legal and numerical weight. The Electoral Act 2022 (Section 51) is explicit on the treatment of over-voting: any polling unit where the number of votes exceeds accredited voters shall have its results canceled. INEC, acting within its statutory mandate, duly canceled results from affected polling units in accordance with the law.
Crucially, even if all canceled votes were to be restored to the PDP, they remain statistically insignificant in altering the overall result of the election. Thus, the PDP’s reliance on this argument is akin to building a castle on quicksand—an exercise in self-deception. The legal maxim ex nihilo nihil fit (you cannot build something on nothing) aptly applies here.
Justice is not dispensed as an act of charity or sympathy; it is a product of superior legal reasoning, backed by credible evidence. As the Supreme Court reaffirmed in Atiku v. INEC & Tinubu (2023), a petitioner must do more than raise allegations; they must substantiate their claims with irrefutable proof. The PDP’s case lacks this foundational requirement, making its collapse inevitable.
Ultimately, the courts will rule based on law and facts, not on media hysteria or partisan expectations. While the PDP’s supporters may indulge in speculative narratives to discredit the judiciary ahead of an unfavorable judgment, the truth remains unshaken: the election was conducted lawfully, the votes were counted fairly, and Senator Monday Okpebholo won decisively.
The judiciary exists to uphold justice, not to validate baseless petitions driven by political desperation.
Fred Itua is the Chief Press Secretary to the Edo State Governor
