IT is no secret that the political terrain in  Edo State has taken the shape of a messy pile of cards with each passing day. With less than eight weeks to the governorship election, the ruling party and its opposition seem to be playing a game of Russian roulette within their own party structures, in a last jostle to secure the top job at Osadebey Avenue. While the All Progressives Congress, APC, has a petition hanging over its just concluded primaries, the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, cannot seem to shake off the dividends of a parallel leadership which now plague its chances of fielding an aspirant at the September 10 polls.

However, the main talking point is how the state chapter of the ruling party has shot itself on the foot through the mismanagement of its primary process as a result of which a good majority of its supporters have openly and covertly threatened to declare for other political parties if the primary is not cancelled. Allegations of a scientific electoral fraud have been raised and the governor has been accused of pandering to a return to ‘Godfatherism’.

It would be recalled that two of the most widely accepted Edo APC aspirants, Kenneth Imasuagbon and Chris Ogiemwonyi, have been challenging the election of Mr Godwin Obaseki as the party’s flag bearer. They jointly submitted a petition calling for a scientific examination of the electoral materials as well as critical evaluation of the entire process. The petition signed by the two aspirants claimed that the election was scientifically, systemically or methodically rigged by some corrupt elements within the National Working Committee to the disfavour of the the petitioners.

The situation has left the Presidency with no option other than to step in and calm aggrieved contenders as it now seems that even the party’s national chairman, Chief Odigie Oyegun, is disturbed and upset by the entire exercise.

A source in the APC secretariat Abuja also raised more concerns that the Deputy Governor, Dr. Pius Odubu’s comments during the petition hearing, seemed to suggest that the governor did not allow a level playing field. However, most of the party’s state executive and legislative members disagree, attributing the petitioners’ outcry as mere tantrums of sore losers.

But those crying foul insist that the delegates list released a day earlier had several names omitted. They claim that during the accreditation exercise, questions were asked when alterations not consistent with either the NWC’s or Obaseki’s agents list were observed.

At this stage, these allegations would leave one wondering if this coincidence was part of a grand scheme to deny the Edo delegates their constitutional right or was it just another honest mistake that may have exposed the incompetence of the team brought to Benin City?

The outcry was further heightened when the APC women delegates coalition chaired by Mrs Evelyn Igbafe went to the press to express their grievances. She complained that the manner Mr Obaseki was foisted on the delegates and subsequently the people of Edo state only proves that he is not fit for leadership at the moment. Obviously for daring to complain, she has since been unceremoniously dismissed from her post of Executive Director to the Governor on Poverty Alleviation.

With the die cast and a forensic analysis in the works, some of the questions the forensic team will be clarifying are: whether the ballot paper was altered, whether the thumb printing was of an indelible ink as required by the electoral act, and finally whether the video screening reveals non-accredited delegates voted at the stadium? A party stalwart from one of the petitioners’ camp remarked thus: “We are hoping that through forensic and finger print experts and other analysts we can prove that the process was flawed”.

When consulted for professional advice, Dr. Ayomide Olowu, an   associate professor of chemistry at the University of Benin, explained that it is scientifically possible to alter a paper so that prints may become either visible or invisible after going through a catalyst. When asked how a print could be made to show in favour of a contestant on the ballot paper assuming ballot boxes were neither swapped nor stuffed, he suggested that this could be carried out by either using thermos or chromic ballot paper so that a concealed print is revealed when exposed to a catalyst such as ultraviolet light of chemical compound as common as iodine crystals, in which case a non-indelible ink would be used by the voter so that his print is not retained on the paper.

In solidarity, members of the Edo state chapter for Truth and Justice Vanguard, TJV, a non-governmental electoral watchdog led by Felix Osemwingie have reportedly retracted their earlier congratulatory message to Mr Obaseki, citing revelations from several investigations that indeed the election was neither free nor fair. They have begun compiling a list of dissatisfied delegates of over 1600 who claim that they didn’t cast their ballot for the supposed winner. They have also signed a petition to be submitted before the end of the week accusing the national electoral committee of providing vanishing ink for the polling exercise. The delegates discovered that the ink used during voting was not indelible ink as provided for by the Manual for Election Officials 2016, rather one that lasted but a few seconds on their thumbs.

Meantime, if the forensic evidence comes out positive, the relevant question  will be: who provided the materials for the election?

Mr Erasmus Ikhide, a political activist, wrote from Lagos.