READING through the article with the above heading in the Vanguard newspaper of January 12, 2017, written by a certain Ralf Imaghodor, it was apparent  that it was a job meant to create a false impression about the characters and situations surrounding the ongoing trial at the 2016 Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, at which the People Democratic Party, PDP, and its governorship candidate, Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu, are challenging the September 29 declaration by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, that Mr. Godwin Obaseki, candidate of the All Progressive Congress, APC, winner – a result contrary to the evidence officially gathered from INEC polling officials, subject to empirical analysis.

The aim of the write up was clearly to misrepresent issues with the hope that the tribunal whom the writer described in flattering terms, could be misled to form an unfavourable opinion against the petitioners who have rightly taken the legitimate step in an attempt to prove that they were robbed of the mandate given by Edo people. In this vainglorious attempt, the writer served a mishmash with a flavour of hypocrisy, obfuscation, anxiety, fear and incitement.

It is the height of hypocrisy for the writer to have suggested that there was no need for the petitioners to have protested the result as declared by INEC when he, the writer, is aware that the interest he obviously represents came to power in 2008 by the same action and the same means. Former Governor Adams Oshiomhole whom he seems to glorify would not have had the opportunity to become governor if he had not contested the result of the election in court. To this writer, when Oshiomhole went to court instead of congratulating the winner as declared by INEC, Senator Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor, he was not over ambitious, in spite of the fact that in a space of one year he had joined four political parties successively, namely: PDP, ANPP, LP and AC in his unbridled ambition to become governor – an ambition which eventually materialised.

The writer betrays the fear in the APC and their supporters that history may be repeating itself in quick succession when he indulges in the consolation that there is a difference between the Oshiomhole Petition of 2007 and the Ize-Iyamu Petition of 2016. Definitely, there is a difference which makes Ize-Iyamu’s petition more credible. The difference is that the INEC which conducted the 2016 Edo Governorship Election is more notorious for conducting elections compromised to favour the ruling party at all costs including postponing election on its eve so that the ruling party can be better prepared to carry out its plans.

The writer says the aggrieved party, Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu should have accepted the result declared by INEC because the general public accepted it as a reflection of the conduct of the election. Nothing can be farther from the truth. The mood that greeted the announcement was very ominous of a mourning gloom all over Edo State. The people could not believe what they heard because it was in direct contrast to the general expectation. The PDP was in clear lead even by the account of the live collation of results at INEC headquarters in Benin City until the electoral umpire started acting funny by delaying collation, sending independent observers out of the collation hall and suspending the exercise all through the night to await the results from then Governor Adams Oshiomhole’s senatorial zone, Edo North and other heavily compromised LGAs, which had been strategically held back.

The report by the INEC returning officers at the state collation centre on the Edo North polls, before a worldwide television audience is enough evidence of rigging by the APC. For instance, the APC deputy governorship candidate, now deputy governor, Hon. Philip Shaibu, was specifically accused by the INEC officials of interfering with the election by going round the polling stations and harassing election officials and voters. In another instance, one of the returning officers claimed to have lost the computerised result of his local government but submitted a summary written on a piece of paper which the state returning officer accepted.

How unacceptable could the result of the election have been when it was revealed with evidence to the whole world that INEC returned results for polling centres where elections were not held? One of such instances is the ten polling centres in the riverine area Ikpoba Okha LGA. This is coupled with some significant incidents of ballot snatching.  Also, citing non existent issue of electoral infractions, INEC claimed to have cancelled some results that were returned in favour of PDP at the polling units.

In spite of these and other reported incidents, Ralf Imaghodor claimed that the election was free fair, credible and acceptable to the Edo people. He accused critics of the election as having been sponsored by the PDP. Did the PDP also sponsor the foreign observers including the United States Consulate which concluded that the election was characterised by unethical practices even by the electoral umpire? Were the foreign observers not among those barred from covering the election at the collation centre?

The writer’s attempt to instigate the Tribunal against the petitioners by lying that their supporters had through the social media been expressing a lack of confidence in the members of the Tribunal, is most uncharitable. So far, there has not been any reason for the petitioners and their agents and their supporters to doubt the forthrightness of the Tribunal. Indeed, the petitioners have virtually got all their pre-trial reliefs to the chagrin of the defendants. If anyone should be uncomfortable with the Tribunal, it should be the defendants who have seen that the credible panelists seem determined to perform their sacred mandate without fear or favour.

As the writer rightly observed, winning at the Tribunal is not by the number of supporters either party gathers outside the court house chanting or the biased postings on Facebook or the twisting of issues on the pages of newspapers. The case would be won, expectedly by the weight of evidence presented, the argument of the counsel and the just disposition of the panel.

It is also true that the petitioners have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. In the same vein, the defendants: INEC, Obaseki and APC must be able to defend themselves in the face of the damning evidence they will be confronted with.

In the meantime, given the antics of the INEC and the APC to frustrate the inspection and photocopying of the ballot papers presumably used during the September 28 election, there is no doubt that they have something to hide, and which makes doubtful the claim by INEC, that the result they declared on September 29 is a true reflection of how Edo people voted the day earlier.

Mr.  Daniel Oshioke, a public affairs analyst, wrote from Benin City, Edo State.