RIGHT OF REPLY
THE article written by one Nosa Omorodion headlined ‘’Edo Election: INEC’s hypocritical submission’’ which appeared in the Vanguard of Friday March 10, 2017 would not have required a response of any kind. But for the sake of putting issues in proper  perspective, I decided that the simple issue which provoked so much anger in him deserves to be discussed if only to clear certain insinuations contained in the article.

In the main, Omorodion sought to pooh-pooh and declare ineffectual the defence put up by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, at the ongoing trial of the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and its candidate at the September 28, 2016 Edo State governorship election against the declaration of Mr. Godwin Obaseki of the All Progressives Congress, APC, by the electoral body, INEC. Omorodion, a card carrying member of the PDP and an acolyte of the PDP governorship candidate, Osagie Ize-Iyamu, decided to put himself in a position to lecture the tribunal on the perceived inadequacies in the defence of INEC, the first respondent in the petition before the tribunal.

According to Omorodion, ‘’is  it not absurd that INEC, the first respondent, or rather, defendant, in the Edo State governorship election petition trial  would want to play  judge to the tribunal? What else can one infer from its counsel’s assertion that they are relying on the oral evidence of the petitioners’ witnesses as their  defence, and for which reason they decided not to call any of their witnesses from the pool of over 500, as determined by the deposition of the petitioners’ witnesses?’’ Omorodion went further to ask: ‘’Is it not a demonstration of crass hypocrisy for INEC, through its counsel, to predicate their defence on their vain declaration of contradictory evidence of the petitioners’ witnesses? This is more so for the simple truth that they hid their own witnesses to avoid making them contradict themselves under the cross examination of the petitioners’ counsel?’’

Since when in law, has it become the duty of a petitioner/plaintiff to determine how a respondent/defendant should produce and present evidence in his case? If, in the wisdom of INEC counsel, the petition can be adequately defended without calling witnesses, does it injure Omorodion’s case against the declaration of Mr. Godwin Obaseki as governor?  If it does not, why has Omorodion not taken the PDP and Osagie Ize-Iyamu on a victory lap round Benin City and other towns and villages in Edo and beyond instead of  spitting bile?

INEC”s reliance on the oral evidence of the petitioner’s witnesses in the instant case is akin to the no-case submission in criminal matters where the defendant’s counsel, seeing no strong evidence against his client at the close of the prosecution’s case, may proceed to ask for judgment through a motion. Perhaps, Omorodion knows that INEC has a very strong point in deciding not to call witnesses who, the tribunal was informed, had concluded their NYSC service and, therefore, could not be assembled easily by INEC.

Omorodion also queried: “Who made INEC the judge in this matter that it would attempt to make a judicial pronouncement on the performance of the witnesses of Pastor Osagie ize-Iyamu and the PDP?  By what parameters did the INEC counsel arrive at the prejudicial conclusion that the petitioners witnesses’ is inclined towards in favour of the respondents?’’ Rephrased, the foregoing question should be directed to Omorodion, who, not being a direct party to the petition, has donned the toga of judge and jury to declare that INEC hypocritically erred by relying on the oral evidence of the petitioner’s witnesses in defence of the case against it as first respondent. Is this not a case of crying more than the bereaved? Omorodion seeks to influence the final outcome of the petition by declaring, emphatically, and thereby usurping the powers of the Justice Ahmed Gbadamasi-chaired tribunal, that ‘’it is taken for granted that INEC, by its abdication, has tacitly admitted guilt as charged.’’ Was this intended to sway public opinion or the tribunal’s final decision?

As the hearing in the petition moves to the final stage of addresses by the counsels to both petitioners and respondents the question of which side has the upper hand cannot, by any diabolical imagination, become evident with the presentation of written or oral evidence by witnesses.

It must be pointed out that such comments on a matter pending before a court of competent jurisdiction go beyond the realm of fair comment or in pursuit of a fundamental right of free speech. Comments of this nature may cause panic and anxiety among the populace, the consequence of which may be unpleasant. All parties to the governorship election petition must exercise due care not to create wrong impressions before the matter is disposed of by the tribunal.