The member representing Ovia South West constituency, in Edo State House of Assembly, Destiny Enabulele, has described Governor Monday Okpebholo’s victory at the tribunal as a rape on the collective will of voters.
Naijaonpoint reports that Enabulele said the tribunal’s ruling dashed the hope of Nigerians who believed that the judiciary is the hope of the common man.
Speaking with News Central on Thursday, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) lawmaker stated that the prayers before the tribunal were simple and easy to adjudicate.
“You see, what happened yesterday (Wednesday) to my mind and to the mind of very many Nigerians is a rape on the collective will of the people. If have be following the very beginning of this whole tribunal voyage, you agree with me that our plea was very simple. It was in just two major pillars. It has to do with the non-serialization or non-compliance. And the failure to reflect the majority of votes, just very simple.
“From what you saw yesterday (Wednesday), it was a colossal travesty on justice. Because if you are there from the very beginning, you will see the lead judge, or the chairman of the tribunal, saying that, as his colleague, that this is a unanimous judgment.
“For me, I am over 40, close to 50. I have been following court and tribunal proceedings. I have never seen such a mockery of the judicial system,” he said.
Enabulele dismissed the tribunal’s stand that PDP and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo, failed to substantiate their claims. He refuted that they dumped the evidence without speaking or attesting to them.
He stated that the Electoral Act clarified that certified documents tendered as exhibits did not require oral evidence.
“I disagree with him (tribunal chairman) vehemently. Because I am a civil society person. I come and find myself accidentally in politics.
“You see, what we have done, if you look at Electoral Act, let me try to be very precise, section 137, which states, and I quote, that if a petitioner alleges, and has the necessary documents to back up his claims, that the issue of oral evidence is a secondary, not a must. So what we have done, even when it was certified, the BVAS , the IReV, and the results, it was certified true copies of these documents. We have them before the court,” he added.