Follow Us on Google
How much blows can a man take within three months of taking the reins of political power? If you think this only applies to President Bola Tinubu who has been galloping from one problem to another since assuming office, better look Eastwards, specifically at the Governor of Enugu state, Barr Peter Ndubuise Mbah. His quiet mien and soft-spoken voice seem to betray the tortuous electoral battles he’s up against. His ongoing travails, some of them, self-inflicted, can be likened to “One week One Trouble”, a title of the novel by Anezi Okoro. The novel focuses on the character Wilson Tagbo, a boy who got admission into secondary school. Starting from his first day at school, Tagbo reportedly jumped from one trouble to another. For what is of political lesson, the title of the book has often been used as a reference metaphor that often befalls Nigerian politicians. It’s a fitting description of the irksome burden on Gov Mbah. It’s a burden of his legitimacy as governor of his state. His nemesis is Barrister Chijioke Edeoga, the governorship candidate of the Labour Party in the March 18 Guber election. Lyndon Johnson(the 36th U.S. President) aptly captured this legitimacy challenge he faced as President after the assassination of the then incumbent President John F. Kennedy. Johnson said, “I took the oath, I became president. But for millions of Americans, I was still illegitimate, a naked man with no presidential covering, a pretender to the throne, an illegal usurper”. You see, it can be quite unbearable for an leader who faces such odium when his legitimacy or authority comes under a blanket of suspicion. That is exactly what Gov Mbah has been facing since he was sworn in on May 29. Until the Enugu State Elections Tribunal delivers its judgment, thousands of Enugu electorate who voted in that election will continue to see Mbah as a usurper, a pretender to the Lion Building, the seat of power in the state. For now, he’s grasping at the straws, with a firestorm in his governorship plate. For him, these days, it doesn’t just rain, it pours. Only recently, Enugu state stakeholders voiced this feeling at an emergency meeting at Nike Lake Hotel and Resort, located in the state capital.
In a statement signed by the President, Prof Joe Aneke, and Publicity Secretary, Dr Ifeanyi Agbo, the association told the governor, “erecting billboards on every corner of the state celebrating yourself and political godfathers cannot confer legitimacy on your administration”. They claimed that the ubiquitous billboards were veiled efforts to make the election Tribunal feel he’s popular and running a legitimate government in Enugu state. That’s the nature of how residents of Enugu state currently perceive Gov Mbah. From whichever angle you look at it, Mbah’s case is a complicated one. He is enmeshed in a tangle of possible conflicts of interests, with a likelihood of legal peril. This could be the last in a series of bad things that may end his political ambition.
Based on the overwhelming evidence before the Tribunal, Edeoga holds great significance of what may become the fate of Mbah. Time is ticking. These are Edeoga grounds of petition to unseat Mbah. He avers that Mbah was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election. The petitioner’s contention, through his lawyers, is that there were “arithmetical and computational errors” in the scores recorded and announced in favour of Mbah by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Mbah is the second respondent in the case. According to the petitioner, his votes were deliberately and wilfully swapped with those of Mbah, meaning that the 2nd respondent (Mbah) was unfairly awarded votes in excess of the number of accredited voters. In context, this amounts to daylight robbery . In simple terms, the petitioner is saying that the election in which Mbah was declared winner, was not conducted in compliance with relevant provisions of the Electoral Act.
Therefore, Edeoga insists that, if the computational errors and “criminal infractions” observed in the election results had been corrected, INEC would not have declared Mbah winner of the March 18 governorship election. These infractions are clear in some of the local governments such as Udenu and Igboeze, as well as Nkanu East and Nkanu West. For instance, in the two councils of Udenu and Igboeze, material evidence was presented to the Tribunal by the petitioner’s lawyers that there were several collation centres where results were “deliberately and inaccurately” collated to suppress the votes scored by the Edeoga, in favour of the 2nd respondent (Mbah). This was reportedly more glaring in Udenu local government, where evidence laid before the Tribunal showed that, from 17 polling units, votes scored by the petitioner, was allegedly swapped with those of Mbah. Udenu is one of the strongholds of the petitioner. Same infractions in the results from five polling units in Igboeze, where lawful votes were allegedly voided and false votes “awarded “ to both candidates, Mbah and Edeoga. The heist in Nkanu East and Nkanu West, dubbed by election observers as the “Nkanu wonder”, was not for nothing.
According to figures from INEC Bimodal Voter Accreditation System( BVAS), Nkanu East LGA recorded 15,000 accredited voters on election day. However, the “American wonder” happened when the result was announced: Mbah, the PDP candidate got 30,000 votes, while the Labour Party candidate(Edeoga) was ‘awarded’ 1,855 votes, meaning an excess of 15, 000 votes were “allocated” to Mbah. Was this a clear case of over-voting or something stranger than that? Who says our politics is not a curious fun to follow? Though the petitioner did write a petition to INEC addressed to the State Returning Officer, Prof Maduebisbi, demanding a review of the results in Nkanu, nothing concrete was done to correct the anomaly. INEC legal team, led by Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, merely offered a feeble defence to debunk the evidence by the petitioner. Rather than do the right thing, in line with Section 51(2) of the Electoral Act that requires outright cancellation of results of polling units where there are manifest over-voting, the Returning Officer deducted some votes from the PDP candidate, repackaged the entire result and proceeded to announce what observers called “cooked up” result. That’s unacceptable. But that’s not all the ‘mountain’ that Gov Mbah has to climb in the controversial poll. His National Youth Service Corps( NYSC) discharged certificate is one Gordian knot that the Tribunal must try to untie. So far, efforts made by him to stop the NYSC from giving evidence before the Tribunal have failed, just as the procured “staff” of the Department of State Service(DSS), Isa Yahaya Mohammed, has since been disowned by the secret police.
Early last month, Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, declined to grant an application for an interlocutory injunction seeking to restrain the NYSC from giving evidence before the Tribunal in the suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/611/2023, filed by Mbah’s counsel, Emeka Ozoani(SAN). The judge refused to maintain the status quo. Mbah’s controversial NYSC discharged certificate is one of the five grounds Edeoga is relying on to nullify the election of Gov Mbah and remove him from office. Every passing day, things are getting harder for Mbah. His case at the Tribunal appears to be standing on a quicksand, with a web of overlapping contradictions in his evidence before the Tribunal.
In a recent deposition at the Federal High Court, Abuja, by the Assistant Director in the NYSC Certificate Department, Mrs Rhoda Dawa, the corps submitted a trove of information to the effect that the NYSC discharge certificate Mbah submitted to INEC, was not issued by the organisation. Mbah had claimed that he participated in the NYSC scheme via a Call-up letter: FRN/2001/800351 with the Lagos Code LA/01/1532. He also claimed that on completion of service, he was issued with a discharge certificate Number:A808297, dated January 6, 2003. NYSC has since repudiated that too. Curiously, that same year, Mbah was Chief of Staff to former governor of the state, Dr. Chimaroke Nnamani. It should be recalled that following the Freedom of Information Act application by the law firm of OMAS & Partners, the NYSC had issued a disclaimer on Mbah’s certificate. In all of this, the question is: Could Mbah have walked on two roads at once – serving as Chief of Staff – and at the same time doing his mandatory one year NYSC? Did INEC manipulate victory on Mbah’s behalf? Does the submission of learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Wole Olanipekun, to the Tribunal that Section 177 of the Constitution does not list NYSC discharged certificate as a qualification for a candidate who ought to have participated in the scheme hold any water? All of these questions are for the tribunal to answer.
In that connection, I align myself with some legal experts’ opinion that section 182 of the Constitution is the right provision to follow for any candidate to be qualified for election in our country. Altogether, amid this labyrinth of contradictions and Edeoga’s 30 witnesses, Mbah may have found himself in a dilemma, boxed in a corner. With the parties expected to submit their written addresses this week, very soon, the 3-member Tribunal, led by Justice K.M Akano, will deliver judgement on the matter. Undoubtedly, the verdict of the Enugu Election Petition Tribunal is one of the most- awaited across the country. It is expected to define a new pathway to our democracy. All eyes on the judiciary. Impartiality should be the watchword.
