The Edo State Governorship Election Tribunal was marked by a significant moment this week as one of the petitioners submitted a bulk of documents, which they claimed to be evidence supporting their case. However, what followed was an unexpected wave of jubilation from their supporters, who misunderstood the legal implications of this move.
Legal experts and seasoned observers were quick to caution that the submission of documents in bulk, often referred to as “dumping evidence,” is a common practice meant to expedite proceedings, but does not automatically translate into a successful outcome. “This stage is simply about presenting documents for consideration. It is not the final action. The tribunal will ultimately decide on the admissibility and relevance of these documents,” one legal expert explained.
Critics highlighted that the bulk submission lacks the necessary foundation to carry evidential weight. Most notably, the documents submitted, including Certified True Copies (CTC) of election results, were not accompanied by witnesses who could verify their authenticity through cross-examination. This raises questions about their probative value and leaves them vulnerable to challenges from respondents, who can easily contest their accuracy and relevance.
Furthermore, preliminary assessments of the documents revealed no substantial evidence of alterations or manipulation, with minor alleged over-voting cases statistically insignificant in the overall outcome of the election. The discrepancies between the petitioners’ figures and the original result sheets cast further doubt on the strength of their case.
Despite the celebrations among the petitioners’ supporters, legal analysts warned that without credible witnesses and verifiable evidence, the case is unlikely to succeed. “Dumping documents without proper linkage to witnesses is not a winning strategy,” one lawyer asserted, urging the public to remain cautious and patient as the tribunal continues its deliberations.
