Exactly seven days before the September 21, 2024 Edo State governorhsip election, Godwin Obaseki, the state’s then governor, described the exercise as a ‘do-or-die affair’ with violence and manipulation in the offing.
“This election is do or die; if they do, we will die. Next Saturday by this time, vote for the PDP [Peoples Democratic Party] to become the next governor,” he said during his party’s rally in the Ekemwan area of the state.
As 17 political parties prepared for election day, over 35,000 policemen arrived in the state. Military personnel and officials of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) joined to boost security and help the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
When the exercise ended, Frank Mba, a Deputy Inspector-General of Police (DIG) charged with security during the election, said the conduct was peaceful and there were no incidents of violence or manipulation.
But FIJ has found contradictory evidence that the conduct was flawed before, during and after election day.
“Throughout this election, there was no single threat recorded,” Mba said during a press briefing on September 23. “The election was violent-free. There was no recorded incident of the kidnapping, assault, or molestation of any INEC staff, other persons, or other stakeholders involved in the elections.
“There was no recorded incident of arson, no recorded incident of serious assault on the police or members of other law enforcement agencies. We were able to keep the land, the air, and the waterway safe. Citizens were able to go out and cast their votes with minimal incidents.”
This account was inaccurate.
IN ETSAKO WEST, VIOLENCE MET MALPRACTICE

When the election ended, INEC announced that Monday Okpebholo, the All Progressives Congress’ (APC) candidate, garnered 291,667 valid votes, with PDP’s Asue Ighodalo getting 247,274 votes, and Olumide Akpata of the Labour Party (LP) 22,763 votes, making up the top three of the 17 candidates. The gap between winner and runner-up was 44,393 votes.
The commission relied on results from all 18 local government areas in the state, but one stood out: Etsako West.
Sources told FIJ that INEC did not have the result of collated ballots for this LGA’s 12 wards but went on to announce a total without them. Emerging victorious here, the APC got 32,107 votes, while the PDP got 17,483 — a whopping gap of 14,624 votes.
To verify the claim of unavailability of authentic results, FIJ obtained certified true copies of collated results from all LGAs. The CTC INEC provided for Etsako West had two unique features: a conspicuous ‘Replacement Copy’ text printed atop it and no stamp on the bottom right of the page, making it different from all copies from the other 17 LGAs.
FIJ has attached CTCs of Uhunmwonde and Esan South West LGAs below to show a clear disparity with the one for Etsako West. This begged the question: what happened to the results for this one LGA?


WHERE DID THE RESULT SHEETS GO?
FIJ learnt that in the early hours of September 22, when INEC officials were collating the LGA’s results at the Auchi Council Hall, bullets began raining on the building.
It was some time around 3 am, and the sound came first before the hall’s occupants understood the situation. Benji Ojietu, deputy chairman of the LGA, was hit. A bullet tore through the darkness, shattering windows and penetrating his right shoulder, leaving entry and exit wounds.
‘THE POLICE DID IT. NONBODY ELSE’

“We were still collating 10 wards’ results and awaiting results from ward 11 and one other when it happened,” he told FIJ in December.
“On our way to the venue earlier, there was heavy police and military presence there, and there also was a Department of State Services (DSS) office nearby, so how did anyone gain entry to shoot up the place when we weren’t even allowed to drive in?”
Ojietu did not see the attackers, and he said the police made no arrests in connection to the incident. Three months later, he believes those who did it were familiar.
”The INEC officials conducting the exercise that morning left the hall before the shooting began,” Ojietu added. “During the encounter, there was no return fire. All the shots came into the building, and people fled for their lives.”
When FIJ asked who he thought was responsible for the attack, he said, “The police did it. No one else had access.”
When the Athena Centre for Policy and Leadership published its report on the election, the CSO said INEC could not provide CTC for two 12 wards; 11 in Etsako West and one in Ikpoba Okha. For the latter, the commission cancelled results in this single ward, but there was no explanation for the missing CTC for the former until FIJ found one.
‘INEC ANNOUNCD RESULTS WITHOUT RESULT SHEETS’

A source present at the collation hall where the shooting occurred, showed FIJ copies of the collated results they obtained from the venue. This source, who sought anonymity for fear of attack, said they recovered the sheets after the incident, and were taking it to Benin City, the Edo State Capital, when they learnt INEC had announced results for Etsako West.
”How did INEC get the figures when there were no ballots or sheets to rely on?” This source rhetorically quizzed. “I reported this development and kept the result sheets in my possession until a time when it would be needed.”
INEC could not provide CTCs for 11 of the 12 wards in this LGA — because the commission did not have them.
All 10,928 VOTES LOST. ZERO RESULTS IN IKPOBA OKHA’S MOST POPULATED WARD
After INEC announced results for an LGA without election materials, the commission said it was still awaiting results to arrive from Oredo and Ikpoba Okha LGAs.
Faruk Adamu Kuta, the commission’s Returning Officer, announced the suspension of the exercise on September 22, saying collation officers from the outstanding LGAs were yet to arrive with their reports. Well, these results later arrived.
Two days later, INEC and the APC issued statements explaining why collation could not occur in those areas. According to them, Mba had claimed there were security threats, and it was only safer to collate in Benin, the capital city.
Meanwhile, when the results sheet arrived in Benin, there were figures for all but Oregbeni ward in Ikpoba Okha, with 10,928 accredited voters. There, the commission cancelled results. Why? INEC never said.
In its form EC40G, INEC indicates one of four reasons for vote cancellation: over voting, non-replacement of BVAs after failure, declared emergency/disruption, or inability to deploy men and material. For cancelled results in some of this LGA’s polling units, the commission ticked the third box, but for this ward, there were no forms explaining the reason for cancellation. All 10,928 votes were lost.
On December 20, FIJ called Rita Amadi, head of INEC’s legal department whose signature appears on the CTC, but she refused to comment, saying the matter was before a tribunal.
At this time, three things had already happened:
- INEC announced results for an LGA where physical election materials were lost during a violent attack
- The commission cancelled election results for a ward without saying why, then said DIG Frank Mba told them there was a violence scare
- Mba claimed after the election that there were no violence incidents across the state
RAMPANT OVER-VOTING MARS CONDUCT
The most common reason for vote cancellation during the Edo election was over-voting. Where Bimodal Voter Accreditation (BVA) systems failed, the commission resorted to manual accreditation, consequently leading to manipulations.
Sometimes, these were spotted, but other times the manipulated results made it through.
In Polling Unit 8, Ward 10 (Ologbo) of Ikpoba Okha, only 130 of the 794 registered voters were accredited, but in INEC’s Form EC8A, the APC scored 66 votes, while the PDP scored an impossible 258 votes. In words, the PDP’s votes were written as ‘Two hundred and fifteen six’. This showed over-voting occurred in this polling unit.
FIJ spotted several cancellations on the Form EC8A document, indicating it was manipulated, and while the total number of valid votes were written as ‘Three hundred and thirty’ in words, ‘331’ was written in figures, while ‘130’ for accredited voters remained unchanged in figures.
FIJ also spotted that no agent signed the copy for the APC or the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

However, when this result was entered into the Form EC8B for ward collations, the numbers were different. Accredited voters became 413, APC’s votes became 247, and the PDP scored 54.

According to the figures on the Form EC8B, APC defeated all parties in all 20 polling units in this ward, but the Forms EC8A tell a different story. While the polling unit result was clearly manipulated to favour the PDP, the ward collation documents were manipulated to favour the APC. As was the case with several other polling units, INEC did not cancel results from this polling unit, but released copies of both contradictory documents as proof of a credible election.
A similar case occurred in Ward 2, Polling Unit 6 of Egor LGA. In the CTC, the presiding officer did not input their name on the document. This document also had inputs which showed evidence of manipulation.
In the slot for APC’s votes, the words ‘Thirty Eight’ can be seen clearly occupying the space there, while ‘Four Hundred’ is written in smaller size above it, indicating the latter was added after the former. To the left of that box is a space for the party’s results to be written in numbers. Here, ‘438’ is written, but ‘4’ appears to be the only number in the row that touches the margin, and is squeezed as though it was added later.
INEC MAGIC: 74 ACCREDITED VOTERS, 474 VOTES FOR APC

These were not the only disparities. FIJ spotted that while the total number of accredited voters in this polling unit reads ‘474’, the total number of valid votes also reads ‘474’ despite there being inputs of ‘1’ each for spoiled and rejected ballots.
On closer inspection of the document, FIJ found that as was the case with APC’s result here, the number ‘4’ was added before ’74’ to inflate the figure. Of the 726 registered voters here, only 74 were accredited, leaving 656 of the 730 supplied ballots unused. How did 656 become ‘054’ in the document? FIJ observed that while two ballots were rendered useless, the remaining unused ballots were ‘654’ but the ‘6’ in 654 was left untouched as it looked like a zero.
FIJ also obtained a copy of this polling unit’s result sheet on the INEC Result Viewing Portal (IReV). The copy matched this newspaper’s original findings.
RESULT ALTERATION FOR APC IN OVER 300 PUs
FIJ found that in at least 90 polling units, this result manipulation favoured the PDP, but it was in the APC’s favour in at least 300 polling units. The two leading parties were not the only ones with inflated polling unit results, however; other parties had these inflated numbers but in fewer units.
Inflation occurred in several ways. In some cases, the figures on the IReV portal were different from figures in the CTC, while in other cases, despite the IReV and CTC agreeing, the imputed figures in the Form EC8B differed from results in these two documents. No fewer than 125 polling units suffered this fate. Votes were added for the APC or/and deducted from the PDP. In some cases, they were added for both parties.

In Egor’s Ward 2, the APC scored 7,105, while the PDP scored 1,076. In Ward 10 of Ikpoba Okha, APC got 4,816, while the PDP bagged 1,004. These figures created a 9,841-vote gap between both parties, but like several wards across the 18 LGAs, results here were marred by overvoting and results manipulation INEC spearheaded and also defended in writing when responding to petitions before the election tribunal in Benin.
In Egor Ward 2 alone, there were 23 polling units with CTC results different from what were in the forms EC8A (Polling Unit result sheets).
PUs in Egor Ward 2 | APC’s result on Form EC8A | APC’s result on Form EC8B | Results difference |
PU 1 | 20 | 420 | +400 |
PU 5 | 16 | 216 | +200 |
PU 6 | 38 | 438 | +400 |
PU 7 | 30 | 330 | +300 |
PU 10 | 34 | 334 | +300 |
PU 11 | 36 | 336 | +300 |
PU 12 | 193 | 393 | +200 |
PU 13 | 15 | 415 | +400 |
PU 14 | 25 | 525 | +525 |
PU 15 | 49 | 349 | +300 |
PU 16 | 16 | 216 | +200 |
PU 18 | 18 | 118 | +100 |
PU 19 | 31 | 231 | +200 |
PU 20 | 29 | 329 | +300 |
PU 21 | 34 | 234 | +200 |
PU 23 | 15 | 65 | +50 |
PU 24 | 59 | 159 | +100 |
PU 25 | 16 | 46 | +30 |
PU 26 | 34 | 84 | +50 |
PU 27 | 32 | 232 | +200 |
PU 28 | 26 | 326 | +326 |
PU 29 | 41 | 441 | +400 |
PU 31 | 31 | 131 | +100 |
Total | 838 | 6,419 | +5,581 |
For emphasis, the results different after these manipulations amounted to 5,581 votes in favour of the APC.
MORE RESULTS ALTERATIONS
In Akoko Edo, 20 PUs in Ward 4 and 28 units in Ward 9 had altered results. Here, unlike in Egor, the PDP’s results were altered as well as they gained inflated results in six units in Ward 9, but suffered a votes deduction in 40 units across both wards.
The APC had reduced votes in eight PUs and inflated results in 39 of these PUs. In PU 35, Ward 9 where their 14 votes remained the same on the Form EC8A and EC8B, the PDP’s 22 votes at the PU, reduced to 3 on the EC8B, giving the APC an 11-vote margin.
PUs in Akoko Edo Wards 4 and 9 where APC gained votes | APC’s result on Form EC8A | APC’s result on Form EC8B | Results difference |
Ward 4 PU 2 | 156 | 211 | +55 |
Ward 4 PU 4 | 180 | 264 | +84 |
Ward 4 PU 5 | 133 | 193 | +60 |
Ward 4 PU 6 | 158 | 184 | +26 |
Ward 4 PU 7 | 156 | 275 | +119 |
Ward 4 PU 8 | 153 | 213 | +60 |
Ward 4 PU 9 | 132 | 212 | +80 |
Ward 4 PU 12 | 166 | 183 | +17 |
Ward 4 PU 13 | 187 | 205 | +18 |
Ward 4 PU 14 | 98 | 188 | +90 |
Ward 4 PU 20 | 103 | 107 | +4 |
Ward 4 PU 21 | 111 | 144 | +33 |
Ward 4 PU 22 | 98 | 105 | +7 |
Ward 4 PU 26 | 128 | 157 | +29 |
Ward 9 PU 1 | 51 | 210 | +159 |
Ward 9 PU 3 | 87 | 224 | +137 |
Ward 9 PU 4 | 26 | 208 | +182 |
Ward 9 PU 6 | 109 | 219 | +110 |
Ward 9 PU 7 | 70 | 184 | +114 |
Ward 9 PU 8 | 55 | 210 | +155 |
Ward 9 PU 9 | 8 | 202 | +194 |
Ward 9 PU 10 | 18 | 284 | +266 |
Ward 9 PU 12 | 26 | 287 | +261 |
Ward 9 PU 13 | 37 | 242 | +205 |
Ward 9 PU 15 | 51 | 729 | +678 |
Ward 9 PU 16 | 35 | 298 | +263 |
Ward 9 PU 17 | 25 | 208 | +183 |
Ward 9 PU 18 | 22 | 307 | +285 |
Ward 9 PU 19 | 27 | 200 | +173 |
Ward 9 PU 20 | 62 | 328 | +266 |
Ward 9 PU 21 | 59 | 334 | +275 |
Ward 9 PU 23 | 91 | 427 | +336 |
Ward 9 PU 25 | 73 | 302 | +229 |
Ward 9 PU 26 | 46 | 444 | +398 |
Ward 9 PU 29 | 34 | 138 | +104 |
Ward 9 PU 31 | 27 | 151 | +124 |
Ward 9 PU 32 | 11 | 12 | +1 |
Ward 9 PU 33 | 41 | 197 | +156 |
Ward 9 PU 34 | 36 | 193 | +157 |
Total | 3,086 | 9,179 | +6,093 |
Here, the results gave the APC a questionable advantage of 6,093 votes.
In Oredo, results in 53 PUs were altered in APC’s favour; 52 in Ward 2 and one in Ward 3.
When inflations and deductions for both parties are considered in these units in Oredo, Egor and Akoko Edo, the APC scored an excess of 16,839 while the PDP had a deficit of 4,065 votes, leaving a margin of 12,774 votes.
FIJ found more discrepancies in Ikpoba Okha LGA where the APC had inflated EC8B collated results in PUs where the CTC and IReV had different figures from those used in results declaration. Ikpoba Okha had 18 of such PUs in ward 10.
In Etsako East, the party’s result were inflated in two pulling units (PU 5 ward 1 and PU 9 ward 7). Also, there were inflations in PU 31 ward 4 of Esan West, PU 9 ward 6 in Esan South East, PU 27, ward 9 of Egor, PU 14 ward 9 of Akoko Edo, PU 12 ward 10 of Orhionmwon, and PUs 43 and 1 in wards 6 and 9 of Ovia North East. Wards 1, 2, 7 and 11 in Oredo also had 66 polling units with inflated EC8B results for the APC and vote reductions for the PDP.
These results gave the APC a 9,969-vote excess in polling units they should have scored 3,966 votes, bringing their totals here to 13,935. The PDP had 1,858 votes chalked off their total in these units.
The CTC for Form EC8A gave the APC 1,190 votes in a combined 10 polling units in Owan West, Akoko Edo and Oredo LGAs while the PDP got 318 here. On the IReV portal, the PDP scored 475 in these PUs while the APC scored 263 there. These are Owan West PU 5 ward 6, Akoko Edo PU 2 ward 9, PU 28 ward 9, and Oredo PUs 31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 43 and 65 in ward 2.
In the Form EC8B, the result was different again, with the APC scoring a total of 933 in these units, while the PDP scored 55.
FIJ also found that across the state, there were 75 polling units with a number of cast ballots that dwarfed the accredited voters’ total.
PU 14 ward 6 in Akoko Edo stood out with 1,006 cast ballots despite the BVA recording only 17 accredited voters. PU 13 ward 10 of Ikpoba Okha also had 2,180 cast ballots despite a 1,250 BVA record for accredited voters.
In these 75 polling units, the PDP scored 18,857, while the APC earned 42,109 votes but the BVAs only accredited 12,160 voters. Therefore, APC earned 29,949 votes more than the number of accredited voters. The question, then, is: where did the extra votes come from?
To understand how some of these manipulations occurred, FIJ visited Egor.
‘TAKE YOUR GRIEVANCES TO THE TRIBUNAL’

In Egor, Ekundayo Idehen, chairman of the PDP in the LGA, accused Nosa Adams, an APC chieftain and former chairman of the Egor Local Council Development Council, of conspiring with the INEC returning officer for Egor Ward 2 to manipulate the results on election day.
Idehen said that in the late hours of September 21, he learnt Adams was in Koosa Hotel in Eheakpen area of the State with an INEC staff he knew simply as Deborah.
“I saw them with my own eyes,” he told FIJ.
“I went there to verify if they were there, but as I was approaching, they got into a Toyota Camry and left. Adams left his car behind,” Idehen added. “What was he doing with an INEC staff that day? They were thumbprinting results. Quote me, I saw him.”
FIJ visited the hotel on December 4 to verify this claim, but the staff would not provide any information. On December 28, FIJ called Adams. He said, “Idehen is hallucinating. I don’t know anything about that. I don’t know any Deborah or where Koosa hotel is. He should take his grievances before the tribunal.”
350 APC VOTES IN FIGURES, 355 IN WORDS
Idehen further claimed the police and INEC conspired to frustrate his party.
“The election materials got to some centres on time but never arrived on time in others,” he said. “The police joined INEC in delaying the arrival of materials. We had 35,000+ policemen patroling the streets. How many people are in Edo? They used the police to intimidate us. The election went freely, but it was not fair.
“In Egor, we started voting at 8:30. I was an agent in my own unit. The APC was using money, but in my unit nobody could buy voters because I was there, and the people respect me.
“In Ward 2 Unit 4, PDP won. This was Nosa Adams’ unit. It was after the election he took Deborah to Koosa. Before I got there, they learnt of my presence and fled. Adams left his car behind. That was where they manipulated the result for Ward 2.”
FIJ found that the result for this polling unit 4 was manipulated as well. The APC had 350 votes in this polling unit, while the PDP had 31, but in words, the APC’s votes were ‘Three fifty five’, five more than the figure in numbers, indicating the document was tampered with. So, while Idehen believes his party won in this unit he served as an agent in, the document which had no presiding officer’s name, said otherwise. This revised version was what the commission relied on.
Meanwhile, Idehen also said the police arrested several members of the PDP before, during and after the election, and in some cases, the police watched as violence and threats of it were used to prevent voters from voting.
‘WITH THUGS, DENNIS IDAHOSA TOLD US IN OVIA SOUTH WEST WE COULD NOT VOTE’
The video above was taken on the morning of election day. Voters in PUs 2, 3 and 4 in Ward 2 (Igbuobazwa West), Ovia South West LGA, protested as they were not allowed to undergo the accreditation process.
Already, the exercise was suffering a significant case of voter apathy, with under 30 per cent of registered voters turning out to cast their ballots.
“No election; we no de vote. APC, PDP, we no de vote,” Men and women can be heard saying in the video.”
FIJ visited the area and met one of the persons who participated in that protest.
‘THE DEPUTY GOVERNOR PREVENTED US FROM VOTING’

On December 12, FIJ met Magdalene Obaseki in her stall in Benin City. She narrated how she was setting out to vote in polling unit 4 of that ward when she and others hit a stumbling block.
“It was Dennis. Dennis Idahosa showed up with many boys to assault and prevent us from voting,” Magdalene told FIJ.
She said she saw Idahosa, who is now the state’s deputy governor, in person, and that the men with him charged at some of the intending voters, eventually hospitalising one Kudos Imuetinyan.
When FIJ spoke with Imuetinyan days later, he corroborated the claim, but he was still recovering from the incident and did not want to go into detail.
Magdalene also said she and others began protesting when they realised Idahosa only wanted to give way to members of the public who would cast their vote for his party. The protesters began the chant to say no one at all would vote, but they were overpowered.
THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE, SAYS IDAHOSA
FIJ called Idahosa on January 14. He denied the claims and described them as incredible. “Is it possible for anyone to move around like that on election day?” he rhetorically asked.
Idahosa then cut the interview short and said he could not entertain more questions.
In Akoko Edo, residents said this model repeated itself, with thugs taking up residence in several hotels a day before the election and appearing to disrupt the process on election day, whike limited the exercise to voters intent on voting the candidate of the thugs’ choosing.
The police also made several arrests of persons they claimed were preparing to manipulate the process. Some of these people would later say they were arrested for their support of the PDP.
Some of these men FIJ spoke with had either left the state after the election or were too scared to go on the record.
TRIBUNAL
Seven parties that participated in the exercise have submitted petitions before the election tribunal in Edo State. These parties are the PDP, Social Democratic Party (SDP), Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), Action Democratic Party (ADP), Accord (A), Allied Peoples Movement (APM), and Action Alliance (AA). Despite placing third, the LP did not file a petition. FIJ visited its secretariat in Benin, but the party refused to comment on the election.
The PDP, in their 213-page filing, sought two prayers of the court: to nullify results in polling units where overvoting, non-prior recording of sensitive electoral materials, and a combination of both occurred; and to announce their candidate as the winner of the election.
INEC MAGIC: 541,283 ACCREDITED VOTERS BUT 577,586 USED BALLOTS
While INEC’s EC40G form contains cancellation of results in only 23 polling units, the commission cancelled results in 36 units. This was not the only oddity in INEC’s records. On the IReV portal, the commission has 577,586 used ballots. This contradicts the 541,283 accredited voters total available on the commission’s Form EC8B, and the 580,616 figure on the portal. Despite these oddities, INEC, in its CTC Form EC8D for results collation, claimed there were 604,123 accredited voters.
With three conflicting figures for accredited voters using up 577,586 ballots, the credibility of the exercise is questionable.
PDP told the court in its filing that beyond the 36 units INEC cancelled, 133 other polling units suffered cases of overvoting. FIJ’s review of results confirmed this to be true, but as earlier documented, it also found polling units with inflated results that favoured the PDP.
Of these 133, the PDP claimed that 75 of them also had cases of non-prior recording of serial numbers before the conduct, in violation of the electoral act.
If the commission maintained its standards on overvoting, it would have cancelled 133 units’ results, knocking off 20,941 votes off the APC, and 7,883 votes off the PDP.
In total, there were 395 polling units where the PDP claimed INEC failed to properly register serial numbers of results sheets, BVAs machines and other sensitive materials.
An election conducted at a polling unit without the prior recording in the forms prescribed by the Commission of the quantity, serial numbers and other particulars of results sheets, ballot papers and other sensitive electoral materials made available by the Commission for the conduct of the election shall be invalid.
– Section 73, Subsection 2 of the Electoral Act (2022)
The commission, the APC and Okpebholo all disagree with this position. They describe the petition as academic and the prayers as contradictory because if the election is invalid over the inconsistencies, then the PDP cannot claim to have won an invalid election.
If the tribunal agrees with them, it would mirror the 2023 presidential election tribunal decision that faulted the PDP and LP for challenging President Bola Tinubu’s candidature, certificate credibility, his deputy’s nomination, and the merits of the election.
The APC also claimed in their response to the petition that the PDP should have listed names of presiding officers guilty of errors. This position, several lawyers told FIJ, is faulty as INEC is responsible for the actions of its agents. Also, some documents, as FIJ earlier revealed, did not have names of presiding officers on them.

The APC also claimed PDP’s agents could not serve as credible witnesses as they were not certified election observers. Therefore, FIJ checked what the observers said about the conduct.
HOW CSOs RATED THE ELECTION
Earlier, FIJ mentioned that the Athena Centre for Policy and Leadership detailed in its report that they did not get access to some of the materials FIJ later found.
This CSO’s post-election report contained names of 50 electoral officers that, according to them, engaged in electoral malpractice. When FIJ called Osita Chidoka, the Centre’s founder, he said they pooled the names from polling units and wards where these malpractices of overvoting and vote inflation occurred.
The discrepancies, the CSO observed, included entire results fabrications. For Polling Unit 50 in Oredo’s Ward 2, the IReV copy contained an entirely different result sheet from what the INEC provided as CTC. Both copies had two different results and two different presiding officers.


This discrepancy did not go unquestioned. TAP Initiative, another CSO, petitioned the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) to investigate the commission’s agents for criminal offences.
FIJ called Martin Obono in December, and he showed the newspaper the findings Yossi Vissoker, a South African-based forensic graphologist made on the result. Of the 14 samples of INEC CTC materials the they sent to this expert, he returned three positive matches and made a conclusion that those three results were written by the same person.
Yiaga Africa described the election as a failure in terms of integrity. Its report said INEC announced inconsistent results, indicating “that the results were altered at the level of collation”.
The Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development (CJID) worried about these inconsistencies, saying in its report: “There were confirmed reports that the election was characterised by manipulation of votes, intimidation of poll officials, vote-buying, and significant irregularities that undermined the credibility of the results.”
Other CSOs also faulted the election result.
The APC did not take too kindly to these observations. on Yiaga Africa, Philip Morka, the party’s publicity secretary, said in September 2024, “Alleging that results were manipulated without hard facts and figures but based on some statistical guesswork is a clear disservice to the electoral process. Yiaga Africa’s report is a travesty, replete with methodological flaws, politicised observations, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies, and called its credibility into question.”
Soon after, the evidence became overwhelming.
WHAT THE LAW SAYS
Section 120 Subsection 1 of the Electoral Act (2022) reads, “Any officer appointed for the purposes of this Act, who without lawful excuse commits any act or omits to act in breach of his or her official duty commits an offense of dereliction of duty and is liable on conviction to maximum fine of N500,000 or imprisonment for a term of 12 months or both.”
By recording contradictory figures in the Forms EC8A and EC8B, several INEC staff ran foul of this provision.
Subsection 3 of the same section reads, “Any polling agent, political party or party agent who conspired to make false declaration of result of an election commits an off emcee and is liable on conviction to a maximum fine of N500,000 or imprisonment for a term of 12 months or both.”
FIJ found that the three parties with the highest number of votes in the election; APC, PDP and LP all recorded inflated results in several polling units, with APC benefitting the most, while PDP enjoyed the second most favours. It remains unclear what roles these parties played in securing those figures, but if they participated in the manipulation, then this provision would apply to them.
Section 51, Subsections 2 and 3 both agree that where overvoting is spotted, INEC must cancel the election and conduct another poll in the affected units. The only exception to this is provided for in Subsection 4: a situation whereby cancelled votes total are less than the margin of victory.
IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE
In October 2023, the Edo State Election Petitions Tribunal sacked PDP’s Destiny Enabulele from the state House of Assembly.
The three-member tribunal, headed by Justice A.O Chijoke, declared that APC’s Sunday Aghedo won the Assembly election to represent Ovia Southwest constituency. This tribunal knocked off 1,000 of Enabulele’s votes and declared them void due to over-voting and intimidation of voters.

When FIJ sat with Enabulele in December, he said he was heading to the state collation centre in Benin on the night of election day when thugs assaulted him and another man with him.
”They stopped and hit us,” Enabulele told FIJ. “We had to park our car some distance away from the collation centre and walk on foot as that was the instruction of the security agencies, but they stood and watched as these men attacked us.
”I ran off to my car to get something to defend myself, but on my way back, my friend, Kelvin, told me they wanted my life, and he asked me to leave immediately. It was around the same time Governor Obaseki was arriving at the centre.”
Enabulele’s account of the police’s failure to intervene mirrors the account of several participants in the election across the state.
On the 2023 tribunal ruling to oust him, while he maintains his dissatisfaction with the outcome, Enabulele has accepted the application of the law, but holds the strong belief his own family was out to get him.
”Dennis [Idahosa] is my cousin,” he tells FIJ. He shared his thoughts on how their different political affiliations may have affected him.
”In 2021, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) came after me but did not find anything,” he added. “I don’t know who orchestrated it, but someone at one of these agencies told me in confidence that Dennis might have had a hand in it.”
Several persons in INEC and the APC refused to speak with FIJ on the record for fear of attack and victimisation, but they told the newspaper they knew of several of their colleagues who contributed to the electoral mishaps.
While Amadi refused to comment on INEC’s role, Mba told FIJ via a telephone interview in January that he no longer occupied the role he held during the election, so he could not speak to the press.
On January 4, FIJ called Muyiwa Adejobi, Force Public Relations Officer (FPRO). He asked that FIJ sends questions to him via WhatsApp. The newspaper did, but as of press time, he had not responded.
Credit: Foundation For International Journalism