INEC’s decision to forgo presenting a single witness to defend its role in the Edo governorship election has baffled many. However, the Commission’s silence appears to be a calculated effort to avoid the legal risks associated with perjury—a risk made all too real by recent events.
On February 5, 2025, just a day before INEC was to open its defense, Professor Ignatius Uduk, a former INEC returning officer, was sentenced to three years in prison for falsifying election results and perjury. Uduk’s conviction underscores the severe consequences of giving false testimony, particularly under Section 118 of the Criminal Code, CAP 38, Laws of Akwa Ibom State 2000. The law prescribes up to 14 years imprisonment for knowingly providing false testimony in judicial proceedings.
This precedent likely cast a long shadow over INEC’s legal strategy. The PDP’s case hinges on evidence certified by INEC itself, including election documents and BVAS data. To defend the APC’s declared victory, INEC would have needed to discredit its own certified records—a move that would have exposed its officials to potential perjury charges if their testimony contradicted the evidence.
This decision mirrors INEC’s approach during the 2023 Kano governorship election petition, where the Commission also refused to call witnesses. That gamble backfired when the Tribunal ruled against INEC. While avoiding the stand spares its staff the risk of criminal liability and public humiliation, it leaves the Commission’s legal position precarious.
“INEC’s silence in this case speaks volumes,” said Hon. Ogbeide Ifaluyi-Isibor, commenting on INEC’s abrupt decision to rest its defense. “The refusal to defend the credibility of the election it conducted raises doubts about its impartiality and accountability. INEC was a principal actor in the electoral heist we witnessed in Edo. Their decision not to call witnesses, despite promising to do so, feels like an admission of guilt.”
With judgment imminent, the Tribunal must decide whether INEC’s inaction strengthens the PDP’s claims of collusion and irregularities or simply reflects a strategic retreat to avoid further legal entanglements.
Ultimately, INEC’s reluctance to defend itself raises the question: was this a show of caution—or a tacit confession? Only the Tribunal can decide.