The fate of the Edo State governorship election now rests with the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which has reserved judgment on appeals from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Dr. Asue Ighodalo, as well as a cross-appeal from the All Progressives Congress (APC).
These cases challenge the Edo State Election Petitions Tribunal’s decision to uphold Gov. Monday Okpebholo’s victory in the September 21, 2024, election, a ruling delivered on April 2, 2025.
A three-member panel of the appellate court on Thursday heard the appeals and thereafter reserved judgment to a date to be communicated to parties.
Persecondnews reported that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had declared Okpebholo of the APC the winner of the election.
The electoral body said Okpebholo and the APC secured 291,667 votes, defeating the PDP and Ighodalo, who garnered 247,655 votes.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, Ighodalo and the PDP filed a petition with the tribunal, listing INEC, Okpebholo, and the APC as the first to third respondents.
They argued that Okpebholo did not secure the majority of lawful votes, alleging widespread irregularities, over-voting, and non-compliance with the Electoral Act.
They sought to nullify the election, citing issues including non-serialisation of ballot papers, incorrect collation of figures, and computational errors in 765 polling units.
They also accused INEC of failing to serialise and pre-record sensitive electoral materials, thereby enabling alleged rigging in favour of the APC.
The tribunal, in its judgment, ruled that Ighodalo and the PDP failed to substantiate their allegations, leading to the dismissal of their petitions.
The petitioners proceeded to the Appeal Court to contest the judgment.
During Thursday’s hearing, Ighodalo’s counsel, Mr. Robert Emukpoeruo (SAN), urged the appellate court to reverse the tribunal’s judgment.
He argued that the tribunal failed to properly evaluate their claims of non-compliance, particularly concerning the absence of serial numbers on Form EC25B, as required under Section 73(2) of the Electoral Act 2022.
He also refuted the tribunal’s claim that the petitioners had “dumped” documents on the court, stressing that their case focused on discrepancies between polling unit and ward-level results.
In response, Okpebholo’s lawyer, Mr. Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), defended the tribunal’s ruling, arguing that the petitioners failed to prove their case.
He maintained that the relevant serial numbers appeared on Form EC40A, not EC25B, and that the petitioners did not tender the vital Form EC25D.
APC’s counsel, Mr. Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), also defended the tribunal’s decision and urged the appellate court to dismiss the appeals.
He said the appellants failed to call witnesses for each of the 765 polling units they contested, which is necessary to substantiate their claims.
Ukala noted that under Sections 73(2) and 137 of the Electoral Act 2022, petitioners must call witnesses from all affected polling units.
He stated that only 19 witnesses were called by the petitioners, with just five serving as polling unit agents.
He also pointed out that although the appellants had listed Form EC25D in their petition, they failed to produce it during the trial.
According to Ukala, the serial numbers referenced by the appellants should have been recorded in Form EC25D, not Form EC25B.
INEC, represented by Mr. Kanu Agabi (SAN), supported the positions of the APC and Okpebholo, urging the court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the tribunal’s judgment.
After hearing final arguments, the appeal court panel, led by Justice M. A. Danjuma, announced that judgment had been reserved and that a date would be communicated to the parties.
Leave a comment