The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal has indefinitely adjourned judgment on the petition challenging the September 21, 2024, election victory of Governor Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The petition was filed by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Mr. Asue Ighodalo.
The tribunal, sitting in Abuja, made the announcement after hearing final arguments from both the petitioners and respondents, which include the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Governor Okpebholo, and the APC.
Justice Wilfred Kpochi stated that the date for judgment would be communicated at a later time.
Former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, represented INEC, while Governor Okpebholo was defended by Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, and Chief Emmanuel Ukala, SAN, argued for the APC.
Governor Okpebholo’s counsel, Dr. Ikpeazu, urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition, branding it an “academic exercise.” He argued that even with the polling unit records presented by the petitioners, Okpebholo still had a clear lead.
Regarding the disputed Form EC25B, where petitioners claimed serial numbers of sensitive materials should have been listed, Ikpeazu countered that the form only required the quantity of materials received and returned. Furthermore, he pointed out that the Supreme Court has ruled that proving over-voting requires the Bimodal Verification Authentication System (BVAS) machines. Since the petitioners failed to present BVAS data, their claim of over-voting was unsubstantiated.
Ikpeazu dismissed the petition as “frivolous, baseless, unwarranted, irritating, and lacking in merit.”
Chief Agabi, representing INEC, argued that the petition lacked legal grounding. He pointed out that the tribunal could not annul the election, as that was not among the reliefs sought by the petitioners. Additionally, he noted that PDP and Ighodalo were asking to be declared winners despite simultaneously arguing that the election was invalid—two conflicting positions.
Agabi also criticized the petitioners for failing to prove their claims of non-compliance with the Electoral Act, noting that their witnesses represented an insignificant fraction of the total polling units in Edo State. He concluded that the election had been conducted in accordance with the law, with results duly collated at all levels.
APC’s counsel, Chief Ukala, aligned with the arguments of Okpebholo and INEC, stating that PDP’s case relied almost entirely on claims of non-compliance. However, he reminded the tribunal that, as per Supreme Court rulings, proving non-compliance requires detailed evidence from polling unit to polling unit, ward to ward, and local government to local government.
He argued that instead of providing such proof, the petitioners simply “dumped documents” on the tribunal.
Despite the onslaught from the respondents, PDP’s lead counsel, Mr. Ken Mozia, SAN, defended the petition. He argued that of the 4,519 polling units in Edo, irregularities were identified in 765—enough, he claimed, to invalidate the election results.
With both sides having presented their cases, the tribunal’s awaited judgment now hangs over the Edo political landscape. Whether Okpebholo’s dismissive remarks about the petition hold weight or whether the PDP can prove its claims remains to be seen.
