Edo poll: A’Court reserves judgment in Ighodalo’s suit against Okpebholo

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has reserved judgment on three appeals and a cross-appeal challenging the decision of the Edo State Election Petitions Tribunal which upheld the victory of Governor Monday Okpebholo in the September 21, 2024 governorship poll in Edo.

The appellants are the Peoples Democratic Party and its governorship candidate, Asue Ighodalo.

Meanwhile, Okpebholo’s party, the All Progressives Congress, also filed a cross-appeal against the April 2, 2025 verdict of the tribunal.

On Thursday, a three-member panel of the appellate court heard the three appeals and the cross-appeal and thereafter reserved judgment to a date to be communicated to parties.

he  Independent National Electoral Commission had declared Okpebholo of the APC as the winner of the September 21, 2024 Edo poll.

The electoral body said Okpebholo and the APC polled 291,667 votes to defeat the PDP and Ighodalo, who garnered 247,655 votes.

Dissatisfied with the outcome, Ighodalo and the PDP petitioned the tribunal, listing INEC, Okpebholo The PDP and Ighodalo 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 the non-serialisation of ballot papers, incorrect collation of figures, and computational errors across 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.

However, in its April 2, 2025 judgment, the tribunal said Ighodalo and the PDP failed to prove their allegations and, therefore, dismissed their petitions.

Dissatisfied, however, the petitioners proceeded on appeal.

During Thursday’s hearing, Ighodalo’s counsel, Robert Emukpoeruo (SAN), urged the appellate court to reverse the tribunal’s judgment

, and the APC as the first to third respondents

The PDP and Ighodalo 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 the non-serialisation of ballot papers, incorrect collation of figures, and computational errors across 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.

However, in its April 2, 2025 judgment, the tribunal said Ighodalo and the PDP failed to prove their allegations and, therefore, dismissed their petitions.

Dissatisfied, however, the petitioners proceeded on appeal.

During Thursday’s hearing, Ighodalo’s counsel, 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, 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 counsel, 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—individuals crucial to testifying on the alleged irregularities

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 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 a date would be communicated to the parties.