The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal has indefinitely adjourned its judgment on the petition challenging the September 21, 2024, election of Governor Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The petition was filed by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its governorship candidate, Asue Ighodalo.
The tribunal, sitting in Abuja on Monday, postponed its verdict after hearing arguments from both the petitioners and the respondents, which included the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Okpebholo, and the APC. Justice Wilfred Kpochi, presiding over the case, informed the parties that they would be notified when the judgment was ready.
Arguments from the Respondents
Representing INEC, former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN) argued that the petition was flawed because the petitioners neither sought an annulment of the election nor provided an alternative result to support their claim of victory. He contended that their assertion of election invalidity contradicted their request to be declared winners.
Agabi further stated that the petitioners’ claims of non-compliance with electoral laws were weak, as they failed to request the election’s nullification. He also pointed out that the polling unit agents who testified represented only a small fraction of the total polling units in Edo, making their claims statistically insignificant.
Counsel for Governor Okpebholo, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition, calling it an “academic exercise.” He argued that even based on the polling units cited by the petitioners, Okpebholo still maintained a lead. Addressing the controversy over Form EC25B, he emphasized that the law only required records of materials received and returned, not serial numbers of sensitive materials. He also noted that the petitioners failed to prove over-voting since they did not provide the tribunal access to the Bimodal Verification Authentication System (BVAS) machines.
Similarly, APC counsel Emmanuel Ukala (SAN) argued that the petition was entirely based on claims of non-compliance, which, according to Supreme Court precedents, must be proven at the polling unit, ward, and local government levels. Instead of providing such proof, he claimed the petitioners merely “dumped” documents on the tribunal.
Petitioners’ Counterarguments
Arguing for the petitioners, Ken Mozia (SAN) clarified that their complaint involved irregularities in 765 out of Edo’s 4,519 polling units. He maintained that proving election malpractice does not require covering a specific percentage of polling units but demonstrating the significant impact of irregularities.
Mozia dismissed the respondents’ argument that the petition was “academic,” stating that election petitions must be examined holistically, not in isolated parts. He also argued that all results before the tribunal were tendered by the petitioners themselves, refuting claims that they failed to present alternative results.
READ ALSO: Group endows N.5m prize for UNIZIK’s best graduating students
Foundation To Provide Free Legal Services For Over 30 Detained Anambra Native Doctors
On the issue of limited witnesses, Mozia explained that his clients’ primary concern was not polling unit conduct but alleged vote inflation at collation centers. “We concede that elections took place at polling units, but how 25 votes turned into 525 at the collation center is what we are challenging,” he stated.
Addressing the claim that documents were “dumped” on the tribunal, Mozia countered that all documents were duly certified by INEC and admitted without objection from the commission. He also asserted that the tribunal had full jurisdiction to hear the case, as their allegations were not pre-election matters.
With the tribunal yet to set a date for judgment, both parties now await its final ruling.
