From Victor Osula, Abuja
The Court of Appeal, Abuja, has reserved judgement in the three appeal challenging the victory of Governor Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the September 21 Governorship election in Edo State.
A three-member panel of the court, presided over by Justice M. A. Danjuma, reserved judgement till a date to be communicated after taking arguments from lawyers to parties in the cases on Thursday.
The appeal included the one filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo; a cross appeal by the APC and Okpebholo; another, filed by Action Alliance (AA) and its National Chairman, Rufai Omoaje and the appeal filed by Dr Bright Enabulele and Accord Party (AP).
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had on September 22, declared Okpebholo as the winner of the governorship election, having polled 291,667 votes to defeat Ighodalo, who scored 247,274 and Olumide Akpata of the Labour Party (LP) with 22,763 votes.
A three-member panel of the Edo Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja, led by Justice Wilfred Kpochi, had on April 2, affirmed the victory of the APC and Okpebholo in the Edo Governorship election.
Dissatisfied with the judgement, the petitioners approached the appellate court.
Adopting their arguments on Thursday, lawyers to the appellants prayed the court to set aside the judgement of the Election Tribunal, which upheld the victory of Okpebholo as winner of the governorship poll.
Specifically, Counsel for Ighodalo and the PDP, Robert Emukpoeruo, SAN, while urging the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgement of the Tribunal, argued that, in relationship to the appellants’ allegations of non-compliance, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the nature of the non compliance complained of.
Emukpoeruo noted that there was no record of serial number on Form EC25B as required by Section 73(2) of the Electoral Act, 2022, adding that “the Tribunal said we required evidence of polling agents or witnesses to prove how the forms were filled or not filled. That was not our case. Our case was that the Form EC 25B did not contain the serial numbers.”
The appellants’ lawyer argued that the Tribunal was also wrong to claim that the documents his clients tendered at trial were dumped on it, noting that as against the lower Court’s finding, oral evidence was not needed in the nature of the case of the appellants, who were petitioners before the Tribunal. He submitted that his clients did not challenge the conduct of the election, but the conflict in the results collated and announced.
He further highlighted that part of his clients’ contention was that the results that were collated at the Ward levels were not the results declared at the Polling units.
In their own final address, the lawyers for the Respondents urged the Court to affirm the judgements by the Tribunal and dismiss the appeals. Okpebholo’s Counsel, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), argued that the petition, which they filed before the Tribunal and the appeal are totally an academic exercise.
Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), lawyer for the APC and Kanu Agabi (SAN), for the INEC, also argued in similar manner in praying the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgement of the Election Tribunal.
