From Victor Osula, Abuja
The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, sitting in Abuja, has reserved judgment in the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo, challenging the outcome of the September 21, 2024, governorship election.
The three-member panel, led by Justice Wilfred Kpochi, reserved its verdict after parties adopted their final written addresses on Monday. Justice Kpochi stated that a date for judgment would be communicated to the parties through the tribunal’s secretary.
During proceedings, counsel for the petitioners insisted that the election that brought Governor Monday Okpebholo to power was fraught with irregularities and conducted in violation of the Electoral Act. The petitioners urged the tribunal to nullify the election based on these claims.
However, counsel for the Independent National Electoral Commission, Kanu Agabi (SAN), countered the petitioners’ arguments, urging the tribunal to dismiss the case for lack of merit.
He argued that the petitioners failed to seek an outright annulment of the election in their reliefs, making their claims unsustainable.
“The claim of majority of lawful votes pleaded by the petitioners is inconsistent with their assertion that the election was invalid,” Agabi said.
He further noted that the petitioners did not provide alternative results to support their case and relied on reports from hired consultants rather than concrete evidence.
Similarly, Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), representing Okpebholo, described the petition as an “academic exercise” lacking legal substance.
He maintained that even when comparing the petitioners’ documents with those of the defense, his client still led in the polls.
On the controversial Form EC25B, Ikpeazu stated that the form only required documentation of electoral materials received and returned, not serial numbers of sensitive materials.
He also referenced Supreme Court rulings, emphasizing that proving over-voting required an examination of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines—none of which were presented before the tribunal.
On his part, counsel for the All Progressives Congress, Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), argued that the petition was largely based on claims of non-compliance.
He noted that under the law, such allegations must be proven at the polling unit, ward, and local government levels.
“Rather than present witnesses to support their claims, the petitioners simply dumped documents on the tribunal. With over 4,000 polling units in Edo, they called only five polling unit agents and not a single presiding officer,” Ukala contended.
In response, counsel for the petitioners, Ken Mozie (SAN), dismissed arguments suggesting that the case lacked substance.
He clarified that their challenge was centered on alleged manipulations at the collation centers, not polling units.
“We are not disputing that elections took place at the polling units. Our concern is how 25 votes at the polling unit suddenly became 525 votes at the collation center,” Mozie argued.
He further stated that all documents presented were duly certified by INEC and admitted without objection.
With arguments concluded, the tribunal has reserved judgment, with the date to be communicated to all parties in due course.
