The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has reserved its judgment on three appeals and a cross-appeal related to the Edo State governorship election held on September 21, 2024.
The election, which returned Governor Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as winner, is being challenged by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo.
Following the dismissal of their petition by the Edo State Election Petitions Tribunal on April 2, 2025, Ighodalo and the PDP filed an appeal, while the APC also filed a cross-appeal against aspects of the tribunal’s verdict.
During Thursday’s proceedings, a three-member panel of justices heard arguments from all parties and subsequently reserved their judgment, stating that a date will be communicated to the parties in due course.
INEC had declared Okpebholo winner of Edo governorship election with 291,667 votes, defeating Ighodalo who garnered 247,655 votes. However, the PDP and Ighodalo, dissatisfied with the outcome, alleged irregularities and non-compliance with electoral laws. They claimed the election was marred by over-voting, incorrect vote collation, and computational errors in 765 polling units.
The appellants also accused INEC of failing to serialise sensitive election materials, which they said allowed for rigging in favour of the APC. But the tribunal dismissed these claims, ruling that the petitioners failed to prove their case.
Representing Ighodalo, Senior Advocate of Nigeria Robert Emukpoeruo argued at the Court of Appeal that the tribunal erred in its judgment. He contended 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 rebutted the tribunal’s suggestion that the petitioners merely “dumped” documents on the court, asserting that the case specifically addressed “discrepancies between polling unit and ward-level results.”
Okpebholo’s lawyer, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), defended the tribunal’s ruling, stating that the petitioners did not adequately prove their claims.
He noted that “the relevant serial numbers appeared on Form EC40A, not EC25B,” and pointed out that the petitioners failed to tender Form EC25D, which is central to the allegations.
Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), representing the APC, also called for dismissal of the appeals, stressing that the appellants failed to present witnesses for each of the 765 polling units they challenged—an essential requirement under electoral law.
“Only 19 witnesses were called by the petitioners, with just five serving as polling unit agents—individuals crucial to testifying on the alleged irregularities,” Ukala said.
He added that while the appellants listed Form EC25D in their petition, they “failed to produce it during the trial,” and insisted that “the serial numbers referenced by the appellants should have been recorded in Form EC25D, not Form EC25B.”
INEC’s counsel, Kanu Agabi (SAN), supported the APC and Okpebholo, urging the appellate court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the tribunal’s judgment.
The lead judge, Justice M. A. Danjuma, concluded the session by stating that judgment had been reserved, with the ruling date to be announced later.
