According to sources, the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal has scheduled its judgment for Wednesday, April 2, 2025.
Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) was announced as the victor of the election last year by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on Monday.
Olumide Akpata of the Labour Party (LP) and Asue Ighodalo of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) were beaten by Okpebholo.
Recall that the PDP and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo, filed a petition contesting the announcement of Okpebholo as the victor of the September 21, 2024, governorship election, and that the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal had reserved decision in that case.
Ighodalo and the PDP are contesting the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) results, claiming that there were electoral irregularities such as excessive voting, non-serialization of ballots, improper collation, and computation problems.
A Senior Technical Officer from INEC’s ICT department was subpoenaed by the petitioners during the tribunal hearings, and he produced 154 BVAS machines to bolster allegations of over-voting. The petitioners also called 19 witnesses.
In the case designated EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, INEC, Okpebholo, and the APC are the first and third respondents, respectively.
No witnesses were called by INEC to refute the petitioners’ allegations. The APC called four witnesses before concluding their defense, whereas Okpebholo only called one.
The three-member panel, presided over by Justice Wilfred Kpochi, declared that all parties would be informed when the ruling was given.
The tribunal’s secretary will notify the parties of the date of the verdict. Until then, the tribunal is adjourned,” Justice Kpochi stated.
Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN), the petitioners’ principal attorney, had earlier formally accepted their last written statement. Kanu Agabi (SAN), INEC’s attorney, requested the panel to reject the complaint, stating that it was without merit.
The polling unit agents who testified, according to Agabi, “could not distinguish between what they heard and what they observed” because they had all signed the result sheets. He went on to say that the petitioners’ coverage of voting places was insufficient to justify voiding the entire election.
“The petitioners have not offered any substitute outcomes that would allow them to be proclaimed the winners. Agabi described their allegations of non-compliance as feeble and devoid of reliable proof, saying, “Their case is based on analyses carried out by hired consultants.”
Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), speaking on behalf of the governor, stated that the APC candidate won by legitimate votes. By pointing out that Form EC25B only asks for the quantity of items received and returned, not their serial numbers, he contested the petitioners’ argument that sensitive materials should not be serialized.
Read Also: APC Offers Automatic Ticket to South-South Governor, Urges Acceptance
He went on to say that despite the petitioners’ claims of excessive voting, none of the BVAS machines that were presented to the tribunal were actually opened for inspection. Ikpeazu stated that the petition was a “academic exercise” because the petitioners had not provided the required documentation to support their arguments.
In its concluding remarks, APC’s attorney, Emmanuel Ukala, added that the petitioners had not produced enough witnesses to back up their allegations. Out of the more than 4,000 polling places in the state, he noted that only five agents were called, and no presiding officers were asked to testify.
He emphasized the requirement set by the Supreme Court that claims of non-compliance be validated ward by ward, local government by local government, and polling unit by polling unit. “The petitioners did not call enough witnesses or demonstrate how the BVAS machines operated,” Ukala continued.
In response, Ken Morzi (SAN), the petitioners’ attorney, explained that their grievances were restricted to 765 voting places rather than the entire state. He maintained that a comprehensive evaluation of the case should be made rather than relying only on the proportion of voting places that were contested.
“We acknowledge that elections were held at the polling places, but we dispute how 25 votes were converted into 525 votes at the polling places,” Morzi stated.
In response to claims of document dumping, he stated that all of the documents presented were approved by INEC and submitted without any issues. Regarding the various outcomes, Morzi stated that the petitioners supplied all of the evidence presented to the panel.
