The Court of Appeal in Abuja has reserved judgment in three appeals and a cross-appeal challenging the ruling of the Edo State Election Petitions Tribunal, which upheld the election of Governor Monday Okpebholo in the September 21, 2024 governorship poll.
The appeals were filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo, while the All Progressives Congress (APC) – Governor Okpebholo’s party – submitted a cross-appeal against parts of the tribunal’s April 2, 2025 judgment.
On Thursday, a three-member panel of the appellate court heard all the appeals and announced that judgment had been reserved, with a date to be communicated to the parties.
INEC had declared Okpebholo the winner of the election, securing 291,667 votes against Ighodalo’s 247,655. However, the PDP and Ighodalo contested the result at the tribunal, alleging widespread irregularities, over-voting, and non-compliance with the Electoral Act.
They claimed the election should be nullified due to issues like non-serialised ballot papers, faulty collation, and computational errors in 765 polling units. INEC was also accused of failing to properly pre-record and serialise sensitive electoral materials, which the petitioners argued enabled manipulation in favor of the APC.
The tribunal, however, dismissed their petition, stating the PDP and Ighodalo failed to substantiate their claims with credible evidence.
At the appeal hearing, Ighodalo’s counsel, Robert Emukpoeruo (SAN), urged the court to overturn the tribunal’s verdict. He criticized the tribunal’s assessment of their evidence and pointed to legal misinterpretations, particularly concerning the requirement for serial numbers on Form EC25B.
In response, Okpebholo’s lawyer, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), defended the tribunal’s ruling, insisting that serial numbers were properly recorded on Form EC40A, not EC25B, and that the petitioners failed to tender key documents like Form EC25D.
APC counsel Emmanuel Ukala (SAN) also supported the tribunal’s decision. He argued that the petitioners failed to provide witnesses for each of the 765 polling units under dispute—calling only 19 witnesses, with just five being actual polling unit agents.
Ukala stressed that under Sections 73(2) and 137 of the Electoral Act 2022, such witness testimony is critical to proving election irregularities. He also noted that although the petitioners mentioned Form EC25D in their petition, they failed to present it during the trial.
INEC’s lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN), aligned with the APC and Okpebholo, urging the appellate court to uphold the tribunal’s decision.
The panel, led by Justice M.A. Danjuma, concluded the hearing by reserving judgment, with the date for delivery to be announced later.