Edo Governorship Tribunal to Deliver Verdict in Okpebholo vs Ighodalo Case On Wednesday

The three-man panel of the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal will on Wednesday deliver judgement in the litigation between All Progressives Congress (APC) and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) over the September 21, 2024 governorship election in the state.The three-member panel, led by Justice Wilfred Kpochi, had on March 3 reserved judgement in the petition filed by PDP and its candidate, Asuerieme Ighodalo, against the election of Monday Okpebholo of APC as governor of the state.The panel announced that judgement was reserved to a later date, shortly after lawyers representing parties adopted and argued their final written addresses.

It communicated the judgement date to lawyers representing parties in the early hours of Tuesday.The petitions in which the tribunal would deliver judgement are EPT/ED/GOV/01/2024; EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024 and EPT/ED/GOV/03/2024.The main petition is the second one filed by PDP and Ighodalo challenging the election of Okpebholo.



PDP and Ighodalo had dragged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to the tribunal for declaring Okpebholo of APC winner of the September 21, 2024 governorship election.Among others, the petitioners asked the court to nullify Okpebholo’s victory on the grounds of irregularities and non-compliance with the electoral laws.The petitioners anchored their claim on alleged over-voting and wrong computation of results during collation.

At the last proceedings, while all the respondents urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition for being incompetent and lacking in merit, the petitioners submitted that they had tendered uncontroverted evidence to prove the claim of alleged over-voting and wrong computation.In defence of the election, INEC, through its lawyer, Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, said the petitioners did not prove allegations of non-compliance and over-voting.Agabi added that the number of polling unit agents called as witnesses represented an insignificant or even negligible per cent of the number of polling units in Edo State.

Agabi pointed out that all the polling unit agents called as witnesses signed the result sheet and they could not distinguish between what they heard and what they saw.He stated, “This is a clear indication that the election was conducted in compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022. The results were duly collated at all levels of collation.

“The petitioners have not pleaded any alternative results on the basis of which they can be declared as winners. The case of the petitioners is based on analysis undertaken by hired consultants.”Agabi further held that the documents upon which the petitioners relied were all dumped on the tribunal and could not be used in their favour.

He, therefore, prayed the tribunal to dismiss the petition in its entirety because it had no merit.The governor, through his lawyer, Mr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, argued in a similar vein, urging the tribunal to dismiss the petition.

Speaking on the contentious Form EC25bB, where the petitioners claimed that the serial numbers of sensitive materials must be given, Ikpeazu argued that all that was required for the form was quantity of electoral materials received and quantity returned.He added that a pronouncement of the Supreme Court said one could not prove over-voting without the Bimodal Verification Authentication System (BVAs) machines but that none of the machines was opened to allow the tribunal to look at the content.According to him, by not tendering the right documents, the petitioners failed to prove over-voting on the whole.

APC’s counsel, Mr. Emmanuel Ukala, on his part, argued that it was clear that the case of the petitioners was based virtually and entirely on non-compliance.Ukala said, “By the nature of the case they pleaded, the Supreme Court has over the years laid down that they need to prove this by polling unit to polling unit, ward to ward and local government by local government.

”He held that rather than prove this, the petitioners dumped documents on the court, and added that without polling unit agents testifying to those documents, they were useless and the case remained unproved.Ukala also argued that with over 4,000 polling units in Edo State, the petitioners called only five polling unit agents and no single presiding officer.He said since the petitioners failed to demonstrate how the BVAs worked, it was clear that the case of the petitioners was not proved and it should be dismissed.

But the petitioners countered that PDP had successfully demonstrated electoral malpractices in 765 polling units out of 4,519 across the state.Mr. Ken Mozia, SAN, who argued the case of the petitioners, emphasised that the petition should be determined by the impact of irregularities, not just the percentage of affected polling units.

Mozia also highlighted discrepancies at various collation levels, where figures on Form EC8A (polling unit results) were allegedly reduced at the ward and local government collation stages (EC8B).He further argued that the petition must be considered as a whole and not in parts.“So, the submission of isolating grounds and labelling them alone as academic is not well founded,” he said.

On the issue of not presenting the tribunal with an alternative result, the senior lawyer submitted that it was on record that all the results before the tribunal were tendered by his client.The senior lawyer stated that INEC had certified all documents tendered by the petitioners, yet failed to present any counter-evidence.“The issue is not about producing an alternative result, but about questioning the validity of the INEC Result Viewing (IReV) portal uploads,” he added.

On why the petitioners called only five polling unit agents, he said the grouse of his client was with what happened at the collation centres and not at the polling units so they didn’t need more than five agents to testify.“We concede that elections took place at the polling units but how 25 votes metamorphosed to 525 votes at the collation centre is what we are quarrelling with,” he said.Reacting to alleged dumping of documents on the tribunal, Mozia submitted that all the documents tendered were duly certified by INEC and were tendered without objection from the commission, the makers of the document.

Mozia, therefore, urged the tribunal to nullify the election.After taking arguments from all parties in the petition, the tribunal announced that its judgement had been reserved to a date that would be communicated to parties in the petition.INEC had declared Okpebholo of APC winner of the September 21, 2024 governorship election in Edo State.

INEC said Okpebholo polled a total of 291, 667 votes to defeat his closest rival, Ighodalo of PDP, who polled 247, 655 votes.Dissatisfied by the outcome of the poll, PDP and its candidate approached the tribunal, praying it to nullify INEC’s declaration of APC and Okpebholo as winners of the contest.The petitioners, among other things, contended that the governorship election was invalid by reason of alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act.

They equally argued in the petition marked: EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, that Okpebholo of APC did not secure the highest number of lawful votes cast at the election.While the petitioners called in 19 witnesses to prove that over-voting and wrong computation of votes actually occurred in over 700 polling units, INEC, the first respondent, did not call any witness, aside from tendering 153 of the BVAS used in 133 polling units where results were being disputed.The second respondent, Okpebholo, called only one witness, while APC called four witnesses before closing their cases.

Chairman of APC in Edo State, Jarrett Tenebe, expressed confidence in the judiciary, stressing that the third arm of government is capable and set to do justice in the matter.Tenebe also accused PDP of planning to cause mayhem in the state, with the aim of forcing President Bola Tinubu to declare a state of emergency in Edo State.He made the allegations on Tuesday while speaking with journalists in Abuja on the recent killing of some travellers in Uromi town, Esan North East Local Government Area of Edo State.

Tenebe said, “I am calling on all the APC faithful in Edo State to remain calm. Our lawyers did a very good job and we believe in the judiciary. We believe they will do justice.

”He added, “We are hopeful of victory.”Tenebe claimed that PDP, having realised that they could not get victory at the tribunal, had resorted to violence to destabilise the state as the tribunal was set to deliver its verdict in the petitions challenging Okpebholo’s victory.He stated that they learnt from some PDP members, who recently defected to APC, that there were plans to cause mayhem in the state, a decision allegedly taken at a meeting in a hotel in Edo State.

Tenebe stated, “Their sinister objective is clear – they want to force President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to declare a state of emergency in Edo State because they have no confidence in securing victory at the Edo Election Petition Tribunal.“In their desperation, they have resorted to acts of sabotage, hoping to manipulate public perception and judicial sentiment in their favour.”Chuks Okocha and Alex EnumahThe post Edo Governorship Tribunal to Deliver Verdict in Okpebholo vs Ighodalo Case On Wednesday appeared first on Arise News.

.