Edo guber polls: S’Court reserves judgement on Ighodalo’s case against Okpebholo

Nigeria’s Supreme Court, on Wednesday, reserved its judgement on an appeal that is seeking to nullify the election of Governor Monday Okpebholo of Edo State.

The appeal, marked: SC/CV/536/2025, was brought before the court by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and its candidate in the governorship election held in the state on September 21, 2024, Asuerinme Ighodalo.

The Appellants are praying the court to set aside the May 29 judgement of the Court of Appeal, which dismissed their case and affirmed Governor Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the valid winner of the gubernatorial contest.

PDP and its candidate maintained that the appellate court failed to properly evaluate the case they filed to challenge the outcome of the election, which they insisted was not conducted with substantial compliance with provisions of the Electoral Act.

A five-member panel of justices of the Supreme Court adjourned to deliver judgement in the matter after all the parties adopted their final briefs of argument.

While the PDP and its candidate prayed the court to upturn the concurrent decision of the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, on the other hand, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC; governor Okpebholo and the APC, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the outcome of the election.

The apex court panel, led by Justice Garba Lawal, said it would communicate the judgement date to the parties.

Recall that a three-member panel of the Appeal Court, led by Justice M. A. Danjuma, declined to nullify Governor Okpebholo’s election.

The appellate court held that it found no reason to dislodge the May 15 judgement of the tribunal, which validated the result of the election announced by the INEC.

The Justice Wilfred Kpochi-led three-member panel tribunal had dismissed as lacking in merit, petitions by the PDP and its candidate; the Action Alliance, AA, and its National Chairman, Adekunle Rufai Omoaje; as well as a case that was brought before it by the Accord Party, AP, and its own candidate, Dr. Bright Enabulele.

INEC had declared that Okpebholo of the APC secured a total of 291,667 votes to defeat his closest rival, Ighodalo of the PDP, who got a total of 247,655 votes.

Dissatisfied with the result, the petitioners approached the tribunal, alleging that the election was not conducted in substantial compliance with provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.

In the petition marked: EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, PDP and its candidate alleged that Governor Okpebholo did not secure the highest number of lawful votes that were cast at the election.

It was equally the contention of the petitioners that INEC failed to serialise and pre-record some of the sensitive materials that were deployed for the poll, a situation they said aided the rigging of the election in favour of the APC and its candidate.

Specifically, PDP and its candidate alleged that there was wrong computation of results in 765 polling units in the state, even as they produced 19 witnesses that testified and tendered exhibits before the tribunal.

Among the exhibits the petitioners tendered before the tribunal, a total of 153 Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVA) machines that were used in 133 polling units.

According to the petitioners, results from the polling units were manipulated at the collation centres, a situation they said resulted in over-voting, in Okpebholo’s favour.

In its judgement, the tribunal held that the petitioners failed to, by way of credible evidence, establish why the outcome of the election should be set aside.

It held that the onus of proving that Governor Okpebholo was unduly returned by INEC rested squarely on the petitioners, a legal burden it said was not successfully discharged.

According to the tribunal, the PDP and its candidate merely dumped exhibits before it without demonstrating them through competent witnesses as required by the law.

It held that most of the witnesses who testified for the petitioners gave hearsay evidence, stressing that the failure to produce polling unit agents, presiding officers or voters who participated in the election to testify proved fatal to the case of the petitioners.

The tribunal held that section 137 of the Electoral Act did not preclude the petitioners from producing necessary and competent witnesses to testify in support of their case.

It further dismissed the contention of the petitioners that, contrary to the provision of section 73(2) of the Electoral Act, INEC failed to pre-record most of the materials that were deployed for the election.

Moreover, the tribunal held that none of the BVAS machines tendered before it were switched on to demonstrate that the number of votes recorded in the disputed polling units exceeded the total number of accredited voters.

Following the affirmation of the judgement by the appellate court, PDP and Ighodalo took the case before the Supreme Court.