The Governorship Election Petition Tribunal for Edo State has reserved its judgment in the case brought by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its governorship candidate, Mr. Asue Ighodalo, who is contesting the results of the September 21, 2024 governorship election.
The tribunal, led by Justice Wilfred Kpochi, announced the decision on Monday after all parties involved adopted their final written addresses. Justice Kpochi indicated that a specific date for the judgment would be communicated to the parties by the tribunal’s secretary. “The tribunal stands adjourned until then,” he stated.
At the hearing, the petitioners’ counsel, Mr. Adetunji Oyeyipo, SAN, emphasized that the session was solely for the adoption of final written addresses. In support of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), counsel Mr. Kanu Agabi, SAN, urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition, asserting that it lacked merit. He contended that the tribunal could not annul the election results, primarily because such a relief was not sought by the petitioners.
Agabi further argued that the petitioners could not be declared winners based on their own assertions that the election was invalid. He criticized the claims of non-compliance as feeble, noting that they were not accompanied by a request for the nullification of the election. Additionally, he pointed out that the petitioners failed to provide alternative results that could support their claim of a majority of lawful votes.
The counsel for Governor Monday Okpebholo, Mr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, echoed calls for dismissal, characterizing the petition as an academic exercise. He reported that a review of the polling units indicated that Ighodalo’s claims did not reflect the election’s outcome.
Addressing the disputed Form EC25b, Ikpeazu insisted that the form only required the quantity of electoral materials received and returned, challenging the petitioners’ demands for sensitive material serial numbers. He highlighted a Supreme Court pronouncement, noting that proving over-voting necessitates access to Bimodal Verification Authentication System (BVAS) machines, which had not been utilized by the petitioners.
Counsel for the All Progressives Congress (APC), Mr. Emmanuel Ukala, similarly affirmed that the case brought forth by the petitioners was fundamentally based on claims of non-compliance.
“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, however, held that rather than prove this, the petitioners dumped documents on the court. He said that without polling unit agents testifying to those documents, they were useless and the case remained unproved.
Representing the opposition in the case, Ukala stated that instead of providing the necessary evidence, the petitioners submitted documents without adequate backing. He emphasized that the absence of testimonies from polling unit agents rendered those documents ineffective and left the petition unproven.
Ukala pointed out that out of more than 4,000 polling units in Edo, only five polling unit agents were called upon to testify, and notably, no presiding officers were presented to support the claims.
He further articulated that the petitioners failed to demonstrate the operational effectiveness of the Biometric Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), underscoring a significant gap in their case’s foundation. “It is clear that the case of the petitioners was not proved and it should be dismissed,” Ukala declared.
In response, the petitioners’ counsel, Mr. Ken Moze, SAN, highlighted that the petition concerns 765 out of the 4,519 polling units in Edo State. He contended that the law does not require a successful election petition to be judged solely on the percentage of polling units but rather on the aggregate impact of the complaints raised. “The petition must be considered holistically and not in parts,” he stated.
Addressing the limited number of agents presented, Moze explained that his client’s concerns were primarily focused on discrepancies observed at the collation centers rather than at the polling units, justifying the choice of only five agents as witnesses. He raised questions about how vote counts supposedly grew from 25 to 525 at the collation centers, indicating the focal point of their argument.
On the accusation of submitting extraneous documents, Moze asserted that all evidence presented to the tribunal was duly certified by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and entered without objection. He insisted that the tribunal has proper jurisdiction to evaluate the case since the allegations did not pertain to pre-election matters.
After considering the arguments presented by both sides, Justice Kpochi announced that a judgment will be reserved and communicated to the parties involved by the tribunal’s secretary.
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its governorship candidate, Mr. Asue Ighodalo, are contesting the outcome of the governorship election, alleging non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022, and asserting that Okpebholo did not secure a legitimate majority in the vote count.
