Court Of Appeal Delivers Landmark Judgment, Solidifies Okpebholo’s Mandate In Edo State

The Court of Appeal in Abuja is scheduled to rule today on whether to uphold or overturn the April 2 verdict of the lower governorship election tribunal that confirmed Mr. Okpebholo’s victory.

The appellate court will hear appeals concerning the outcome of last year’s Edo State governorship election, which saw Governor Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) declared the winner.

A three-judge panel will deliver judgments on three appeals and one cross-appeal, which will ultimately decide if the tribunal’s decision affirming Okpebholo’s win stands or is overturned.

The most high-profile appeal was filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo, who contested the September 21, 2024 election results.

Ighodalo and the PDP challenged the tribunal’s ruling, which had dismissed their petition against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) certified results.

INEC declared Okpebholo the winner with 291,667 votes, followed by Ighodalo with 247,655 votes. Other candidates participated but secured only minor shares of the vote.

Following the election, Ighodalo petitioned the Edo State Governorship Election Tribunal in Abuja, alleging widespread irregularities, overvoting, malpractices, and breaches of the Electoral Act.

However, the tribunal dismissed these claims as unsubstantiated in its April judgment.

Unconvinced, Ighodalo promptly appealed the tribunal’s verdict.

Though ultimately victorious, Okpebholo also expressed dissatisfaction with parts of the tribunal’s ruling and filed a cross-appeal challenging those aspects he found unfavorable.

The Court of Appeal’s decision is not final in election matters; aggrieved parties can further appeal to the Supreme Court, which has the ultimate authority.

Notably, Asue Ighodalo was recently named chairman of the Nigerian Economic Summit Group (NESG).

At the May 1 hearing, Ighodalo’s legal team urged the Court of Appeal to overturn the tribunal’s judgment, criticizing its assessment of evidence.

Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Robert Emukpoeruo argued that his clients had clearly demonstrated how the evidence supported their case, contrary to the tribunal’s findings.

Key to their argument was the claim that the results collation process at the ward level was flawed, and that serial numbers were missing from Forms EC25B—documents used by polling unit officers to acknowledge receipt of election materials.

The absence of serial numbers on these forms, they contended, violated Section 73(2) of the Electoral Act 2022 and compromised the election’s integrity.

The tribunal had insisted that polling agents or witnesses needed to testify on how the forms were completed, but the appellants maintained their case was simply about the missing serial numbers.

In response, Okpebholo’s lawyers defended the tribunal’s judgment and urged the court to dismiss the appeals due to lack of proof for alleged overvoting and irregularities.

SAN Oyinyechi Ikpeazu explained that the missing serial numbers on Forms EC25B were because the forms do not have a designated space for them, and that serial numbers were instead recorded on Form EC40A, which the appellants presented.

Ikpeazu also pointed out the petitioners failed to present Form EC25D, which documents distribution of sensitive electoral materials at the local government level.

He argued that ward collation officers are not bound by data uploaded to the IREV portal, particularly in overvoting cases.

Similarly, APC’s lawyer Emmanuel Ukala and INEC’s Kanu Agabi, both SANs, argued that the appellants failed to meet the legal requirements for proving non-compliance, such as presenting witnesses from the affected polling units.

Ukala noted that only 19 witnesses were called by the petitioners during the tribunal trial, of which only five were polling unit agents, despite complaints involving 765 polling units.

This, he argued, fell far short of the evidentiary burden needed to prove irregularities.

He further emphasized the petitioners’ failure to present Forms EC25D and maintained that these and Forms EC25B are the correct documents to record ballot paper serial numbers.

After hearing the submissions, the three-member bench led by M. A. Danjuma reserved judgment.

Besides Ighodalo’s appeal, the court is expected to rule today on additional appeals challenging Okpebholo’s election filed by Action Alliance (AA) and its National Chairman Rufai Omoaje, as well as by Accord Party (AP) candidate Bright Enabulele.