Edo State Election Saga: A Closer Look At The Tribunal’s Final Verdict

Edo State Governorship Tribunal Sets Judgment Date for April 2, 2025

Alright, let’s break this down. The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal has set a date for judgment—Wednesday, April 2, 2025. This is the culmination of a long and contentious legal battle over the results of last year’s gubernatorial election. Naija News has been keeping tabs on the developments, and this is a significant moment for everyone involved.

For those who may need a quick recap, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the election. He edged out Asue Ighodalo of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Olumide Akpata of the Labour Party (LP). But as you might imagine, the results weren’t accepted without a fight.

PDP Challenges Election Results Amid Claims of Irregularities

Here’s where things get interesting. The PDP and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo, filed a petition challenging the election results. They’re alleging a host of issues, including over-voting, ballot non-serialization, incorrect collation, and computation errors. These are serious accusations, and the tribunal has been tasked with sorting through the evidence to determine the truth.

Read also:

Basketball Legends Turned Hollywood Stars A Closer Look

During the tribunal hearings, the petitioners called 19 witnesses to testify in support of their claims. They even subpoenaed a Senior Technical Officer from INEC’s ICT department, who presented 154 BVAS machines to back up their allegations of over-voting. Now, that’s a lot of evidence to sift through, and it speaks to the complexity of the case.

INEC, Okpebholo, and the APC Weigh In

On the other side of the table, INEC, Okpebholo, and the APC are the first, second, and third respondents in the case, respectively. Here’s the kicker: INEC didn’t call any witnesses to counter the petitioners’ claims. That’s right—zero witnesses. Okpebholo presented one witness, while the APC called four before wrapping up their defense.

The tribunal, led by Justice Wilfred Kpochi, announced that judgment would be delivered at a later date, which has now been set for April 2, 2025. Justice Kpochi emphasized that the tribunal would communicate the date to all parties involved. He adjourned the tribunal until the judgment is ready, leaving everyone hanging for a little while longer.

“A date for judgment will be communicated to the parties by the Secretary of the tribunal. The tribunal stands adjourned until then,” Justice Kpochi stated.

Key Arguments From Both Sides

Before adjourning, the tribunal heard final submissions from both sides. The petitioners’ lead counsel, Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN), formally adopted their final written address, laying out the petitioners’ case. On the other hand, INEC’s counsel, Kanu Agabi (SAN), urged the tribunal to dismiss the case, calling it meritless.

Agabi argued that all polling unit agents who testified had signed the result sheets, questioning their credibility. He pointed out that the petitioners’ claims were based on analyses conducted by hired consultants rather than tangible evidence. “The petitioners have not pleaded any alternative results on the basis of which they can be declared winners. Their case is based on analyses carried out by hired consultants,” Agabi stated.

Read also:

How Much Do Our Favorite Tv Stars Earn

Representing the governor, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) argued that the APC candidate won the election through valid votes. He challenged the petitioners’ claims about non-serialization of sensitive materials, clarifying that Form EC25B only requires the quantity of materials received and returned—not their serial numbers. He added that the petitioners failed to open any of the BVAS machines for verification, calling their claims an “academic exercise.”

APC’s counsel, Emmanuel Ukala, echoed similar sentiments. He stated that the petitioners failed to provide enough witnesses to substantiate their claims, pointing out that only five polling unit agents were called out of over 4,000 polling units in the state. He reminded the tribunal of the Supreme Court’s standard that allegations of non-compliance must be proven polling unit by polling unit, ward by ward, and local government by local government. “The petitioners did not show how the BVAS machines functioned, nor did they call enough witnesses,” Ukala emphasized.

Petitioners Push Back

Responding to these arguments, the petitioners’ counsel, Ken Morzi (SAN), clarified that their complaints were limited to 765 polling units, not the entire state. He argued that the case should be assessed holistically, not just based on the percentage of polling units challenged. “We concede that elections took place at the polling units, but our contention is how 25 votes transformed into 525 votes at the collation centres,” Morzi stated.

Morzi addressed allegations of document dumping, asserting that all submitted documents were certified by INEC and tendered without objection. On the issue of alternative results, he said all evidence before the tribunal was provided by the petitioners. It’s a heated debate, and the tribunal has its work cut out for it in sorting through the claims and counterclaims.

As the tribunal moves toward delivering its judgment, all eyes are on Edo State. This case isn’t just about who wins or loses—it’s about setting a precedent for future elections in Nigeria. Whatever the outcome, it’s clear that this saga has captured the attention of the nation, and the final verdict will be closely watched by all stakeholders.