The Court of Appeal has concluded hearings on three appeals and a cross-appeal related to the Edo State governorship election of September 21, 2024, where INEC declared Monday Okpebholo of the APC as the winner, and has reserved its judgment.
A three-member panel, led by Justice M. A. Danjuma, informed the involved lawyers that judgments would be delivered at a later date.
The appeals included those filed by the PDP and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo (CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/01/2025), and a cross-appeal by the APC and Okpebholo (CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/04/2025).
Read Also: Professor Convicted For Rigging Election For Akpabio Walks Free Instead Of Serving Jail Term
The court also heard appeals from Action Alliance (AA) and its National Chairman, Rufai Omoaje (CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/02/2025), and Dr. Bright Enabulele and Accord Party (AP) (CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/03/2025).
The appellants’ lawyers requested the court to overturn the Election Tribunal’s April 2nd judgments, while the respondents urged the court to uphold them.
Okpebholo’s lawyer, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), argued that the tribunal’s decision, which affirmed Okpebholo’s victory and dismissed the PDP and Ighodalo’s claims of irregularities, should stand.
He asserted that the appellants’ petition and appeal were merely academic exercises, as they conceded that even with the disputed votes deducted, Okpebholo would still have won.
Ikpeazu also countered the appellants’ claim about missing serial numbers on Form EC25B, stating that the form does not provide for serial number recording, and that serial numbers were present on Form EC40A.
He also stated the appellants failed to tender Form EC25D, despite pleading it.
Emmanuel Ukala (SAN) for the APC and Kanu Agabi (SAN) for INEC echoed Ikpeazu, urging the court to dismiss the appeals.
Ukala emphasized that petitioners must provide polling unit-specific evidence of non-compliance, which he argued the PDP and Ighodalo failed to do, calling only 19 witnesses for 765 polling units.
Ighodalo and the PDP’s lawyer, Robert Emukpoeruo (SAN), argued that the tribunal erred in its assessment of non-compliance and the lack of serial numbers on Form EC25B, as required by Section 73(2) of the Electoral Act 2022.
He disputed the tribunal’s claim that the documents were “dumped” and asserted that oral evidence was not necessary.
He clarified that their challenge focused on result collation discrepancies, not the election’s conduct itself.
After hearing the arguments, Justice M. A. Danjuma, presiding over the three-member panel, announced that the court would reserve judgment until a later date.
Join Informant Online WhatsApp Channel With Link Below: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaihFajBadmT29ufud2
