Edo Tribunal hears final arguments, reserves judgment

The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal convened today to adopt final written addresses in the petition filed by Asue Ighodalo of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), challenging the declaration of Senator Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the 2024 governorship election.

The high-stakes proceedings drew a packed courtroom, with Ighodalo in attendance alongside PDP Edo State Chairman Anthony Aziegbemin, Senator Clifford Odia, and Friday Itulah. Representing the APC were former Edo governor and party chieftain Senator Adams Oshiomhole, former deputy governor Philip Shaibu, and Osagie Ize-Iyamu.

Presiding over the three-man panel, Justice W. Kpochi granted each respondent 15 minutes to adopt their final submissions, while the petitioners were given 30 minutes to argue their case in what became a heated legal battle.

Counsel for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the first respondent, urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition, arguing that the petitioners had failed to substantiate their claims. He described the petition as incompetent, highlighting that it did not seek the annulment of the entire election.

Counsel for Senator Okpebholo, the second respondent, aligned with INEC’s arguments, insisting that the petitioners had not provided crucial evidence such as Form EC25D, which records ballot paper serial numbers. Instead, he noted, they relied on Form EC25B, which merely documents the quantity of election materials received and returned.

The APC’s counsel also adopted the positions of the other respondents, arguing that electoral non-compliance must be proven polling unit by polling unit, ward by ward, and local government by local government.

In response, counsel for Ighodalo insisted that the petition was well-founded, asserting that the petitioners had successfully challenged results from 765 polling units—enough to alter the final outcome. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Uzodinma vs. Ihedioha, he argued that the law does not require petitioners to challenge results in every polling unit or submit alternative results.

He further noted that all tendered documents were certified by INEC and admitted without objection, dismissing claims that polling unit agents needed to testify. He explained that the disputed collation occurred at ward and local government collation centres, where polling unit agents were not present.

The petitioners’ counsel also referenced Supreme Court decisions, including Lawal vs. Matawalle, affirming the credibility of results uploaded to INEC’s IReV portal. He urged the tribunal to assess the cumulative impact of the irregularities across the affected polling units rather than dismissing the case on technical grounds.

Outside the courtroom, PDP chieftain Ifaluyi Isibor addressed the press, expressing confidence in the petitioners’ case.

“We provided witnesses, we presented documents certified by INEC, and we cited Supreme Court precedents. Meanwhile, the respondents failed to defend the electoral heist we witnessed in Edo State,” he stated.

“Can you imagine that not only did INEC not object to the documents we tendered, but they also failed to produce even a single witness to defend their case?”

He added: “Edo people did their part by voting for us, our lawyers have done their part, and now, everything is in the hands of the judiciary and God. We believe justice will prevail.”

After hearing the final arguments, the tribunal reserved its judgment, with a date to be communicated to the parties in due course.