There was drama at the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal convened today following the adoption of the final written addresses in the petition filed by Asue Ighodalo of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
The petition had challenged the declaration of Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the 2024 governorship election.
With Ighodalo in attendance, the courtroom was filled with stakeholders on the proceedings including the PDP Edo State Chairman, Anthony Aziegbemin, Clifford Odia, and Friday Itulah.
Some of the delegation on the side of the APC include Adams Oshiomhole, Comrade Philip Shaibu, and Osagie Ize-Iyamu.
Leading a 3-man panel, Justice W. Kpochi granted each respondent 15 minutes to adopt their final submissions, while the petitioners were allowed 30 minutes in what would prove to be a heated debate.
Counsel for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the first respondent, adopted the electoral body’s final written address, urging the tribunal to dismiss the petition. He argued that the petitioners had not proven their case, describing the petition as incompetent for failing to request the annulment of the entire election.
Counsel to Okpebholo, the second respondent, aligned with INEC’s arguments. He contended that the petitioners had failed to tender essential documents such as Form EC25D, which records ballot paper serial numbers, relying instead on Form EC25B, which merely documents the quantity of materials received and returned.
Counsel for the APC, the third respondent, adopted the positions of the other respondents, insisting that the petitioners were required to demonstrate non-compliance polling unit by polling unit, ward by ward, and local government by local government.
Responding on behalf of Ighodalo, counsel for the petitioners argued that the petition had been successfully substantiated.
He highlighted that the petitioners had challenged results from 765 polling units — a volume of votes capable of affecting the overall outcome.
Citing the Supreme Court decision in Uzodinma vs. Ihedioha, he submitted that the law does not require petitioners to challenge all polling units or tender alternative results. He also pointed out that the documents tendered were certified by INEC and admitted without objection.
The petitioners’ counsel dismissed claims that polling unit agents needed to testify to the documents, noting that the disputed collation took place at ward and local government collation centres, where polling unit agents were not present. He emphasized that INEC’s IReV results had been affirmed by multiple Supreme Court decisions, including Lawal vs. Matawalle.
Concluding his submission, the petitioners’ counsel urged the tribunal to consider the cumulative impact of the irregularities across the disputed polling units, rather than dismissing the petition on technical grounds.
Speaking after the session, Ifaluyi Isibor, a PDP chieftain expressed confidence in the petitioners’ case.
“We provided witnesses, we provided documents certified by INEC themselves, we cited Supreme Court judgments in similar matters, and the respondents failed to defend the electoral heist we witnessed in Edo State. Can you imagine that not only did INEC not object to the documents we tendered, they failed to produce even a single witness to defend their case?”
“Edo people did their part by voting for us, our lawyers have done their part, now everything is in the hands of the judiciary and God. We believe they will ensure that justice is served and impunity punished,” Ifaluyi-Isibor told journalists.
The tribunal reserved judgment, with a date to be communicated to the parties.
