The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved judgment in the appeal filed by the Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) candidate, Asue Ighodalo, over the outcome of the September 21, 2024, governorship election in Edo State.
The apex court made this decision after hearing arguments for and against the appeal.
The appeal challenges the result declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission, which announced Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the election.
The appeal was heard by a five-member panel of justices led by Justice Garba Lawal.
Ighodalo’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Ken Mozia, asked the court to overturn the judgments of the lower courts, which had upheld INEC’s declaration of Okpebholo as winner.
On May 29, 2025, the Court of Appeal in Abuja affirmed the ruling of the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal.
Both courts dismissed Ighodalo’s petition, describing it as lacking merit.
On April 2, 2025, a three-member panel of the tribunal, chaired by Justice Wilfred Kpochi, dismissed the petition filed by the PDP and Ighodalo, citing the petitioners’ failure to prove claims of over-voting and electoral irregularities.
The petition, marked EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, alleged that Okpebholo did not win the highest number of lawful votes and that the election was marred by widespread irregularities, over-voting, and violations of the Electoral Act.
The PDP and Ighodalo alleged that the election involved incorrect collation of figures, errors in vote computation in 765 polling units, and a failure by INEC to serialise ballot papers or pre-record sensitive materials.
They claimed this enabled electoral malpractice in favour of the APC and its candidate.
During the trial, the petitioners called 19 witnesses and subpoenaed a Senior Technical Officer from INEC’s ICT department, who brought 154 BVAS machines from 133 polling units to support claims of over-voting.
INEC did not present any witnesses.
Okpebholo called one witness, while the APC presented four.
While the PDP asked the tribunal to nullify the election based on the evidence, the respondents countered that the case lacked merit.
They argued that Ighodalo failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he won the election or that there was significant non-compliance with the law.
Justice Kpochi, in the tribunal’s judgment, said, “We hold that the failure by the petitioners to call polling unit agents, presiding officers or other registered voters was fatal to the case.
“It still remains the law that documents do not speak for themselves. A petitioner must prove their evidence. The allegation of non-compliance must be proved.
“The BVAS machines were clearly dumped and remain dormant. None of the witnesses could speak to the BVAS machine. The machines were not demonstrated to prove the allegations of over-voting.
“All the evidence documents tendered by the petitioners to prove over-voting fall short of the requirements. The law requires that the petitioners shall call witnesses to link the evidence rendered.”
On the petitioners’ claims that INEC did not comply with electoral guidelines, Justice Kpochi ruled, “The petitioners failed to prove that the first defendant did not comply with the provisions of the electoral act or INEC rules of conduct as required by law.”
Regarding claims of missing serial numbers on ballots, the tribunal ruled, “There are figures here.”
The court also dismissed claims of a lack of prior recording of materials used in the poll.
In the final result announced by INEC, Okpebholo polled 291,667 votes while Ighodalo came second with 247,655 votes.
During Wednesday’s hearing, INEC was represented by Kanu Agabi, who urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal.
He argued that the PDP and Ighodalo described the election as illegal and could not then ask to be declared winners of the same election.
Agabi told the court that Ighodalo and the PDP were inconsistent in their case and urged the judges to reject their claims.
Okpebholo’s counsel, Onyechi Ikpeazu, and APC’s counsel, Emmanuel Okala, also asked the court to dismiss the appeal.
After listening to all arguments, Justice Lawal said the date for the final judgment would be communicated to the parties.
The Punch
