Political Earthquake Loading? Appeal Court Withholds Judgment in Okpebholo vs Ighodalo Face-Off!

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has reserved judgment in three separate appeals and one cross-appeal stemming from the legal battle over the September 21, 2024, Edo State governorship election, in which the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) the winner.

A three-man panel, headed by Justice M.A. Danjuma, held the final hearing on Thursday, taking arguments from all legal representatives involved. The court said a date for its ruling would be communicated later.

The cases before the appellate court are:

• CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/01/2025 – filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate Asue Ighodalo.

• CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/02/2025 – filed by the Action Alliance (AA) and its National Chairman Rufai Omoaje.

• CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/03/2025 – brought by Dr. Bright Enabulele and the Accord Party.

• CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/04/2025 – a cross-appeal by the APC and Monday Okpebholo.

These appeals challenge the April 2, 2025 ruling by the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, which upheld Okpebholo’s election as valid.

Lead counsel for Okpebholo, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), urged the court to throw out the appeals, describing them as baseless. He asserted that the PDP and its candidate failed to establish substantial evidence of electoral malpractice. According to him, even if the disputed votes were excluded, Okpebholo still secured a majority.

On the issue of non-recording of serial numbers on Form EC25B, Ikpeazu argued that the form was not intended to capture such details. He instead cited Form EC40A, which had the relevant serial numbers and had been presented in evidence.

Counsel for the APC, Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), and INEC’s counsel, Kanu Agabi (SAN), backed Ikpeazu’s position. They emphasized that under Sections 73(2) and 137 of the Electoral Act 2022, petitioners must supply polling unit-specific evidence to substantiate any claims of irregularities.

Ukala further noted that only five out of the 19 witnesses presented by the PDP were actual polling unit agents, despite the petition contesting outcomes in over 700 polling units. He pointed out that the proper document for serial number verification was Form EC25D, not EC25B as claimed by the petitioners.

In response, Robert Emukpoeruo (SAN), counsel for Ighodalo and the PDP, asked the appellate court to overturn the tribunal’s verdict. He argued that the lower court misunderstood their case, which was not about the overall conduct of the election but rather focused on discrepancies between polling unit results and those announced at ward collation centers.