The Supreme Court reserved its decision yesterday in the appeal lodged by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Asue Ighodalo, regarding the outcome of the Edo State Governorship election held on September 21, 2024.
This move came after the Apex Court heard the arguments presented by all parties involved in the appeal.
The appeal contests the result declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which announced Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the elected Governor.
A five-member panel of Justices, presided over by Justice Garba Lawal, heard the case.
Ighodalo’s Legal representation, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Ken Mozia, requested that the Supreme Court reverse the Judgments of the lower courts, which had previously affirmed INEC’s announcement of Okpebholo as the winner.
On May 29, 2025, the Abuja Court of Appeal upheld the earlier ruling of the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal.
Both courts rejected Ighodalo’s petition, labeling it as lacking substance.
The initial dismissal took place on April 2, 2025, when a tribunal panel chaired by Justice Wilfred Kpochi struck out the petition brought forward by the PDP and Ighodalo. The tribunal cited insufficient evidence to support allegations of over-voting and electoral malpractice.
The petition, filed under the reference EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, claimed that Okpebholo did not obtain the majority of lawful votes and that the election suffered from extensive irregularities, vote inflation, and breaches of the Electoral Act.
According to the PDP and Ighodalo, the electoral process involved faulty vote collation, numerical inaccuracies across 765 polling units, and the absence of ballot paper serialization or proper documentation of sensitive materials by INEC.
They asserted that these failures enabled manipulations in favor of the APC and its candidate.
During the proceedings, the petitioners called 19 witnesses, including a Senior Technical Officer from INEC’s ICT department, who appeared under subpoena and presented 154 Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) devices from 133 polling units to support the claims of over-voting.
INEC did not call any witnesses.
Okpebholo presented one witness, while the APC brought four witnesses to the stand.
While the PDP pushed for the annulment of the election based on their evidence, the respondents contended that the petition lacked merit. They argued that Ighodalo did not sufficiently demonstrate that he had won the election or that significant legal violations had occurred.
Justice Kpochi, delivering the tribunal’s decision, stated:
“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.”
Addressing the claim that INEC breached electoral guidelines, Justice Kpochi added:
“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.”
On the issue of missing serial numbers on ballots, the tribunal concluded:
“There are figures here.”
The Court also disregarded allegations regarding the lack of advance recording of sensitive electoral materials.
INEC’s final election results showed Okpebholo secured 291,667 votes, while Ighodalo trailed with 247,655 votes.
At Wednesday’s Supreme Court session, INEC was represented by Kanu Agabi, who urged the court to dismiss the appeal. He argued that it was contradictory for the PDP and Ighodalo to claim the election was illegal while simultaneously asking to be declared winners.
Agabi maintained that the PDP’s arguments were inconsistent and urged the Justices to reject them.
Okpebholo’s counsel, Onyechi Ikpeazu, and APC’s counsel, Emmanuel Okala, similarly urged the Court to throw out the appeal.
Following the conclusion of all arguments, Justice Garba Lawal announced that the date of the final Judgment would be communicated to the parties involved.
