The Court of Appeal has reserved judgments in three appeals and a cross appeal filed in relations to the dispute over the governorship election held in Edo State on September 21, 2024, in which the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner.
A three-member panel of the court, presided over by Justice M. A. Danjuma, which sat in Abuja today, told lawyers to the parties, after taking their final arguments, that the judgments are reserved till a date to be communicated to them, reports Channels TV.
The appeals heard included the one filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the election, Asue Ighodalo (marked: CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/01/2025) and a cross appeal by the APC and Okpebholo (marked: CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/04/2025).
The other two appeals heard are: CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/02/2025, filed by Action Alliance (AA) and its National Chairman, Rufai Omoaje, and CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/03/2025, filed by Dr. Bright Enabulele and Accord Party (AP).
In arguing the appeals, lawyers to the appellants prayed the court to allow their appeals and reverse the judgments of the election tribunal delivered on April 2, while lawyers to the respondents urged the court to affirm the judgments by the tribunal and dismiss the appeals.
Lawyer to Okpebholo, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) urged the court to affirm the judgment of the tribunal, which upheld his client’s victory and found that the PDP and Ighodalo failed to prove their allegations that the election was marred by irregularities.
Ikpeazu argued that the petition, which they filed before the tribunal, and the appeal constitute a totally academic exercise.
He stated the appellants conceded at the tribunal that if the votes, which they claimed were wrongly added, were deducted, Okpebholo and the APC still scored the majority of votes.
Ikpeazu argued that, as against the claim by the appellants that the serial numbers of the ballot papers were not filled on the Form EC25B, the form actually did not contain any provision for the recording of serial numbers.
He said what is provided for in Form EC25B are spaces for the imputation of information about the quantity of materials received and the quantity of materials returned.
Ikpeazu states that in the Form EC40A, which the appellants tendered at the tribunal, the serial numbers of the ballot papers were clearly indicated.
He noted that while the appellants pleaded Form EC25D in their petition, they failed to tender the forms before the tribunal.
He argued that the ward collation officers are not bound by the results uploaded to IREV where there is over-voting.
Ikpeazu also argued the cross appeal filed by Okpebholo and the APC and urged the Court of Appeal to allow the cross appeal and dismiss the appeal.
Emmanuel Ukala (SAN) for the APC and Kanu Agabi (SAN) for the INEC also argued similarly in praying the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the election tribunal.
Ukala argued that the position of the law has not changed, even with the introduction of Sections 73(2) and 137 of the Electoral Act 2022 that a petitioner alleging any form of non-compliance must call witnesses from all the affected polling units to prove the allegations.
He added, “Where there is improper collation, you still need to call witnesses polling unit by polling unit.”
While arguing that the Ighodalo and the PDP failed woefully to lead sufficient evidence to prove their case, Ukala said the tribunal held rightly when it found that the petitioners failed woefully in that regard.
He noted that in this case, the petitioners called a total of 19 witnesses at the tribunal, out of which only five were polling unit agents, who were required to give evidence in respect of the 765 polling units that they were complaining about.
Ukala also noted that while the appellants pleaded Form EC25D in the petition as one of the forms they intended to rely on at trial, they did not produce it at trial.
He said the Form EC25D is where the serial number ought to be reflected, as against Form EC25B, claimed by the appellants.
Lawyer to Ighodalo and the PDP, Robert Emukpoeruo (SAN), urged the court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the tribunal.
He argued that, in relation to the appellants’ allegations of non-compliance, the tribunal failed to appreciate the nature of the non-compliance complained of.
Emukpoeruo added that there was no record of the serial number on Form EC25B as required by Section 73(2) of the Electoral Act, 2022.
He added, “The tribunal said we required evidence of polling agents or witnesses to prove how the forms were filled or not filled.
That was not our case. Our case was that the Form EC 25B did not contain the serial number.”
The appellants’ lawyer argued that the tribunal was also wrong to claim that the documents his clients tendered at trial were dumped on the tribunal.
He further argued that, as against the tribunal’s finding, oral evidence was not needed, like the case of the appellants, who were petitioners before the tribunal.
Emukpoeruo stated that his clients did not challenge the conduct of the election, but the conflict in the results collated and announced.
He noted that it was part of his clients’ contention that the results that were collated at the ward level were not the results declared at the polling units.
After taking arguments from lawyers to parties, a three-member panel of the court, presided over by Justice M. A. Danjuma, announced that judgment is reserved to a date to be communicated to parties.
