On Wednesday, the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal in Abuja confirmed the election of Governor Monday Okpebholo from the All Progressives Congress (APC).
A three-member panel reached a unanimous decision, stating there were no grounds to invalidate the results from the gubernatorial election held on September 21, 2024.
Tribunal Chairman Justice Wilfred Kpochi, who presented the leading judgment, dismissed the challenge brought by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and their candidate, Asuerinme Ighodalo, as unfounded. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had announced that Okpebholo received 291,667 votes, defeating Ighodalo, who garnered 247,655 votes.
Unsatisfied with the election outcome, the PDP and Ighodalo filed a petition claiming the election did not adhere to the Electoral Act of 2022 requirements. Their case, marked as EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, argued that Okpebholo did not receive the highest number of valid votes and criticized INEC for not properly serializing sensitive materials used in the election, alleging this facilitated electoral fraud in favor of the APC.
They specifically indicated that results from 765 polling units had been incorrectly counted and provided 19 witnesses along with various exhibits, including 153 Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines from 133 polling units. They asserted that results had been manipulated at the collation centers, leading to over-voting in favor of Okpebholo.
However, the tribunal concluded that the petitioners did not offer sufficient credible evidence to justify overturning the election results. The burden of proving INEC’s wrongful endorsement of Okpebholo lay with the petitioners. The panel emphasized that a petitioner must succeed based on their own evidence, not merely the weaknesses of the defense.
The tribunal also noted that the petitioners introduced new facts in their responses that were not part of their original case, which the panel dismissed. While the tribunal acknowledged the petitioners had provided detailed evidence regarding alleged infractions, it criticized them for failing to present competent witnesses to substantiate their claims, as required by law. Most of the testimonies offered were deemed hearsay, and the absence of polling unit agents, presiding officers, or voters weakened their case.
The tribunal highlighted that the law did not prevent the petitioners from calling the necessary witnesses and rejected their claim that INEC failed to pre-record materials for the election. Furthermore, none of the BVAS machines presented were activated to validate the petitioners’ assertion of over-voting.
The tribunal stated that the evidence needed to prove over-voting included the Voter Register, BVAS machines, and Form EC8A, and the petitioners merely submitted BVAS screenshots as support for their allegations. Ultimately, the tribunal found the petitioners did not successfully establish their claims against INEC’s compliance with election regulations. Even if the alleged unlawfully credited votes were deducted, Okpebholo would still be the victor.
In response to the ruling, Ighodalo announced through his legal team their intention to appeal the judgment at the Court of Appeal.
