By Osehobo Ofure,Benin City
The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal will deliver judgment on the 3 petitions pending before it tomorrow. The tribunal is set to rule on Wednesday, April 2, 2025. The hearing will take place at the National Judicial Institute in Abuja.
The cases are identified by their docket numbers: EPT/ED/GOV/01/2024, EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, and EPT/ED/GOV/03/2024. All three petitions challenge the results of the recent Edo State gubernatorial election.
The announcement came through an official notice from the tribunal. M.I. Bagudu, Secretary of the Edo State Election Petition Tribunal, issued the notification today.
The ruling will determine if the current election results stand or if further legal action is warranted. Security measures are expected to be heightened around the NJI complex during the proceedings.
Recall that the three-member Edo State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal held its inaugural sitting on Monday, December 9, 2024, at the Edo High Court Complex on Sapele Road, Benin City. On that day, Justice Kpochi called for the cooperation of all parties to ensure a smooth and successful trial. He urged counsel to exercise mutual respect between the Bar and the Bench.
He also appealed to politicians and their supporters to maintain decorum during proceedings as the tribunal heard seven petitions arising from the September 21, 2024, governorship election, won by Senator Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC). Okpebholo was inaugurated as Executive Governor on November 12, alongside his Deputy, Rt. Hon. Dennis Idahosa.
The political parties that filed the petitions included the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Social Democratic Party (SDP), Zenith Labour Party (ZLP), Action Democratic Party (ADP), Accord (A), Allied Peoples Movement (APM), and Action Alliance (AA), all seeking to have their candidates declared winners of the keenly contested poll.
Counsel for the petitioners, led by Ken Mozia (SAN), and for the respondents, represented by Onyeachi Ikpeazu (SAN), pledged full cooperation with the tribunal for a smooth trial.
A Divisional Police Officer, Emmanuel Ehanhoro, assured that deployed police officers would ensure the safety of lives and property.
Despite this, thugs stormed the venue and attacked politicians and their supporters. However, vigilant and well-armed security operatives quickly brought the situation under control.
In January 2025, during the tribunal’s resumed sitting in Benin City, the proceedings were again disrupted when a man fired shots into the air near the High Court premises. The gunshots triggered palpable unrest around the area.
A series of videos on social media showed a man dressed in a white shirt, brown shorts, and a white face cap branded with the PDP candidate’s insignia, firing a locally made gun into the air while shouting, “You must give us our mandate.”
Mr. Jarrett Tenebe, APC Chairman in Edo State, condemned the violence, describing it as deeply disturbing and unacceptable, as it undermined the sanctity of the judicial process. He accused PDP supporters of carrying out the attack, alleging that thugs disguised in PDP-branded attire disrupted the tribunal’s proceedings.
“Today’s shooting incident within the venue of the Governorship Election Tribunal in Benin City, involving members of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), is a deeply disturbing and unacceptable act of violence,” Tenebe’s statement read.
“The Tribunal is a sacred space where justice is meant to be administered impartially. Any act of violence within its walls undermines the very foundation of our legal system and threatens the safety of all involved.
“Regardless of political affiliation, resorting to violence to resolve disputes is never justifiable. We must all condemn such actions in the strongest possible terms.
“Violence has no place in a civilized society, and those responsible for this heinous act must be brought to justice swiftly and without exception.”
Initially, the state police spokesperson, Mr. Moses Yamu, claimed he was unaware of the incident but later stated that the location in the video was not within the tribunal premises.
Subsequently, the tribunal announced its relocation from Benin City to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. A notice dated January 24, 2025, and signed by the Tribunal Secretary, Mu’azu Bagudu, confirmed the relocation. However, this was after the tribunal had treated the cases brought by the SDP, ZLP, ADP, Accord, APM, and AA.
The notice read in part: “I am directed to notify all parties that the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Benin City, Edo State, has been relocated to Abuja at the National Judicial Institute (NJI), Airport Road, Abuja, effective from Monday, 27th January 2025.”
The reason for the relocation was apparent. It was at the Abuja sitting that all parties adopted their final written addresses.
Counsel to the APC, Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), while adopting his final address, urged the panel to dismiss the petition filed by the PDP and its candidate, Mr. Asue Akintunde Ighodalo. He argued that the petitioners failed to provide substantial evidence to prove their claims of over-voting and non-compliance with electoral laws.
The PDP and its candidate had approached the tribunal, alleging irregularities, including over-voting and INEC’s failure to comply with electoral laws during the polls.
Ukala argued that the petitioners’ case was built entirely on allegations of non-compliance but lacked the evidence required by law. He cited the Supreme Court decision in Ucha v. Elechi, which held that claims of over-voting must be proven from polling unit to polling unit, ward to ward, and local government to local government. According to him, the PDP failed to provide such detailed proof.
He also referenced Baba v. INEC, where the Supreme Court ruled that an appellant must prove electoral malpractice with concrete evidence from specific polling units. Ukala contended that instead of fulfilling this obligation, the petitioners merely submitted documents without linking them to their allegations, amounting to “dumping evidence” on the court. Such documents, he insisted, were ineffective.
Furthermore, Ukala described the testimonies of the petitioners’ witnesses (PW1 to PW14) as weak and largely hearsay, which is inadmissible under Nigerian law. He noted that Form EC25D, a critical election document, was not referenced in any of the witnesses’ statements, further weakening the PDP’s case.
Additionally, Ukala pointed out the petitioners’ failure to produce BVAS records or the voters’ register to substantiate their claims of over-voting. He argued that without these, the petitioners’ case could not stand. He, therefore, urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition, as no concrete evidence had been established against the electoral process.
Counsel to INEC, Mr. Kanu Agabi (SAN), also adopted his final address and prayed the tribunal to dismiss the petition for lacking merit.
Agabi argued that the tribunal could not annul the September 21, 2024, governorship election because that was not one of the reliefs sought by the petitioners. He also contended that the tribunal could not declare the petitioners winners while they simultaneously claimed the election was invalid.
On the issue of non-compliance, Agabi described the petitioners’ claim as weak because it was not accompanied by the appropriate relief, which would have been the nullification of the election. He noted that the petitioners also failed to present any alternative results to support their claim to victory.
Agabi further argued that the few polling unit agents called as witnesses represented an insignificant percentage of the total polling units in Edo State. He pointed out that these agents signed the result sheets and could not distinguish between what they heard and what they saw.
“This is a clear indication that the election was conducted in compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022. The results were duly collated at all levels,” Agabi stated.
He also emphasized that the petitioners relied on analyses undertaken by hired consultants and dumped documents on the tribunal, which could not be used in their favour. Agabi prayed the tribunal to dismiss the petition entirely for lacking merit.
Responding, the petitioners’ counsel, Mr. Ken Mozia (SAN), stated that with 4,519 polling units in Edo, the petition focused on 765 of them.
He argued that success in an election petition is not about the percentage of polling units contested but the impact of the issues proven. Mozia insisted that the petition should be considered holistically and not in isolation.
On the claim that the petitioners failed to present alternative results, Mozia clarified that all the results before the tribunal were tendered by his clients. He also explained that his clients called only five polling unit agents because their complaints were centered on what transpired at the collation centres, not the polling units.
“We concede that elections took place at the polling units, but how 25 votes metamorphosed into 525 votes at the collation centre is what we are quarrelling with,” Mozia argued.
On the accusation of dumping documents, he maintained that all the documents tendered were duly certified by INEC and admitted without objection.
Mozia also argued that the tribunal had the requisite jurisdiction to hear the petition, as their allegations were not pre-election matters. He further contended that Okpebholo did not secure the majority of lawful votes cast in the election.
The Tribunal since March 2 reserved judgment. Justice Kpochi stated that a date for judgment would be communicated to the parties by the Tribunal Secretary. “The tribunal stands adjourned until then,” he said.
The proceedings have been closely followed by political stakeholders in Edo State, as the outcome could have significant implications for the state’s political landscape.
Discussion about this post