From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The Abuja division of the Court of Appeal has reserved judgements in three appeals and a cross appeal filed in the disputed Edo State governorship election in which Governor Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) was declared winner by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
After adopting their final submissions for and against the appeal, a three-member panel of the court, presided over by Justice M. A. Danjuma, told counsel to the parties that the judgements are reserved till a date to be communicated to them.
The pending appeals are 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) as well as 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 their respective submissions, counsel to the appellants urged the court to allow their appeals and reverse the judgements of the election tribunal delivered on April 2, while lawyers to the respondents urged the court to affirm the judgements by the tribunal and dismiss the appeals.
However, on his part, counsel to Governor Okpebholo, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) urged the court to affirm the judgement 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 contended 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.
The senior lawyer equally argued that, contrary to 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 told the court that in the Form EC40A, which the appellants tendered at the tribunal, the serial numbers of the ballot papers were clearly indicated.
He further stated that while the appellants pleaded Form EC25D in their petition, they failed to tender the forms before the tribunal.
The governor’s counsel 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.
In their submissions, counsel for the APC, Emmanuel Ukala (SAN) and Kanu Agabi (SAN) for the INEC, also argued similarly in praying the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgement of the election tribunal.
Specifically, 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 provide 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 added 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 opposed to Form EC25B, claimed by the appellants.
However, in urging the court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgement of the tribunal, lead counsel to the appellants (PDP and Ighodalo), Robert Emukpoeruo (SAN), 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 submitted that, “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’ counsel 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 in 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.