• APC, Okpebholo seek dismissal of appeals by PDP, others
The Court of Appeal in Abuja yesterday reserved judgments in three appeals and a cross appeal filed in relation to the September 21, 2024, dispute over the Edo State governorship election won by Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
A three-member panel of the court, presided over by Justice M. A. Danjuma, told lawyers for the parties that the date of the judgments would be communicated to them.
That was after listening to their final arguments.
The appeals are those filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate for the election, Asue Ighodalo, marked CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/01/2025 and another (a cross appeal) by the APC and Okpebholo marked CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/04/2025.
The other two were filed by the Action Alliance (AA) and its National Chairman, Rufai Omoaje marked CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/02/2025 and Bright Enabulele of the Accord Party (AP) marked CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/03/2025.
READ ALSO: Eight Africa’s oldest countries and their rich histories
In their arguments, lawyers to the appellants prayed the court to allow their appeals and reverse the judgments of the election tribunal delivered on April 2. But lawyers to the respondents urged the court to dismiss the appeals and affirm the judgments by the tribunal.
Lawyer to Okpebholo, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), asked 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 petitions, which the plaintiffs filed before the tribunal and the appeal, constitute an 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 recording of serial number.
He said what is provided for in Form EC25B are spaces for inputting information about the quantity of materials received and returned.
Ikpeazu added that in 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.
The SAN argued that the ward collation officers were not bound by the results uploaded to IREV where there is over-voting.
Ikpeazu also argued the cross appeal by Okpebholo and the APC and urged the court to allow the cross appeal and dismiss the appeal.
Emmanuel Ukala (SAN) for the APC and Kanu Agabi (SAN) for the Independent National Electoral Commission(INEC) also argued similarly. They asked the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the 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.
“Where there is improper collation, you still need to call witnesses polling unit by polling unit,” he added.
Ukala argued that the tribunal held rightly when it found that Ighodalo and the PDP failed woefully to present sufficient evidence to prove their case,
He noted that in this case, the petitioners called 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 complained 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 that 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, concerning 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 said: “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 in the nature of 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 Danjuma announced that judgment is reserved.
