• Obaseki, Ighodalo kick
Jubilation erupted in Benin City, the Edo State capital, following yesterday’s verdict of the Supreme Court, which affirmed the victory of Governor Monday Okpebholo in the September 21, 2024 election.
The governor described the outcome as a victory for citizens of the state.
He said: “The verdict brought to a close all legal contestations arising from the election.”
Candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Asue Ighodalo, who lost at all three levels – tribunal, Court of Appeal and finally at the Supreme Court – and former Governor Godwin Obaseki rejected the judgment, but said there was nothing else to do.
In a statement by his Chief Press Secretary, Fred Itua, Okpebholo extended an olive branch to Ighodalo and other opposition members.
The statement reads: “This definitive verdict is not merely a legal triumph, it is a solemn reaffirmation of the sacred mandate freely given by the people of Edo State.
“It signals the beginning of a fresh chapter rooted in unity, inclusiveness, and accelerated development.
“His Excellency, Governor Monday Okpebholo, extends profound gratitude to the judiciary for its courage and fidelity to justice, and to the great people of Edo State for their unflinching support, patience, and faith in democracy.
“He views this moment not as a personal victory but as a shared triumph for every Edo citizen, regardless of
“Governor Okpebholo renews his vow to lead with humility, compassion, and accountability. His administration remains fully committed to its developmental blueprint — prioritising security, infrastructure, education, agriculture, healthcare, youth empowerment and job creation.
“The focus remains clear: to deliver tangible benefits that uplift lives and restore confidence in public leadership.
“In the true spirit of statesmanship, Governor Okpebholo extends a sincere olive branch to all his opponents and members of the opposition. The elections are over; the real work of governance and healing must begin.
“He urged political leaders across party lines to rise above division and contribute constructively to the task of building a greater Edo State.
“Constructive criticism and diverse perspectives will always be welcomed, but they must be rooted in a sincere desire to see Edo thrive.
“Edo belongs to all of us. The time has come to set aside our differences, close ranks, and march forward — united in purpose, anchored in peace, and driven by a shared vision of progress.
“Let this victory ignite a new era of unity, dialogue, and impact-driven governance. Let history remember this moment as the point when Edo chose collaboration over conflict, vision over vendetta, and service over self.”
The judgment
A five-member panel of the Supreme Court, which delivered the judgment, held that the appellants – the PDP and Ighodalo – failed to establish their case with sufficient and credible evidence.
The court resolved four out of the five issues identified for determination against the PDP and Ighodalo.
In the lead judgment, Justice Mohammed Garba found that the Court of Appeal was right in setting aside the decision of the election tribunal to admit the bimodal voter accreditation system (BVAS) tendered by the appellants from the bar without prior consent of the respondents.
Justice Garba also found that the appellants’ allegations of non-compliance was based on the provision of Section 51(1) and (2) and Section 73(2) of the Electoral Act to which Section 137 of the Electoral Act applies on the need to call oral evidence in proof, but which they failed to do.
He said: “In this particular appeal, the appellants called a total of 19 witnesses, out of who only five were polling unit agents, whose testimonies were related to over voting.
“They did not testify on the issue of no prior recording of serial numbers and other particulars of the result sheets, the BVAS machines and other sensitive election materials as prescribed by the Electoral Act 2022.
“Thirteen out of the 19 witnesses called by the appellants were wards and local government agents, who did not witness the election at the polling units to be able to testify and or demonstrate the documents as it relates to the complaints of the appellants.
“Petitioner witness (PW) 12, who happened to be the appellants’ star witness, who was the director of research and strategy of the first appellant’s campaign organisation, played no role in the voting at the polling units.
“In the circumstances, all the documents tendered before the tribunal, in respect of sundry allegations of not filling the form, of overvoting, etc were documents that were dumped on the tribunal,” he said.
Justice Garba held that it is the law that to prove over voting, which was one of the allegations made by the appellants, they were required to tender voter register for the affected polling units (to show the number of registered voters), BVAS machines used (to show the number of accredited voters) and result sheets of the said polling units in Form EC8As (to show the number of votes cast and recorded in the election).
He added that it is when these documents are tendered that the court would have the opportunity of comparing the number of votes recorded in Form EC8A, the primary source and the number of accredited voters in the BVAS machines to ensure that the figures tallied and did not exceed the number of registered voters.
The Justice said the failure of the appellants to tender any of the documents was fatal to their effort to prove allegations of over voting.
He held that the appellants failed to tender admissible and credible evidence in the disputed polling units to show the number of registered and accredited voters and extracts of the BVAS machines as required.
The Justice held that not only did the appellants tender the BVAS machines in an unlawful manner, they failed to demonstrate it before the tribunal to establish their case.
“In this case, the BVAS machines were merely tendered from the bar, without being opened and demonstrated before the tribunal and so, they were clearly dumped on the tribunal,” he said.
Justice Garba also faulted the appellants’ claim that Form EC25B was not completed by INEC officials as required before the election.
He said, contrary to the appellants’ claim, Form EC25B did not contain columns for the filling of information about sensitive election materials before the actual election. He noted that the form for such purpose was Form EC40A, which was duly filled as required.
The judge held that even if the appellants were able to establish their claim of non-compliance in relation to the 395 polling units where they challenged the results declared by INEC, they were still required to demonstrate that the said non-compliance substantially affected the entire results of the election.
Justice Garba said it was apparent that from the evidence tendered by the appellants in support of their attack on the results from the 395 polling units, the non-compliance, even if proved, could not be said to have substantially affected the result of the election, which was conducted in 4,519 polling units across the state.
He added that in that regard, the appellants did not satisfactorily discharge the burden of proof as required by law.
Justice Garba said the other allegations of exclusion and reduction of votes were also not established with credible and admissible evidence.
Stating that the appeal lacked merit, he dismissed it and affirmed the judgments of the election petition tribunal and the Court of Appeal, which earlier affirmed Okpebholo’s victory.
Ighodalo, Obaseki kick
Reacting to the judgment, Ighodalo said he was not convinced that the Supreme Court did justice to his case.
In a statement yesterday, Ighodalo said: “Though I accept the finality of the judgment, I do not and cannot pretend that what was delivered amounted to justice.
“What happened in the September 21, 2024 governorship election was not a contest. It was a robbery – coordinated; deliberate and now – tragically – validated by the highest court in the land.
“While I will not and cannot obstruct any judicial pronouncement, no matter how flawed, I must never fear to speak truth to power.”
Directing a part of the statement to his supporters, Ighodalo said: “Like you, I feel a deep sense of betrayal. Not just by those who rigged the process, but by the very institutions we trusted to protect our democracy.
“You came out in hope. You voted for competence, for progress, for prosperity. And now, we are told that your voices did not matter. That your freely given mandate can be trampled without consequence.
“I feel your pain. I share your anger. And I will never forget your courage”.
Going philosophical, Obaseki said that now that “all the courts have ruled against us, “the matter will be left in God’s hands.”
He encouraged Edo people to keep hope alive because God will at “the right time deliver justice and redemption” to them.
A statement he issued after the Supreme Court judgment reads: “It is based on this conviction and our belief that the results were manipulated that we took steps to seek legal redress.
“But unfortunately, and most surprisingly, all the courts have ruled against us.
“Although we strongly disagree with the decision of the Supreme Court, as adherents to the rule of law, we are bound by their verdict.
“We want to caution that the iconic manner in which the election was manipulated, coupled with the judicial validation it has received, portends grave danger for Nigeria’s democracy.”
Edo PDP: we accept judgment with dignity
The local chapter of the PDP in Edo State said it had accepted the judgment with utmost respect and grace.
“As a party that believes in the rule of law and the democratic process, we have received the decision of the Court with the utmost respect,” the party said in a statement by its Chairman, Anthony Aziegbemi.
The statement reads: “We have come to the end of a long legal journey, culminating in the judgment of the Supreme Court
“Though the judgment did not go in our favour, we accept it with grace and dignity. The Supreme Court has spoken, yes, but the Supreme God, the Almighty, remains the final and ultimate judge.
“He speaks for the people. He sees the intentions of hearts, the desires of the people of Edo and the direction in which they truly wish to go.”
The party, which described Nigeria’s democracy as a work in progress, added that it remained hopeful that one day, democratic institutions would fully reflect the genuine will of the people.
“Let it be known that this is not the end. This is only another chapter in our shared journey toward a better Edo and a better Nigeria,” it said.
APC taunts Ighodalo
The All Progressives Congress (APC) in the state said Ighodalo would wait a long time for God to hear his appeal because Edo has to be fixed.
In a statement by its Chairman, Jarret Tenebe, the ruling party assured that the state would witness more development under Governor Okpebholo.
It expressed joy over the apex court judgment and thanked the lawyers to Ighodalo for making him “waste” his fund challenging its victory.
Tenebe said: “I wish to thank the judiciary because they have proven they are the last hope of the common man. Edo State people are the common men.
“I also want to use this victory to thank our lawyers and Asue Ighodalo’s lawyers for encouraging him to waste his money from the lower court up to the Supreme Court.
“And I also want to thank the Edo people who came out massively to vote for Senator Monday Okpehbolo. If not, for them, we would not be getting this development in the state today. Now the state will witness more and more developments.”
