PDP vs APC: Appeal Court Holds Off Ruling in Fierce Edo Election Challenge

 

photo: The Nation

The legal fight over the outcome of the 2024 Edo State governorship election has taken another turn, as the Court of Appeal in Abuja has reserved judgment in multiple appeals and a cross appeal stemming from the disputed vote.

The election, held on September 21, 2024, saw the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declare Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner. That decision has since been challenged by several parties in court.

On Thursday, a three-judge panel led by Justice M.A. Danjuma listened to final arguments from lawyers involved in four separate appeals—three appeals and one cross appeal. The panel announced that it would deliver its judgment at a later date, to be communicated to the parties.

Among the appeals heard was the one filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo (CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/01/2025), contesting the tribunal's earlier decision. Also heard was a cross appeal by the APC and Okpebholo himself (CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/04/2025). Two other appeals came from the Action Alliance and its National Chairman, Rufai Omoaje (CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/02/2025), and another by Dr. Bright Enabulele and Accord Party (CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/03/2025).

The legal teams on both sides made strong closing arguments. The appellants pushed the court to overturn the April 2 tribunal ruling that upheld Okpebholo’s election victory, citing alleged irregularities. Meanwhile, lawyers for the APC, INEC, and Okpebholo urged the appellate court to affirm the tribunal’s judgment.

Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Onyechi Ikpeazu, representing Okpebholo, argued that the PDP and Ighodalo failed to prove that the election was compromised. He dismissed their case as largely academic, pointing out that even if disputed votes were removed, Okpebholo still had the majority.

He also responded to claims about missing serial numbers on Form EC25B, explaining that the form doesn’t require serial numbers at all. Instead, it’s used to track quantities of election materials received and returned. He noted that Form EC40A, which was submitted by the PDP, actually did include serial numbers. He further criticized the PDP for mentioning Form EC25D in their petition but failing to tender it in court.

Ikpeazu emphasized that ward collation officers are not bound to rely solely on IREV uploads, particularly in cases of over-voting. He also defended the cross appeal filed by the APC and Okpebholo, asking the court to rule in their favor.

APC’s Emmanuel Ukala (SAN) and INEC’s Kanu Agabi (SAN) echoed similar sentiments, stating that the law requires petitioners to bring witnesses from each polling unit they’re disputing. In this case, the PDP called only 19 witnesses out of the 765 polling units in question, and just five were actual polling unit agents.

Ukala argued that key documents—like Form EC25D, which was supposed to reflect ballot serial numbers—were never presented during the tribunal hearings. He maintained that the evidence provided was insufficient to overturn the election result.

On the other side, Robert Emukpoeruo (SAN), representing Ighodalo and the PDP, asked the court to reverse the tribunal's decision. He claimed the tribunal misunderstood the nature of their complaint, which was about non-compliance with electoral laws—specifically, the absence of ballot paper serial numbers on Form EC25B, as required under Section 73(2) of the Electoral Act, 2022.

Emukpoeruo argued that the tribunal was wrong to say the PDP “dumped” documents on the court or failed to bring oral evidence. He said his clients weren’t questioning the conduct of the election itself, but rather discrepancies between polling unit results and what was later collated at the ward level.

After hearing all parties, the Court of Appeal panel reserved judgment and said a decision will be delivered on a future date yet to be announced.

The news was first seen on -The Nation News