Edo Governorship Dispute: Appeal Court Reserves Judgment in High-Stakes Battle Over Okpebholo’s Victory

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has reserved judgment in three separate appeals and one cross-appeal arising from the contested September 21, 2024, Edo State governorship election, which saw the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declare Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner.

The decision to reserve judgment was announced on Thursday by a three-member panel led by Justice M.A. Danjuma after final arguments were presented by legal counsel representing all parties. The court stated that the date for delivering its ruling will be communicated later.

The cases before the court include:

• CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/01/2025 – Filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo.

• CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/02/2025 – Filed by the Action Alliance (AA) and its National Chairman, Rufai Omoaje.

• CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/03/2025 – Filed by Dr. Bright Enabulele and the Accord Party.

• CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/04/2025 – A cross-appeal submitted by the APC and its candidate, Monday Okpebholo.

These appeals contest the ruling of the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, which on April 2, 2025, upheld Okpebholo’s election victory.

Lead counsel for Okpebholo, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), urged the appellate court to dismiss the appeals, describing them as “academic exercises.” He argued that even if the votes in dispute were removed, Okpebholo still secured a majority win. He also challenged the basis of the petitioners’ argument about serial numbers missing from Form EC25B, clarifying that the correct form for that data is Form EC40A, which was properly submitted.

APC counsel Emmanuel Ukala (SAN) and INEC’s lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN), echoed Ikpeazu’s position. They cited Sections 73(2) and 137 of the Electoral Act 2022, noting that the petitioners failed to provide polling unit-specific evidence to support claims of non-compliance. Ukala added that only five out of the 19 witnesses presented by the PDP were polling unit agents, despite contesting results from over 700 polling units. He further argued that the petitioners relied on the wrong form—Form EC25B—instead of the correct Form EC25D for serial number references.

On the other side, Robert Emukpoeruo (SAN), representing the PDP and Ighodalo, insisted the tribunal misunderstood the nature of their petition. He clarified that the core issue was not the general conduct of the election but discrepancies between polling unit results and ward-level announcements. He pushed back on the tribunal’s claim that the PDP merely “dumped” documents, arguing that the documentary evidence spoke for itself and oral testimonies were unnecessary.

Justice Danjuma, speaking on behalf of the panel, stated that judgment on the appeals and cross appeal has been reserved, with parties to be notified of the ruling date.

The court’s decision will play a decisive role in settling the legal contest over the Edo governorship and may set a critical precedent regarding evidentiary thresholds in election petitions under Nigeria’s current electoral laws.