The Court of Appeal in Abuja, on Thursday, affirmed the election of Monday Okpebholo as Edo State governor
A three-member panel of the court led by Mohamed Danjuma unanimously ruled in Mr Okpebholo’s favour, affirming the decision of the lower Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal which earlier validated the governor’s victory in the 21 September 2024 election.
|
|
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its governorship candidate in the disputed poll, Asue Ighodalo, to affirm Mr Okpebholo’s election.
“The petitioners failed woefully to prove their allegations of overvoting,” the Court of Appeal ruled.
|
|
|
|---|
Allegations of overvoting, malpractices and non-compliance with the Electoral Act were at the heart of Mr Igbhodalo’s case against the outcome of the disputed election.
These allegations were not proved with cogent evidence at the tribunal, the Court of Appeal said on Thursday, adding that the appellants merely relied on their witnesses’ “presumptions”.
Echoing the tribunal’s earlier findings, the Court of Appeal ruled that Mr Ighodalo’s grievances against the election “stand unproved”.
It similarly dismissed the appeals by two fringe political parties which also contested the outcome of the vote.
Mr Okpehbolo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and Mr Ighodalo were absent from Thursday’s proceedings. But Mr Okpebholo’s running mate, now his deputy, Dennis Idahosa, and PDP chairperson in the state, PDP in the state, Tony Aziegbemi, were present to observe the judgement being delivered.
Mr Okpebholo was declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the winner of the September 2024 election with 291,667 votes. Mr Ighodalo came second with 247,655 votes. Several other candidates participated in the election but secured only a small fraction of the total votes.
Displeased with the result, Mr Ighodalo headed to the Edo State Governorship Election Tribunal, which sat in Abuja, to challenge it.
He alleged widespread irregularities, overvoting, malpractices and non-compliance with the Electoral Act during the election.
The tribunal dismissed his claims as unproven in its judgement delivered on 2 April.
However, convinced of the merit of his case, Mr Ighodalo immediately appealed the tribunal’s verdict. Mr Okpebholo, too, filed a cross-appeal to challenge some of the tribunal’s decisions despite their zero impact on the judgements delivered in his favour.
On 1 May, the Mr Danjuma-led three-member panel of the Court of Appeal listened to lawyers’ submissions on the case and adjourned for judgement.
Appeal Court’s key findings
The Court of Appeal upheld the judgement of the tribunal on Thursday, similarly, finding that Mr Ighodalo and his party failed to present enough evidence in support of their case.
It also upheld Mr Okpebholo’s cross-appeal which led the justices to expunge from the records some pieces of evidence the lower tribunal had admitted in favour of Mr Ighodalo’s case.
Upholding Mr Okpebholo and other respondents’ arguments, the Court of Appeal agreed that the tribunal was correct to hold that the PDP and its candidate merely “dumped” their evidence on the tribunal.
It said they failed to demonstrate how their evidence supported their claims of non-compliance and over-voting. The appellants could not switch on the BVAS machines they tendered at the tribunal throughout the trial.
The court also held that they could have demonstrated the usefulness of their evidence by calling witnesses to speak to the exhibits but failed to do so.
According to the court, the few witnesses presented by the PDP and its candidate only testified on issues “unrelated” to the matters before the tribunal. It said they did not testify on what they observed at the polling units and collation centres.
According to the court, the appellants’ claims of collation of incorrect scores in polling units were not proved
Agreeing with Mr Okpebholo’s cross-appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the tribunal erred in admitting the BVAS machines as evidence as requested by the PDP candidate.
It, therefore, expunged from the records the evidence of the 133 BVAS machines tendered at the tribunal by the petitioners.
It held that the tribunal’s decision to admit the BVAS machines as exhibits caused “a miscarriage of justice”. It explained further that the tribunal, in admitting the exhibits, failed to comply with relevant statutes for tendering such documentary evidence.
The Court of Appeal’s decision is not final in governorship election disputes, as dissatisfied parties can further challenge the decision at the Supreme Court, which has the final say on the matter.
Reactions by parties
The chairperson of PDP in Edo State, Tony Aziegbemi, rejected the Court of Appeal’s judgement and vowed that the party would challenge it at the Supreme Court.
Speaking with journalists on the court premises shortly after the judges finished delivering the judgement on Thursday, Mr Aziegbemi, urged party members to stay calm.
“We think that even the judges, especially when they started talking, taking their eyes on what they wrote, you could see some elements of bias in what they were saying. However, we would request that our members stay calm,”
But Edo State Attorney General Samson Osaghie praised the judgement.
He conceded that aggrieved parties have the right to challenge the decision at the Supreme Court, but noted that two courts already affirmed Mr Okphebolo’s victory because there is no proof of wrongdoing regarding the election.
“The election of Governor Monday Okphebolo is unassailable, and upheld at this point in time, his victory is for Edo State, his victory is for APC and his victory is for democracy.”
Tribunal’s ruling
The governorship election tribunal led by Wilfred Kpochi first upheld Mr Okpebholo’s election in its judgement delivered on 2 April.
The tribunal held that petitioners agreed that the petitioners – Mr Ighodalo and the PDP – failed to present polling unit agents and presiding officers to prove their claims.
READ ALSO: Appeal Court decides on Edo governorship election today
It held that the petitioners merely dumped documents on it “without any competent witness” to substantiate claims of over-voting and electoral non-compliance.
“These witnesses (presented by the petitioners, comprising Local Government agents and others) are total strangers,” the judge stressed.
Subsequently, the tribunal dismissed the petition for failing to prove its case against the governor’s election.
