The Supreme Court has reserved Judgment in the 2024 Edo Governorship Election Appeal
GoldenNewsNg reports that the Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved judgment in the appeal filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Asue Ighodalo, challenging the outcome of the September 21, 2024, governorship election in Edo State.
The apex court reached this decision after hearing arguments from both sides regarding the appeal.
Ighodalo is contesting the results declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which announced Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the election.
The appeal was heard by a five-member panel of justices, led by Justice Garba Lawal.
Represented by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Ken Mozia, Ighodalo’s legal team urged the court to overturn the decisions of the Election Petition Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, both of which upheld INEC’s declaration of Okpebholo as the duly elected governor.
On May 29, 2025, the Court of Appeal in Abuja affirmed the ruling of the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, which had previously dismissed Ighodalo’s petition on grounds that it lacked merit.
Earlier, on April 2, 2025, a three-member tribunal panel chaired by Justice Wilfred Kpochi rejected the petition filed by the PDP and Ighodalo. The tribunal ruled that the petitioners failed to prove allegations of over-voting and widespread electoral irregularities.
The petition, marked EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, argued that Okpebholo did not secure the majority of lawful votes and that the election process was riddled with errors, irregularities, and non-compliance with the Electoral Act.
The PDP and Ighodalo cited:
-
Incorrect collation of results
-
Vote computation errors in 765 polling units
-
Failure by INEC to serialize ballot papers or pre-record sensitive materials
They alleged that these lapses enabled manipulation in favor of the APC and its candidate.
During the trial, the petitioners called 19 witnesses, including a subpoenaed Senior Technical Officer from INEC’s ICT department, who produced 154 BVAS machines from 133 polling units to support claims of over-voting.
INEC did not call any witnesses. Okpebholo called one, while the APC presented four.
While the PDP urged the tribunal to nullify the election based on their evidence, the respondents argued that the case lacked substance.
Tribunal’s Findings
In its ruling, Justice Kpochi emphasized that:
“The failure by the petitioners to call polling unit agents, presiding officers, or registered voters was fatal to the case.
Documents do not speak for themselves—allegations of non-compliance must be substantiated through credible testimony.”
He further stated that the BVAS machines presented were not demonstrated in court and were, therefore, inadmissible in proving the alleged over-voting.
“All documents tendered by the petitioners to prove over-voting fell short of legal requirements. The law demands that witnesses be called to link documentary evidence.”
On claims of INEC’s non-compliance with electoral guidelines, the tribunal held that the petitioners failed to prove any breaches.
Regarding allegations of missing serial numbers on ballot papers, the court remarked, “There are figures here,” and dismissed assertions about the lack of prior recording of election materials.
INEC’s final result showed Okpebholo secured 291,667 votes, while Ighodalo garnered 247,655 votes.
Supreme Court Proceedings
At Wednesday’s hearing, INEC was represented by Kanu Agabi (SAN), who urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal. He argued that the PDP could not simultaneously challenge the legality of the election while seeking to be declared winner.
Agabi pointed out contradictions in the PDP’s case and called on the court to reject their arguments.
Counsel for Okpebholo, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), and APC’s lawyer, Emmanuel Okala (SAN), also urged the court to uphold the lower courts’ rulings and dismiss the appeal.
After hearing all submissions, Justice Garba Lawal announced that the Supreme Court’s judgment would be delivered on a later date to be communicated to all parties.
