Edo Governorship Tribunal Sets April 2 For Judgment On PDP Petition

Edo tribunal to deliver judgment on PDP’s petition against Okpebholo on April 2.
PDP challenges Okpebholo’s victory, citing electoral irregularities and over-voting claims.
INEC, APC, and Okpebholo dismiss petition, arguing lack of credible evidence.

The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal has fixed Wednesday, April 2, 2025, to deliver judgment on the petition challenging the victory of Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

EDITOR’S PICKS

EKO HOT BLOG reports that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had declared Okpebholo the winner of the September 21, 2024, governorship election, defeating Asue Ighodalo of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Olumide Akpata of the Labour Party (LP).

However, Ighodalo and the PDP filed a petition contesting the results, citing allegations of electoral irregularities such as over-voting, ballot non-serialization, and errors in collation and computation.

During the tribunal proceedings, the petitioners presented 19 witnesses and summoned a Senior Technical Officer from INEC’s ICT department, who provided 154 BVAS machines as evidence to support the over-voting claims. INEC, named as the first respondent, did not call any witnesses, while Okpebholo and the APC, the second and third respondents, presented one and four witnesses, respectively.

INEC’s counsel, Kanu Agabi (SAN), urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition, arguing that it lacked merit and was based on analyses by hired consultants rather than verifiable facts. Okpebholo’s counsel, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), countered the non-serialization claims, stating that INEC’s Form EC25B only accounts for materials received and returned, not their serial numbers.

APC’s lawyer, Emmanuel Ukala, contended that the petitioners failed to prove non-compliance across all polling units, as required by law. He noted that only five polling unit agents testified out of over 4,000 polling units in the state.

In response, the petitioners’ counsel, Ken Morzi (SAN), emphasized that their claims were focused on 765 polling units and challenged the unexplained vote increases at collation centers. He also dismissed allegations of document dumping, asserting that all evidence tendered was certified by INEC.