The court fixed the date of the religious governor election.
Nigeria News NalinThe report said that the Edo State Governor’s election petition court was determined on Wednesday, April 2, 2025.
Recall that the Independent National Election Commission (INEC) announced the Okpebholo of the All Progressive Conference (APC) on Monday, who was the election champion held last year.
Okpebholo defeated Asue Ighodalo of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and Labour’s Olumide Akpata (LP).
Recall that the Edo State Governor Election Petition Tribunal retained the judgment in a petition filed by PDP and its candidate Asue Ighodalo, challenging Okpebholo’s announcement as the gubernatorial election on September 21, 2024.
PDP and IGHODALO are controversing the results announced by the Independent National Election Commission (INEC), accusing election irregularities, including over-voting, voting deserialization, erroneous collation and calculation errors.
During the court hearing, the petitioner called 19 witnesses and summoned a senior technical official from the INEC ICT unit, who proposed 154 BVAS machines in support of the claim of overvoting.
INEC, OKPEBHOLO and APC are the third respondents marked EPT/ED/ed/gov/02/2024, respectively.
INEC did not call any witnesses to object to the petitioner’s claim. Okpebholo presented a witness, and the APC called four before ending the defense.
A three-member panel led by Justice Wilfred Kpochi announced that the verdict would be communicated on a later date to communicate to all parties.
“The court secretary will convey the date of the judgment to all parties involved. The court position will be adjourned before this” Judge Kpochi said.
Previously, the petitioner’s chief attorney, Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN), formally adopted their final written address. INEC’s attorney Kanu Agabi (SAN) urged the court to dismiss the case, saying the case lacks advantages.
Agabi believes that all the voting agency agents who testified signed the results table, “cannot distinguish between what they heard and what they observed.” He added that the number of voting units covered by petitioners was too small to invalidate the entire election.
“The petitioner did not defend other results for their declaration as winners. Their case is based on an analysis conducted by hiring a consultant,” Agabi said, describing their non-compliance claims as weak, without reliable evidence to support them.
Onyechi Ikpeazu (San) said the APC candidate won with a valid vote. He challenged the petitioner’s position, namely the deserialization of sensitive materials, clarifying that the EC25B form only requires the amount of materials received and returned, without their serial numbers.
He added that while petitioners claimed to be overvoting, there was actually no open BVA machine to perform verification. “They did not submit the necessary documents to confirm their claims,” Ikpeazu argued, calling the petition a “academic exercise.”
APC’s attorney Emmanuel Uukala also adopted a final speech, saying the petitioner failed to provide enough witnesses to support his claim. He noted that only five of the state’s more than 4,000 voting units were called up and no host was called to testify.
He stressed that the Supreme Court’s standard is that it is necessary to vote on allegations of violation by voting units, Ward and local governments. “The petitioner did not show how the BVAS machine works, nor did he call enough witnesses,” Uukala added.
Ken Morzi, the petitioner’s attorney, responded that their complaints were limited to 765 voting units, not the entire state. He believes that the case should be fully evaluated, rather than based solely on the percentage of challenges of the voting unit.
Morz said:We acknowledge that the election was held in the voting unit, but our debate was how the collation center was transformed into 525 votes.. ”
He also spoke about the allegations of document dumping and asserted that all submitted documents were certified by INEC and had no objection. Regarding the question of alternative outcomes, Morz said the petitioner provided all the evidence before the court.
Naija News reported that the Edo State Governor’s election petition court was determined on Wednesday, April 2, 2025.
The Independent National Election Commission (INEC) announced on Monday the Okpebholo of the All Progressive Party Congress (APC), who was the election champion held last year.
Okpebholo defeated Asue Ighodalo of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and Labour’s Olumide Akpata (LP).
Recall that the Edo State Governor Election Petition Tribunal retained the judgment in a petition filed by PDP and its candidate Asue Ighodalo, challenging Okpebholo’s announcement as the gubernatorial election on September 21, 2024.
PDP and IGHODALO are controversing the results announced by the Independent National Election Commission (INEC), accusing election irregularities, including over-voting, voting deserialization, erroneous collation and calculation errors.
During the court hearing, the petitioner called 19 witnesses and summoned a senior technical official from the INEC ICT unit, who proposed 154 BVAS machines in support of the claim of overvoting.
INEC, OKPEBHOLO and APC are the third respondents marked EPT/ED/ed/gov/02/2024, respectively.
INEC did not call any witnesses to object to the petitioner’s claim. Okpebholo presented a witness, and the APC called four before ending the defense.
A three-member panel led by Justice Wilfred Kpochi announced that the verdict would be communicated on a later date to communicate to all parties.
“The court secretary will convey the date of the judgment to all parties involved. The court position will be adjourned before this” Judge Kpochi said.
Previously, the petitioner’s chief attorney, Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN), formally adopted their final written address. INEC’s attorney Kanu Agabi (SAN) urged the court to dismiss the case, saying the case lacks advantages.
Agabi believes that all the voting agency agents who testified signed the results table, “cannot distinguish between what they heard and what they observed.” He added that the number of voting units covered by petitioners was too small to invalidate the entire election.
“The petitioner did not defend other results for their declaration as winners. Their case is based on an analysis conducted by hiring a consultant,” Agabi said, describing their non-compliance claims as weak, without reliable evidence to support them.
Onyechi Ikpeazu (San) said the APC candidate won with a valid vote. He challenged the petitioner’s position, namely the deserialization of sensitive materials, clarifying that the EC25B form only requires the amount of materials received and returned, without their serial numbers.
He added that while petitioners claimed to be overvoting, there was actually no open BVA machine to perform verification. “They did not submit the necessary documents to confirm their claims,” Ikpeazu argued, calling the petition a “academic exercise.”
APC’s attorney Emmanuel Uukala also adopted a final speech, saying the petitioner failed to provide enough witnesses to support his claim. He noted that only five of the state’s more than 4,000 voting units were called up and no host was called to testify.
He stressed that the Supreme Court’s standard is that it is necessary to vote on allegations of violation by voting units, Ward and local governments. “The petitioner did not show how the BVAS machine works, nor did he call enough witnesses,” Uukala added.
Ken Morzi, the petitioner’s attorney, responded that their complaints were limited to 765 voting units, not the entire state. He believes that the case should be fully evaluated, rather than based solely on the percentage of challenges of the voting unit.
Morz said:We acknowledge that the election was held in the voting unit, but our debate was how the collation center was transformed into 525 votes.. ”
He also spoke about the allegations of document dumping and asserted that all submitted documents were certified by INEC and had no objection. Regarding the question of alternative outcomes, Morz said the petitioner provided all the evidence before the court.
