The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, based in Abuja, has set Wednesday as the date for delivering its verdict on the petition submitted by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) along with their candidate who contested in the governorship elections held on September 21, 2024, disputing the results of the vote.
The Nation learnt on Tuesday that parties have since been notified through hearing notices.
The panel led by Chief Judge Wilfred Kpochi postponed the ruling until March 3 following the conclusion of closing statements from all involved parties.
In their petition, PDP and Ighodalo are challenging INEC’s decision to proclaim Senator Monday Okpebholo from APC as the victor of the election, alleging that the poll was beset by various irregularities.
Shortly after both sides' attorneys submitted their written arguments and presented their final statements on March 3rd, the panel of three judges declared that they would inform the involved parties of the judgment date later.
The lawyer for the petitioners, Ken Mozia (SAN), argued in his concluding statement that his clients have effectively proven instances of election fraud in 765 voting stations out of a total of 4,519 within the state.
He observed inconsistencies across different tiers of data aggregation, with numbers from Form EC8A (individual polling unit outcomes) reportedly being decreased during the consolidation processes at both the ward level and local government stage using Form EC8B.
The attorney for those who filed the petition noted that INEC validated all of the documentation submitted by the petitioners, yet did not provide any evidence to refute these claims.
He said: “The issue is not about producing an alternative result, but about questioning the validity of the INEC Result Viewing (IReV) portal uploads.”
Mozia argued that election petitions should be determined by the impact of irregularities on the process, not just the percentage of affected polling units.
He subsequently requested the tribunal to award all the remedies outlined in the petition, including nullifying Okpebholo’s triumph.
The lawyer for INEC, Kanu Agabi (SAN), contended that the petition was without substantial grounds, asserting that the tribunal does not have the authority to nullify the election as this was not what the petitioners requested.
Agabi also argued that the tribunal cannot declare that the petitioners are the winners of the election in the light of their assertion that the election is invalid.
Read Also: Nigerians laud Edo Governor over handling of Uromi killings
He argued that the grounds for non-compliance cited by the petitioners lack the corresponding consequential relief, which should have called for the annulment of the election. He further stated that this particular ground is considered incompetent.
Agabi argued that the number of polling unit agents invited as witnesses by the petitioners are insignificant to represent the number of polling units in Edo State.
He stated that the basis for the petitioners' claims rests on an examination of documents rather than events occurring at the polling place on the day of the election.
The lawyer for Okpebholo, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), characterized the petition as "an academic exercise," contending that the materials presented by the petitioners, such as Forms EC25B and EC40A, were merely "deposited with the court" without adequately showing how these documents prove their case.
He requested the tribunal to reject the petition.
Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), who represents the APC, presented analogous points and requested the tribunal to dismiss the petition.
Provided by Syndigate Media Inc. ( Syndigate.info ).
EmoticonEmoticon