THE Court of Appeal has reserved judgments in three appeals and a cross appeal filed in relations to the dispute over the governorship election held in Edo State on September 21, 2024, in which the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner.
A three-member panel of the court, presided over by Justice M. A. Danjuma, which sat in Abuja on Thursday, told lawyers to the parties, after taking their final arguments, that the judgments are reserved till a date to be communicated to them.
The appeals heard included the one filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the election, Asue Ighodalo (marked: CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/01/2025) and a cross appeal by the APC and Okpebholo (marked: CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/04/2025).
The other two appeals heard are: CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/02/2025, filed by Action Alliance (AA) and its National Chairman, Rufai Omoaje, and CA/ABJ/EPT/ED/GOV/03/2025, filed by Dr. Bright Enabulele and Accord Party (AP).
In arguing the appeals, lawyers to the appellants prayed the court to allow their appeals and reverse the judgments of the election tribunal delivered on April 2, while lawyers to the respondents urged the court to affirm the judgments by the tribunal and dismiss the appeals.
Lawyer to Okpebholo, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) urged the court to affirm the judgment of the tribunal, which upheld his client’s victory and found that the PDP and Ighodalo failed to prove their allegations that the election was marred by irregularities.
Ikpeazu argued that the petition, which they filed before the tribunal, and the appeal constitute a totally academic exercise.
He stated the appellants conceded at the tribunal that if the votes, which they claimed were wrongly added, were deducted, Okpebholo and the APC still scored the majority of votes.
Ikpeazu argued that, as against the claim by the appellants that the serial numbers of the ballot papers were not filled on the Form EC25B, the form actually did not contain any provision for the recording of serial numbers.
He said what is provided for in Form EC25B are spaces for the imputation of information about the quantity of materials received and the quantity of materials returned.
Ikpeazu states that in the Form EC40A, which the appellants tendered at the tribunal, the serial numbers of the ballot papers were clearly indicated.
He noted that while the appellants pleaded Form EC25D in their petition, they failed to tender the forms before the tribunal.
