As Supreme Court Prepares to Hear Edo Guber Dispute…

As the Supreme Court is set to hear the appeal filed by the governorship the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the Edo State gubernatorial election, Mr. AsueIghodalo, the people of the state are in hope that it will display courage, uphold the rule of law and the principles of democracy, Wale Igbintade writes.

Any moment from now, the Supreme Court will begin hearing on the appeal filed by the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the September 21, 2024 Edo State gubernatorial election, Mr. AsueIghodalo. He is basically asking the court to nullify the victory of Governor Monday Okpebholo in the election.

Recall that the Court of Appeal in Abuja had recently affirmed Okpebholo’s election as the governor, and dismissing the petition filed by Ighodalo and the PDP.

After the election, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Okpebholo, of the All Progressives Congress (APC), victorious with 291,667 votes, while Ighodalo, who garnered 247,274 votes, and OlumideAkpata of the Labour Party (LP) finished a distant third with 22,763 votes.

But dissatisfied with the outcome of the poll, the PDP and Ighodalo approached the tribunal, praying it to nullify INEC’s declaration of APC and Okpebholo as winners of the contest.

The petitioners, among other things, alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act. They argued that the respondents did not secure the highest number of lawful votes cast at the poll.

However, in April 2025, the three-member tribunal, led by Justice Wilfred Kpochi, dismissed the case.

In its ruling, Justice Kpochi who headed the three man-panel, while delivering the lead judgment, stated that Ighodalo failed to provide credible witnesses or sufficient evidence to substantiate claims of electoral irregularities. He emphasised that allegations of non-compliance with the Electoral Act must be clearly proven.

The tribunal highlighted that the petitioners’ inability to present polling unit staff, presiding officers, or voters as witnesses critically weakened their case. It concluded that the petitioners simply dumped documents on them and failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeal equally upheld Okpebholo’s victory and dismissed Ighodalo’s appeal.

While the Supreme Court is about to hear the appeal, there are many issues it needs to consider to help add credibility to Nigeria’s electoral process.

Before the governorship election, all the odds were stacked against Ighodalo and PDP, as many questioned the neutrality of the police and INEC. The concerns followed allegations that the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) in the state, AnugbumOnuoha, and the Commissioner of Police, Mr. Nemi Edwin-Iwo, were allies of Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), NyesomWike.

While the REC was alleged to be Wike’s cousin, who had also served as his Special Adviser on Lands when he was the governor of Rivers State, the police commissioner, who was said to be an indigene of Rivers State, was alleged to be an associate of Wike, a known political enemy of the then Governor Godwin Obaseki.

Despite the objections raised by the PDP that the posting of the police commissioner and the REC to the state could not have been a coincidence, but a deliberate plot to deliver Edo State to the APC, INEC and the police authorities ignored the objections.

But the reports of the various election observers on the collation of the results suggested that the pre-election fears were not baseless. The manner of collation of the results tainted the credibility of the poll, as voiced out by local and international observers.

Interestingly, the same INEC which declared Okpebholo and APC winners of the poll, could not defend its credibility at the tribunal. The commission, which said it had a line-up of five witnesses that would give evidence to support its results, failed to field any witness to defend its action.

Following the judgments of the tribunal and the Court of Appeal, attention has so far shifted to the Supreme Court to right the wrongs.

Analysts and lovers of democracy are demanding that the court exhibit courage, absolute impartiality and independence. They argued that the outcome of the litigation would send out a powerful message about Nigeria’s commitment to democracy.

They hope the apex court will repeat the judicial courage it displayed in the appeals filed by Governor Caleb Mutfwang of Plateau State and Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf of Kano State respectively, after the tribunal and Appeal Court delivered what were considered bias judgments based on influence peddling and the bidding of a political party.

At the Supreme Court, Ighodalo’s legal team has advanced their arguments at the Court of Appeal, where they urged the court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgments of the tribunal and Court of Appeal.

They argued that in relation to their allegations of non-compliance, the tribunal and Appeal Court failed to appreciate the nature of the non-compliance complained about, noting that there was no record of serial number on Form EC25B as required by Section 73(2) of the Electoral Act, 2022.

They contended that “The tribunal said we required evidence of polling agents or witnesses to prove how the forms were filled or not filled. That was not our case. Our case was that the Form EC 25B did not contain the serial number.”

The appellants’ lawyers faulted the tribunal’s verdict that the documents they tendered at trial were dumped on them. They also noted that as against the tribunal’s finding, oral evidence was not needed in the nature of the case of the appellants, who were petitioners before the tribunal, stating that their clients did not challenge the conduct of the election, but the conflict in the results collated and announced.

In conclusion, they pointed out that part of their  contention is that the results that were collated at the ward level were not the results declared at the polling units.

Those who thought as cases go up the ladder of adjudication whatever errors of law, evaluation and of facts that were committed at the lower courts would be corrected for justice to have been done were disappointed at the Court of Appeal. Unfortunately, this has not been the case, leaving many to wonder whether the court is serving other ends than ensuring that litigants obtain justice.

This is why many other lawyers have also faulted  the tribunal for holding that the petitioners simply dumped documents on them and failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, a decision the Court of Appeal upheld.

They accused the courts of working to produce predetermined judgments, noting that the judges were not patient and meticulous enough to peruse the documents tendered before them.

Citing Section 51 (2) of the Electoral Act, they argued that the judges did not need a witness to prove over-voting, adding that what they needed to do was to go through the documents to see things for themselves.

They equally cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ihedioha vs Uzodimma, where the APC only presented two witnesses and got a favourable judgment.

Others were miffed beyond words at the pronouncements of the courts, saying they were contrary to the Electoral Act. They wondered if the panels were expecting the petitioners to produce witnesses from all the polling units where malpractices took place in a tribunal that had a very limited time to hear the petition.

“If the petitioners were complaining of over voting in 133 units and documentary evidence from the polling units showed that the number of votes cast exceeded the number of accredited voters, what else were the judges expecting to see and hear?” one of the lawyers, a SAN, queried.

They criticised the tribunal for dismissing documents that had already been accepted as exhibits, stating that even INEC did not dispute their authenticity. They also added that Section 72(1) of the Electoral Act mandates INEC to record the serial numbers and quantities of sensitive election materials, including ballot papers and BVAS machines, before the election.

“PDP pleaded about three cases: One was about non-compliance, the second was over-voting, and the third was an incorrect collation of scores. In the case of over-voting, they tendered documents which are INEC Certified True Copy. These were INEC documents to prove over-voting. We were shocked that the judge wanted us to bring 133 individuals from each polling unit to prove over-voting. How was that to happen when there is documentary evidence, not PDP documents but INEC documents? The court had accepted these documents as exhibits and INEC did not cry foul to her own documents.”

While citing Section 137 of the Electoral Act, the lawyers stated that in cases of non-compliance, oral evidence is unnecessary when documentary evidence is available. They lamented that the tribunal and Court of Appeal failed to demonstrate their commitment to justice.

This is why they expect the Supreme Court to do justice to their case based on objectivity.