As Supreme Court Affirms Election of Okpebholo as Edo Gov…

After nearly nine months of legal battle over the number one seat in Edo State, respite came the way of Senator Monday Okpebholo last Thursday, following the affirmation of the election that brought into power as Edo State Governor by the Supreme Court, writes Alex Enumah.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria is the final court in the country and as such its decision cannot be appealed against except to the Almighty God. So, when it delivered its verdict on the Edo State Governorship Election litigation last week, it won’t be out of place to say the curtain has been drawn and every hope of aggrieved candidates for manning the saddle of leadership in the state has been deferred until 2028, when the next governorship election is expected to take place.

Invariably, Senator Monday Okpebholo in the next three years and five months does not need to prove to anyone that he won the September 21, 2024 governorship poll but that he was deserving to steer the ship of Edo State. His major priority should be how to deliver the dividends of democracy and campaign promises.

Rather than focussing on the failures and shortcomings of the immediate past administration or looking for scapegoats in the opposition, Okpebholo should work tirelessly to ameliorate the burdens of the nearly 300,000 voters who put their trust in him and his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Edo State is known as the “Heartbeat” of Nigeria and by its geographical location easily connects with the South west, South east on one hand and the Northern part of the country. Unfortunately, as at today none of the major roads that leads to these various geopolitical zones is in passable condition. Besides road infrastructure another major challenge Okpebholo would do well to curtail is the issue of insecurity that is gradually stifling the economy of the state. While the menace is a national challenge, collaboration with neighbouring states as well as establishing a local security network that would work hand in hand with the police and other national security agencies can quickly drive economic development, promote peace and prosperity of the people of Edo State.

In the midst of scarce resources for development of the state, rather than spend money on different probe panels which may eventually lead to nowhere after four years, Governor Okpebholo would do well to woo his opponents to his side, in demonstration of the saying, “no victor, no vanquish”.

This is not the time for vendetta but a period to pursue the development and wellbeing of the Edo people.

Those who lost the battle both at the September 21 poll and at the courts, should know and accept that “there must be an end to litigation”, sheath their sword and either join hands with the government to move the state forward or begin earnest preparations for 2028.

Nothing would give the people of Edo State joy like the enthronement of peace, progress and development by a focus and determined administration. And nothing can guarantee the easy return of Governor Okpebholo and the APC in 2028, like the enthronement of good governance, peace and stability.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had last year declared candidate of the APC winner of the September 21 governorship election, having scored majority of the votes cast at the poll.

According to the electoral umpire Okpebholo had polled 291,667 votes to emerge as winner, while Ighodalo came second with 247,274 votes, candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Olumide Akpata, finished a distant third with 22,763 votes.

Dissatisfied, Ighodalo and the PDP had approached the state election petition tribunal to challenge the result, claiming that the governorship election was invalid because of alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022.

They had also prayed the court to nullify the declaration of Okpebholo as the winner on the ground that the election was allegedly marred by irregularities.

However, the tribunal after considering oral and documentary evidences presented before it by all parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to prove their allegations of non-compliance and over-voting, among others.

The tribunal subsequently dismissed the case of Ighodalo and PDP and affirmed INEC’s declaration of Okpebholo as lawful winner of the governorship poll in Edo State, held on September 21, 2024.

Still not satisfied, Ighodalo approached the appellate court to challenge the verdict of the tribunal, but was again told that he failed to present a convincing case, in addition to the fact that he called just 19 witnesses to support his case, majority of whom lacked the necessary competence to give evidence because they were not at the polling units to witness first hand, how the alleged irregularities and over-voting occurred.

Again, not satisfied with the findings and conclusions of the appellate court, Ighodalo accordingly approached the Supreme Court to redress his grievances.

He claimed that the appellate court perverse justice and misdirected itself when it unanimously held that the appellant did not prove the allegation of non-compliance and over-voting, among others.

However, the apex court last Thursday in its conclusion held that the case of the appellant lacked merit, adding that it had not find any tangible reasons to deviate from the judgment of the two lower courts.

The five-member panel in a unanimous judgment held that the appellant failed to prove allegations of non-compliance as well as claim that Okpebholo did not win lawful votes cast during the September 21, governorship election in Edo State.

Justice Mohammed Garba Lawal, who read the lead judgment, stated that the Court of Appeal and the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal were in order in dismissing the case of People’s Democratic Party (PDP’s) candidate, Mr Asue Ighodalo, for lacking in merit.

Like the earlier judgments, the apex court noted that the appellant failed to call relevant witnesses to support their case, adding that the Bimodal Verification Accreditation System (BVAS) machines which they had relied upon to prove over-voting was not put to use but simply dumped on the court.

The apex court also held that relevant documents such as voter’s register was not also presented to prove over-voting.

It was the conclusion of the panel that the alleged irregularities as claimed by the appellant was not substantial enough to affect the outcome of the election, even if any existed.

“The appellant did not satisfactorily discharge the burden of proof placed on him by the law”, Justice Lawal held and subsequently dismissed the case for lacking in merit.