Edo State Election Petition's Tribunal Court Updates as the Tribunal Court reserved Its Judgment, with a date to be communicated to the Parties in due course

Edo State Election Petition's Tribunal Court Updates as the Tribunal Court reserved Its Judgment, with a date to be communicated to the Parties in due course.

Ehisuan Kelvin E. Joseph, Esq.

(Advocate For Good Governance and Promoter Of Justice For All)

The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal convened yesterday and Parties were billed to adopt their various *Final Addresses* in the Petition filed by *Dr Asuerinme Ighodalo* of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), challenging the declaration of *Senator Monday Okpebholo* of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the 2024 Edo State Governorship Election.

The high-stakes proceedings drew a packed Courtroom, with Dr. Asuerinme Ighodalo in attendance alongside Edo State PDP Chairman, Dr. Anthony Aziegbemi, Senator Clifford Odia, and Rt. Hon (Barr.) Friday Obomezele Itulah.

Representing the APC were Former Edo Governor and a current Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Senator Adams Aliu Oshiomhole, Former Deputy Governor of Edo State, Rt. Hon. Comrade Philip Shaibu, and Barr. Osagie Ize-Iyamu.

Hon. Justice Wilfred Kpochi, the Presiding Justice in the Three (3) Man Panel of Justices, granted each of the Respondents 15 minutes to adopt their Final Addresses, while the Petitioners were given 30 minutes to argue their Case in what became a heated legal battle before the Distinguished Learned Justice of the Tribunal Court.

Counsel for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the First Respondent, urged the Tribunal Court to dismiss the Petition filed by Dr. Asuerinme Ighodalo and the People's Democratic Party, arguing that the Petitioners had failed to substantiate their claims. He described the Petition as incompetent, highlighting that it did not seek the annulment of the entire Election.

Counsel for Senator Monday Okpebholo, aligned with INEC’s arguments, insisting that the Petitioners had not provided crucial evidence, such as, Form EC25D, which records Ballot Paper Serial Numbers. Instead, he noted that they relied on Form EC25B, which merely documents the quantity of Election materials received and returned.

Counsel to the All Progressives Congress also adopted the positions of the other Respondents, arguing that electoral non-compliance must be proven Polling Unit by Polling Unit, Ward by Ward, and Local Government by Local Government.

In response, Counsel for Dr. Asuerinme Ighodalo insisted that the Petition was well-founded, asserting that the Petitioners had successfully challenged results from 765 polling units enough to alter the final outcome. Citing the Supreme Court's Judgment in *Uzodinma V. Ihedioha,* he further argued that the Law does not require Petitioners to challenge results in every Polling Unit or submit alternative results.

He further noted that all tendered documents were Certified by INEC and admitted without objection, dismissing claims that Polling Unit Agents needed to testify. He explained that the disputed collation occurred at Ward and Local Government Collation Centres, where Polling Units agents were not present.

The Petitioners’ Counsel also referenced Supreme Court decisions in *Lawal V. Matawalle,* affirming the credibility of results uploaded to INEC’s IReV Portal. 

He urged the Tribunal Court to assess the cumulative impact of the irregularities across the affected Polling Units rather than dismissing the Case on technical grounds.

After hearing the Final Addresses and Adumbrations by both Parties, the Tribunal Court reserved Its Judgment, with a date to be communicated to the Parties in due course.