Tribunal delivers judgment in PDP, Ighodalo’s petition against APC, Gov. Okpebholo’s victory

The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal will, on Wednesday, deliver judgement in the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo, against the outcome of the 21 September 2024 governorship election in the state.

The PDP and Mr Ighodalo are challenging the declaration of Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as winner of the poll.

They alleged that the election was marred by irregularities.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the three-member tribunal, headed by Wilfred Kpochi, had, on 3 March, reserved judgement in the petition after parties adopted their final written addresses.

The tribunal will deliver judgement in the three petitions marked: EPT/ED/GOV/01/2024, EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024 and EPT/ED/GOV/03/2024.

NAN reports that the tribunal had, on 31 January, admitted in evidence, 148 Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines that were used during the conduct of the disputed governorship poll.

The electronic devices were tendered by a Senior Technical Officer in the ICT Department of INEC, Anthony Itodo, and admitted in evidence by the panel.

The petitioners had subpoenaed INEC to produce the BVAS machines that were used in 133 polling units where election results are being disputed.

INEC had declared that Mr Okpebholo of the APC secured a total of 291,667 votes to defeat his closest rival, Mr Ighodalo of the PDP, who got a total of 247, 655 votes.

Dissatisfied with the outcome of the poll, the PDP and its candidate approached the tribunal, praying it to nullify INEC’s declaration of the APC and Mr Okpebholo as winners of the contest.

The petitioners, among other things, contended that the governorship election was invalid because of alleged non-compliance with provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.

However, APC and Mr Okpebholo urged the tribunal to dismiss the petitions for being baseless, arguing that the petitioners had failed to substantiate the allegations in their petitions.

(NAN)