TheNewsGuru

Tag: Tribunal

  • Edo guber dispute: Parties adopt written addresses, await crucial judicial verdict – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Edo guber dispute: Parties adopt written addresses, await crucial judicial verdict – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    As the three-man Election Petitions Tribunal (EPT) reserved judgment in the petitions against the declaration of Senator Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as winner of the September 21, 2024, governorship election in Edo State, we’re reminded, as per Muhammad JSC, in Olonade vs Sowemimo (2014) LPELR-22914(SC), 27 – in explaining the meaning of the standard of proof in civil cases, (and) the balance of probabilities – that:

    “The court decides which side’s evidence is heavier, not by the number of witnesses called by either party or on the basis of the one being oral and the other being documentary, but by the quality or probative value of the evidence be it oral and/or documentary.”

    Were the parties to the electoral dispute, especially the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), whose candidate, Dr Asue Ighodalo, came second at the poll, able to meet the Supreme Court benchmark referenced by Justice Muhammad? The people of Edo State and Nigerians in general wait anxiously and expectantly for the tribunal to answer that poser in its crucial judicial pronouncement.

    While Dr Ighodalo and the PDP are the 1st and 2nd Petitioners, accordingly; the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Governor Okpebholo and the APC are the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, respectively, with the disputants representated by many election petition-tested Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) and junior legal practitioners.

    On Monday, March 3, 2025, Justices Wilfred Kpochi (Chairman), A.B. Yusuf and A.A. Adewole, presided over the tribunal’s concluding proceeding for adoption of the final written addresses by parties to the dispute, which centres on the petition marked, EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, filed by Ighodalo and the PDP.

    The tribunal, which sits at the National Judicial Institute (NJI), Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, granted the Respondents 15 minutes each to defend their final written addresses, while the Petitioners were given 30 minutes to argue their case “in what became a heated legal battle.” Thereafter, the tribunal reserved judgment to a future date to be communicated to the Petitioners and Respondents.

    The following quotes summarise the presentations of counsel for the Respondents and Petitioners, and how the tribunal arrived at the adoption of the final written addresses:

    • Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), INEC’s Counsel:
    “The petitioners are asking to be declared winners despite simultaneously arguing that the election was invalid — two conflicting positions… Your Lordships cannot declare the petitioners as winners of the election on the grounds of their arguments that it is invalid… “Your Lordships cannot annul the election because that is not a relief that they (petitioners) sought.

    “The case of the petitioners was founded on analyses undertaken by consultants… The petitioners have not pleaded alternative results on the basis of which they can be declared the winners… The petitioners have not tendered the results they challenged… The ground of non-compliance raised by petitioners is not accompanied by consequential reliefs.

    “The number of polling unit agents (five) the petitioners called as witnesses represented a negligible number of the polling units (765) the petitioners challenged from the entire polling units (4,519) in Edo State… The polling unit agents all signed the result sheets, a clear sign that the election was organised in accordance with the law… The witnesses did not distinguish between what they heard and what they saw… They failed to prove over-voting.

    “The petition is incompetent, as it does not seek the annulment of the entire election. The grounds (for the petition) are inconsistent with one another and inconsistent with themselves. It renders them defective. On the basis of these, I urge My Lordships to dismiss the petition.”

    • Dr Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), Governor Okpebholo’s Counsel:
    “The Supreme Court has ruled that proving over-voting requires the Bimodal Verification Authentication System (BVAS) machines. Since the petitioners failed to present BVAS data, their claim of over-voting was unsubstantiated… The petitioners had not provided crucial evidence such as Form EC25D, which records ballot paper serial numbers… Instead, they relied on Form EC25B, which merely documents the quantity of election materials received and returned.

    “The petitioners tendered sensitive material exhibits with missing parts, contrary to the serial numbers they carry for identification, and tendering BVAS machines without opening any of them to prove their allegation of over-voting… Even with the polling unit records presented by the petitioners, Okpebholo still has a clear lead… This petition is a mere academic exercise. It is frivolous, baseless, unwarranted, irritating, and lacking in merit. I urge My Lords to dismiss it.”

    • Chief Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), APC’s Counsel:
    “As per Supreme Court rulings, proving non-compliance requires detailed evidence from polling unit to polling unit, ward to ward, and local government to local government… The petitioners simply dumped documents on the tribunal, instead of proving them, after calling only five polling unit agents out of over 4,000 polling units in Edo State, and calling no single presiding officer for their hearsay evidence… (Citing Ucha vs Elechi and Baba vs INEC, as the position of the law in spite of Section 137 of the Electoral Act, Ukala said)… It is clear that the case of the petitioners was not proven. I urge My Lordships to dismiss the petition.”

    • Mr Ken Mozia (SAN), PDP/Ighodalo’s Counsel:
    “Of the 4,519 polling units in Edo State, irregularities were identified in 765 — enough to invalidate the election results… The PDP, in its petition, only challenged 765 polling units with complaints of multiple incidents of over-voting, non-serialisation of ballots, and incorrect computation of results, which altered the victory of Dr. Asue Ighodalo.

    “The 2nd respondent (INEC) failed to tender any alternative result sheet nor plead any alternative forms EC25B to challenge or contradict PDP’s CTC documentary evidence of rigging across the disputed 765 polling units in the State… All the documents we tendered were duly certified by INEC, and they were admitted without objection by the maker (INEC).

    “The Supreme Court decisions in Uzodinma vs Ihedioha; Kennedy vs INEC; Johnson vs INEC; and Lawal vs Matawalle, etc., established that there must be prior recording of sensitive election materials in forms EC25B, which INEC failed to comply with in some polling units.

    “The law does not require petitioners to challenge results in every polling unit or submit alternative results… All tendered documents were certified by INEC and admitted without objection… Polling unit agents need not testify, as the disputed collation occurred at ward and local government collation centres, where polling unit agents were not present.

    “The petitioners disagreed with collation at ward and local government levels… I plead with the tribunal to holistically consider the petition on several grounds for cumulative effects… Isolating grounds and submitting that such grounds, when taken alone, will not have the cumulative effects that were prayed, and adopting that it is academic, is not true.

    “The iRev results that the petitioners have tendered, no party had impugned the results… The Supreme Court in Austin vs INEC, Kennedy vs INEC and Isah & Another vs INEC & Others, has affirmed that results uploaded to INEC’s IReV portal are credible… We urge My Lordships to grant this petition.”

    PDP/Ighodalo and five other political parties (six initially but one withdrew midway) have queried the declaration by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) that Okpebholo (APC, Edo Central) won the election, with 291,667 votes (about 51.1%) to defeat Ighodalo, a Lagos-based Lawyer and business tycoon, who polled 247,274 votes (about 43.3%).

    Specifically, PDP/Ighodalo filed petitions at the tribunal, alleging, among others, multiple incidents of over-voting, non-serialisation of electoral materials and INEC’s suppression, falsification and alteration of results across 765 polling units in Edo State, which reportedly deprived Ighodalo victory and the governorship.

    The tribunal, which began its pre-hearing on January 13, and the hearing proper on January 24, 2025, in Benin City, Edo State capital city, relocated sitting to the FCT, Abuja, on January 28 over alleged security threats posed by armed political thugs.

    During the proceedings, PDP/Ighodalo presented 19 of 99 witnesses to testify for them, and they spoke to their statements on oath, and the evidence presented as a true reflection of the poll in favour of the Petitioners, and called for justice to be done. The Petitioners closed their case on February 3.

    While the 1st Respondent (INEC) didn’t present any of the five witnesses it’d pledged, and closed its case on February 6; and the 2nd Respondent (Okpebholo) called one of his six witnesses and closed his case on February 10; the 3rd Respondent (APC) called four of 28 witnesses to testify for it before closing its defence on February 13.

    Prior to ending the hearing, a mild drama ensued, as a counsel for the Respondents (INEC, Okpebholo and APC), Chief Ferdinard Orbih (SAN), explained APC’s closure of its defence without calling the pledged 24 additional witnesses, even as he expressed confidence in the strong legal defence mounted for the poll victory of Governor Okpebholo.

    Orbih said: “Yesterday (Wednesday, February 13), we promised that we will exchange our schedule of documents today in order to make for a seamless presentation of our witness testimony. My Lord, I am sorry to say the documents we were expecting did not arrive.

    “However, we have done a further comprehensive review of the evidence led by the petitioners, the evidence received from the petitioners under cross-examination, the evidence led so far by the respondents in this tribunal, the documentary evidence before this tribunal…

    “My Lord, we have also considered that time is of (the) essence. The judicial time of this honourable tribunal is precious. My Lord, taking all the enumerated factors into serious consideration, we are happy at this stage to close the 3rd respondent’s case as it pleases Your Lordship.”

    Responding to Respondents’ application to close their case, Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN) for the Petitioners, noted, with a jab, the surprising “abandonment” of the 3rd Respondent’s scheduled 28 witnesses after calling just four of them.

    “My learned counsel has just addressed the court. I’m actually not quite sure about the state of those documents. I can only say ‘he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day.’ So, we have no objection,” Oyeyipo said.

    But Orbih replied Oyeyipo’s poking: “My Lord, I’m still on the point of fact. When they (Petitioners) scheduled 99 witnesses and presented only 19, we didn’t accuse them of running away. They have no business with how we conduct our case. We remain here. We are not running away.”

    With no objections from the other Respondents (INEC and Okpebholo), Justice Kpochi – despite pleadings by the Respondents and Plaintiffs for more days to prepare their written addresses – stood his ground and closed the defence of the 3rd Respondent (APC).

    The judge, however, acceded to seven days for the Respondents, five days for the Petitioners and extra three days each to file their written addresses, which began counting on Friday, February 14, and adjourned the tribunal to Monday, March 3, for the adoption of the final written addresses. That ritual was concluded, as scheduled, and the tribunal adjourned for judgment on a date to be communicated to the Respondents and Petitioners.

    To witness the final legal fireworks were chieftains of the Edo State chapters of the PDP and APC. Among the PDP topshots were the party candidate, Dr Ighodalo, the Edo Chairman, Dr Anthony Aziegbemin, former Senator Clifford Odia (Edo Central), and Rt Hon. Friday Itulah, former Speaker of the Edo Assembly and ex-Member of the House of Representatives.

    On the APC side were former Edo State Governor and Senator for Edo North, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole, former Deputy Governor Philip Shaibu, and twice Governorship Candidate, Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu.

    Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN); Ken Mozia (SAN); Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN); Rotimi Oguneso (SAN); Larry Selekowei (SAN); A. T. Kehinde (SAN); A. K. Ajibade (SAN); Oluwole Iyamu (SAN); Oluseyi Jolaawo (SAN) and others pleaded the Petitioners’ case.

    Kanu Agabi (SAN); A. M. Aliu (SAN); E. M. Inuwa (SAN); Alhassan Umar (SAN); M. T. Abubakar (SAN); and others appeared for the 1st Respondent, INEC.

    Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN); Chief Offiong E. Offiong (SAN); Festus Kayode (SAN); Tobechukwu Nweke; Dr. Ike Chude; Edward Ireluwe; Lydia Oluwakemi; Linda Chuba-Ikpeazu and others appeared for the 2nd Respondent, Okpebholo.

    Emmanuel Ukala (SAN); E. C. Denwigwe (SAN); Chief Ferdinand Orbih (SAN); J. O. Asoluka (SAN); Echezona Etiaba (SAN); Henry Bello (SAN) and others represented the 3rd Respondent, the APC.

    As the political fate of Governor Monday Okpebholo and Dr Asue Ighodalo rests in the hands of the tribunal, may the judges dispense justice with the wisdom of Solomon and the firmness of Daniel, according to the dictates of the electoral laws and the probative value of the evidence adduced by the parties to the dispute

    (Credit: Sebastine Ebhuomhan, award-winning journalist from Edo State, reporting for Popular News (March 3); Theconclaveng (March 3, 2025); The National Update (March 3, 2025); and The Standard Gazette (March 4, 2025).

  • Edo governorship: Tribunal reserves judgment in PDP, Ighodalo’s petition

    Edo governorship: Tribunal reserves judgment in PDP, Ighodalo’s petition

    The Governorship Election Petition Tribunal for Edo has reserved judgment in the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) and it’s governorship candidate, Mr Asue Ighodalo.

    Ighodalo is challenging the outcome of the Sept. 21, 2024 governorship election in the state.

    The Justice Wilfred Kpochi-led three-member tribunal reserved the judgment on Monday after counsel in the matter adopted their final written addresses.

    According to Justice Kpochi,  a date for judgment will be communicated to parties by the secretary of the trubunal.

    “The tribunal stands adjourned until then,” he said.

    At the resumed hearing of the matter, counsel to the petitioners, Mr Adetunji Oyeyipo, SAN told the tribunal that the business of the day was for adoption of final written addresses.

    Counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), Mr Kanu Agabi, SAN proceeded to adopt the final address of his client.

    Agabi by way of adumbration prayed the tribunal to dismiss the petition for lacking in merit.

    He said this was based on the grounds that the tribunal could not annul the Sept. 21, 2024 governorship election because it was not one of the reliefs sought by the petitioners.

    The senior lawyer also told the tribunal that it could not declare the petitioners as winners of that election in the light of their own assertion that the election was invalid.

    Speaking on the claim of non-compliance pleaded by the petitioners, Agabi said it was weak as it was not accompanied by the appropriate relief which was nullification of election.

    He also said that the claim of majority of lawful votes pleaded by the petitioners could not avail them since their other claim was that the election was invalid.

    He also argued that the number of polling unit agents called as witnesses represented an insignificant or even negligible per cent of the number of polling units in Edo.

    Another ground that INEC prayed the tribunal to dismiss the petition based on was that all the polling unit agents called as witnesses signed the result sheet and they could not distinguish between what they heard and what they saw.

    “This is a clear indication that the election was conducted in compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022.

    “The results were duly collated at all levels of collation.

    “The petitioners have not pleaded any alternative results on the basis of which they can be declared as winners.

    “The case of the petitioners is based on analysis undertaken by hired consultants ,” he said.

    He further held that the documents upon which the petitioners relied were all dumped on the tribunal and could not be used in their favour.

    He therefore prayed the tribunal to dismiss the petition in its entirety as it had no merit.

    For his part, counsel to Gov. Monday Okpebholo, Mr Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN told the tribunal to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it had become an academic exercise.

    He said that in the course of their research, they carefully extracted the polling units which the petitioners tendered documents on and compared them to the ones they presented and even at that, his client was well ahead of the petitioners in the polls.

    On the contentious Form EC25b where the petitioners claimed the serial numbers of sensitive materials must be given, Ikpeazu said that all that was required for the form was quantity of electoral materials received and quantity returned.

    He added that a pronouncement of the Supreme Court said that one could not prove over voting without the Bimodal Verification Authentication System (BVAs) Machines but that none of the machines was opened to allow the tribunal look at the content.

    According to him, the petitioners by not tendering the right documents, failed to prove over voting on the whole.

    Speaking on behalf of the All Progressives Congress, (APC) Mr Emmanuel Ukala argued that it was clear that the case of the petitioners was based virtually and entirely on non-compliance.

    “By the nature of the case they pleaded, the Supreme Court has over the years laid down that they need to prove this by polling unit to polling unit, ward to ward and local government by local government.”

    He, however, held that rather than prove this, the petitioners dumped documents on the court.

    He said that without polling unit agents testifying to those documents, they were useless and the case remained unproved.

    Ukala argued that with over 4,000 polling units in Edo, the petitioners called only five polling unit agents and no single presiding officer.

    He also said that since the petitioners failed to demonstrate how the BVAs worked, it was clear that the case of the petitioners was not proved and it should be dismissed.

    Responding, counsel to the petitioners, Mr Ken Moze, SAN, said that with 4519 polling units in Edo, the complaint in the petition was concerning 765 of them.

    According to him, it is law that successful prosecution of election petition is not about the percentage of the total polling units in the state but the effect of the successive establishment of the complaint.

    He further argued that the petition must be considered whollistically and not in parts.

    “So the submission of isolating grounds and labeling them alone as academic is not well founded,” he said.

    On the issue of not presenting the tribunal with an alternative result, the senior lawyer said that it was on record that all the results before the tribunal were tendered by his client.

    On why the petitioners called only five polling unit agents, he said that the grouse of his client was with what happened at the collation centres and not at the polling units so they didn’t need more than five agents to testify.

    “We concede that elections took place at the polling units but how 25 votes metamorphosed to 525 votes at the collation center  is what we are quarrelling with,” he said.

    Speaking on the claim that they dumped documents on the tribunal, Moze said that all the documents they tendered were duly certified by INEC and were tendered without objection from the commission, the makers of the document.

    He also held that the tribunal had requisite jurisdiction to hear the petition because their allegations were not pre-election matters.

    Having taken all the arguments, Justice Kpochi said that judgment in the matter was reserved to a date to be communicated to the parties by the secretary of the tribunal.

    The News Agency of Nigeria, (NAN) reports that the PDP and its governorship candidate, Mr Asue Ighodalo approached the tribunal, praying it to invalidate the outcome of the governorship election on the grounds of alleged non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022.

    They further contended that Okpebholo did not secure the highest number of majority votes cast in that election.

  • Edo governorship: Tribunal reserves judgment in PDP, Ighodalo’s petition

    Edo governorship: Tribunal reserves judgment in PDP, Ighodalo’s petition

    The Governorship Election Petition Tribunal for Edo has reserved judgment in the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) and it’s governorship candidate, Mr Asue Ighodalo.

    Ighodalo is challenging the outcome of the Sept. 21, 2024 governorship election in the state.

    The Justice Wilfred Kpochi-led three-member tribunal reserved the judgment on Monday after counsel in the matter adopted their final written addresses.

    According to Justice Kpochi,  a date for judgment will be communicated to parties by the secretary of the trubunal.

    “The tribunal stands adjourned until then,” he said.

    At the resumed hearing of the matter, counsel to the petitioners, Mr Adetunji Oyeyipo, SAN told the tribunal that the business of the day was for adoption of final written addresses.

    Counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), Mr Kanu Agabi, SAN proceeded to adopt the final address of his client.

    Agabi by way of adumbration prayed the tribunal to dismiss the petition for lacking in merit.

    He said this was based on the grounds that the tribunal could not annul the Sept. 21, 2024 governorship election because it was not one of the reliefs sought by the petitioners.

    The senior lawyer also told the tribunal that it could not declare the petitioners as winners of that election in the light of their own assertion that the election was invalid.

    Speaking on the claim of non-compliance pleaded by the petitioners, Agabi said it was weak as it was not accompanied by the appropriate relief which was nullification of election.

    He also said that the claim of majority of lawful votes pleaded by the petitioners could not avail them since their other claim was that the election was invalid.

    He also argued that the number of polling unit agents called as witnesses represented an insignificant or even negligible per cent of the number of polling units in Edo.

    Another ground that INEC prayed the tribunal to dismiss the petition based on was that all the polling unit agents called as witnesses signed the result sheet and they could not distinguish between what they heard and what they saw.

    “This is a clear indication that the election was conducted in compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022.

    “The results were duly collated at all levels of collation.

    “The petitioners have not pleaded any alternative results on the basis of which they can be declared as winners.

    “The case of the petitioners is based on analysis undertaken by hired consultants ,” he said.

    He further held that the documents upon which the petitioners relied were all dumped on the tribunal and could not be used in their favour.

    He therefore prayed the tribunal to dismiss the petition in its entirety as it had no merit.

    For his part, counsel to Gov. Monday Okpebholo, Mr Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN told the tribunal to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it had become an academic exercise.

    He said that in the course of their research, they carefully extracted the polling units which the petitioners tendered documents on and compared them to the ones they presented and even at that, his client was well ahead of the petitioners in the polls.

    On the contentious Form EC25b where the petitioners claimed the serial numbers of sensitive materials must be given, Ikpeazu said that all that was required for the form was quantity of electoral materials received and quantity returned.

    He added that a pronouncement of the Supreme Court said that one could not prove over voting without the Bimodal Verification Authentication System (BVAs) Machines but that none of the machines was opened to allow the tribunal look at the content.

    According to him, the petitioners by not tendering the right documents, failed to prove over voting on the whole.

    Speaking on behalf of the All Progressives Congress, (APC) Mr Emmanuel Ukala argued that it was clear that the case of the petitioners was based virtually and entirely on non-compliance.

    “By the nature of the case they pleaded, the Supreme Court has over the years laid down that they need to prove this by polling unit to polling unit, ward to ward and local government by local government.”

    He, however, held that rather than prove this, the petitioners dumped documents on the court.

    He said that without polling unit agents testifying to those documents, they were useless and the case remained unproved.

    Ukala argued that with over 4,000 polling units in Edo, the petitioners called only five polling unit agents and no single presiding officer.

    He also said that since the petitioners failed to demonstrate how the BVAs worked, it was clear that the case of the petitioners was not proved and it should be dismissed.

    Responding, counsel to the petitioners, Mr Ken Moze, SAN, said that with 4519 polling units in Edo, the complaint in the petition was concerning 765 of them.

    According to him, it is law that successful prosecution of election petition is not about the percentage of the total polling units in the state but the effect of the successive establishment of the complaint.

    He further argued that the petition must be considered whollistically and not in parts.

    “So the submission of isolating grounds and labeling them alone as academic is not well founded,” he said.

    On the issue of not presenting the tribunal with an alternative result, the senior lawyer said that it was on record that all the results before the tribunal were tendered by his client.

    On why the petitioners called only five polling unit agents, he said that the grouse of his client was with what happened at the collation centres and not at the polling units so they didn’t need more than five agents to testify.

    “We concede that elections took place at the polling units but how 25 votes metamorphosed to 525 votes at the collation center  is what we are quarrelling with,” he said.

    Speaking on the claim that they dumped documents on the tribunal, Moze said that all the documents they tendered were duly certified by INEC and were tendered without objection from the commission, the makers of the document.

    He also held that the tribunal had requisite jurisdiction to hear the petition because their allegations were not pre-election matters.

    Having taken all the arguments, Justice Kpochi said that judgment in the matter was reserved to a date to be communicated to the parties by the secretary of the tribunal.

    NAN reports that the PDP and its governorship candidate, Mr Asue Ighodalo approached the tribunal, praying it to invalidate the outcome of the governorship election on the grounds of alleged non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022.

    They further contended that Okpebholo did not secure the highest number of majority votes cast in that election.

  • APC closes case at Edo tribunal after calling 4 witnesses

    APC closes case at Edo tribunal after calling 4 witnesses

    The All Progressives Congress, (APC) has  closed its defense in the petition at the Edo Governorship Election Petition Tribunal challenging its victory in the Sept. 21, 2024 governorship election in Edo.

    The party, which is the 3rd respondent in the petition, closed its case after four witnesses gave testimony to substantiate its claim of victory at the Edo governorship poll.

    When the matter came up on Thursday, counsel to APC, Mr  Ferdinand Orbih, SAN, told the tribunal that his client would close its case because the plethora of documents tendered, the evidence of the petitioners during cross examination as well as the evidence of the 3rd respondent had done justice to the case .

    He said that as a result, there was no need to call additional witnesses.

    “Taking all the enumerated factors into consideration, we are happy at this stage to close the 3rd respondent’s case, with the leave of my Lordships,” Orbih said.

    Since the petitioners did not object, Justice Wilfred  Kpochi granted the request and fixed March 3 for parties to adopt their final written addresses in the matter.

    The three-member panel also gave the respondents seven days to file and serve their processes.

    The tribunal also ordered the petitioners to reply within five days of receiving the processes, adding that the respondents could reply to points of law within three days.

    NAN recalls that the tribunal had adjourned proceedings on Wednesday to enable the APC tender some documents which it claimed its remaining witnesses would rely on in giving their evidence.

    The party had told the trubunal that it would be calling 28 witnesses to defend its victory at the Edo governorship election.

    The Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), which is the first respondent in the petition, had declared Gov. Monday Okpebholo of the APC winner of that election.

    Miffed by this, the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) and its governorship candidate, Mr Asue Ighodalo, approached the tribunal, praying it to nullify INEC’s declaration of the APC and Okpebholo as winners of the election.

    The petitioners contended that the governorship election was invalid by reason of alleged non-compliance with provisions of the Electoral Act.

    They equally argued in the petition marked: EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, that Okpebholo did not secure the highest number of lawful votes that were cast at the polls.

    The petitioners called 19 witnesses to prove that over-voting and wrong computation of votes  occurred in over 700 polling units during the election.

    INEC, as the 1st respondent, did not call any witnesses but tendered 153  Bimodal Verification Accreditation System (BVAS) used in 133 polling units where results were being disputed.

    Okpebholo, as the 2nd respondent called a lone witness while the APC called four witnesses.

    The petitioners and respondents would adopt their final written addresses on March 3 following which a date would be fixed for judgment.

  • Edo guber tribunal: All eyes on Okpebholo as PDP, Ighodalo, INEC unexpectedly close cases – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Edo guber tribunal: All eyes on Okpebholo as PDP, Ighodalo, INEC unexpectedly close cases – By Ehichioya Ezomon

    Today, Monday, February 10, 2025, is the first D-Day for Governor Monday Okpehbolo at the Election Petitions Tribunal (EPT) sitting in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) of Nigeria. The ex-Senator (APC, Edo Central) is expected to begin defence of his declaration by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the winner of the September 21, 2024, governorship election in Edo State.

    Members of the public, especially the people of Edo State, are watching and waiting with bated breath, to see whether Okpebholo will toe the INEC line and close his defence without calling any witnesses to testify for him.

    The INEC – which declared Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the poll winner, having scored 291,667 votes (about 51.1%) – failed to call any of the five witnesses it slated to testify, despite persuading the three-man tribunal on January 5 to adjourn the case to January 6, as “the witnesses would come to Abuja from Benin,” Edo State capital city.

    At the resumed proceeding on January 6, INEC’s lead counsel, Kanu Agabi (SAN), said his team had shelved the idea of bringing witnesses after it reviewed the case, adding, “My Lords, after we left you yesterday (Wednesday), we gave more thought to the matter and came to the conclusion that the sensible thing to do is to close the case of the 1st Respondent, which we hereby do,” Agabi told the tribunal.

    Counsel for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Dr Asue Ighodalo, didn’t express surprise by the turn of events, with Adetunji Oyeyipo (SAN) saying, matter-of-factly, that, “Frankly speaking, we are not surprised and it is well within the right of the 1st Respondent (INEC) to show such good discretion. We are not objecting.”

    But in an undisguised elation, the PDP unsolicitedly offered expert’s opinion, pointing to the risk INEC’s failure to call witnesses poses for the Respondents. “This abrupt end to INEC’s defence leaves the electoral body relying solely on cross-examinations and arguments from APC and Okpebholo’s lawyers,” the party said.

    The PDP, however, noted its pathway to claiming its “stolen mandate,” explaining that, “The tribunal has already admitted critical BVAS machines into evidence, devices that will expose over-voting and discrepancies in the declared results.”

    The party added: “Testimonies from PDP witnesses, including local government agents and an expert witness (PW12), detailed systemic manipulation during result collation. Independent monitors, such as Athena Centre and TAP Initiative, have corroborated these claims, further denting INEC’s credibility.

    “By opting not to call witnesses, INEC appears to be taking a gamble, leaving its defence in the hands of APC and Governor Okpebholo’s legal teams. Analysts suggest this approach could backfire, as INEC must now contend with its own certified records and the BVAS data, which clearly contradict the declared results,” the party added.

    Yet, PDP/Ighodalo had similarly suddenly closed their case on Monday, February 3, after calling 19 witnesses to testify to their claim of winning the governorship poll, though Ighodalo, going by INEC’s declaration, scored 247,274 votes (about 43.3%) to place second to Okpebholo.

    It’s uncertain how many of the 290 witnesses – earmarked to testify for the eight political parties appearing before the tribunal – belonged to PDP/Ighodalo. But as the main challengers of the poll, surely, hundreds were primed to testify for them!

    Recall that the tribunal had adjourned in Benin City on Friday, January 24, after taking the testimonies of PW11 and PW12, and relocated sitting to Abuja on Tuesday, January 28, with the Plaintiffs expected to call more witnesses, some of who refused to show up to testify the previous week.

    But alas on Monday, January 3, a counsel for the Plaintiffs, Robert Emukpoeruo (SAN), offering no rationale, told the tribunal that his clients had concluded their case (in just 10 days), having called 19 witnesses, thus dampening the proceedings that’d captured public attention since the hearing proper began on January 21.

    Left to guess the ‘whys’ and ‘hows’ of the Plaintiffs’ action, several questions then arose: If PDP/Ighodalo called only 19 witnesses, did they cover the 765 of the 4,519 polling units, whose votes they query in their petition? Did the 19 witnesses supply and adduce enough evidence that rendered calling more witnesses unnecessary?

    We’re reminded, though, as per Muhammad JSC, in Olonade v Sowemimo (2014) LPELR-22914(SC), 27 – in explaining the meaning of the standard of proof in civil cases, (and) the balance of probabilities – that:

    “The court decides which side’s evidence is heavier, not by the number of witnesses called by either party or on the basis of the one being oral and the other being documentary, but by the quality or probative value of the evidence be it oral and/or documentary.”

    So, in deciding to close their case after calling 19 witnesses, did PDP/Ighodalo think they’d met the legal threshold set out above, to prove their allegations of manipulation of the election?

    “No, they didn’t,” declared the Acting Chairman of the Edo chapter of the APC, Emperor Jarrett Tenebe, whose voice was muffled when PDP/Ighodalo held the tribunal spellbound with evidential claims of electoral heist by the INEC, APC and Police, telling the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) on January 3 that PDP/Ighodalo “abandoned their case abruptly because they have no case ab initio.”

    Boasting that “the whole country and the people of Edo in particular would know that the APC won the election” when the Respondents open their case, Tenebe said: “They (PDP/Ighodalo) were called to testify but couldn’t produce more witnesses, so closing their case at this point amounts to abandonment of the case.

    “If you are challenging about seven hundred and something polling units and you call only 19 witnesses, does that not amount to abandonment? I think they do not have a case, that is why they hurriedly closed their case today (January 3), which is a good thing for the APC.”

    But it appears that Tenebe (like the PDP) was too early to guess the outcome of the petition, as the INEC on January 6 closed its defence without calling any witness, leaving the tribunal chairman, Justice Wilfred Kpochi, to rule that: “The request (by INEC) is granted and the first Respondent’s case is hereby closed,” and adjourned the matter to today, Monday, January 10, for Okpebholo to open his defence.

    The three-man panel of Justices Wilfred Kpochi (Chairman), A.B. Yusuf and A.A. Adewole considers mainly alleged irregularities in the total number of votes cast in many polling units, which reportedly exceeded accredited voter-count recorded by the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) that the INEC deployed for the ballot.

    While six parties question the credibility of the election in which INEC returned Okpebholo as the winner; the focus is on Ighodalo, who came second with 247,274 votes (about 43.3%) at the poll, with the PDP claiming those figures were manipulated to disfavour Ighodalo.

    As hearing commenced in Benin City, the tribunal’s proceedings had witnessed the expected legal fireworks, with PDP/Ighodalo striving to unmask alleged massive rigging of the process that threw up Okpebholo as Governor, who’s sworn-in on November 12, 2024.

    The party avers that – but for disenfranchisement of voters; suppression of votes; over-voting; vote-buying; and connivance of the APC, INEC and Police to “gift” victory to Okpebholo – Ighodalo won the election, and should be declared as Governor of Edo State.

    Going by testimonies of the Plaintiffs’ witnesses, PDP/Ighodalo seemed to hold their ground: That they won the election and INEC should’ve so returned. The witnesses tried to demonstrate alleged suppression, inflation and alteration of votes by the APC, INEC and Police, to the detriment of Ighodalo, a Lagos-based Lawyer and business tycoon.

    Exuding confidence – and taking a page from PDP/Ighodalo’s sweeping allegations against APC/Okpebholo – the witnesses were even judgmental, pointing out votes that should’ve been counted or cancelled, and claiming that INEC’s reported rigging of the process amounts to a brazen breach of the Electoral Act 2022 (as amended).

    Thus, if election petitions – and elections – are won on social media, PDP/Ighodalo would’ve breasted the tape before they closed their petition marked: EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, as reports on the proceedings were salaciously-headlined, portraying PDP/Ighodalo to’ve rubbished and made mincemeat of INEC’s declaration of Okpebholo as the poll winner.

    Hence, there’s fear and anxiety that Okpebholo may also fail to call witnesses, and rely on the alibi that PDP/Ighodalo’s documentary evidence, and oral testimonies by the witnesses didn’t prove the Plaintiffs’ case “beyond reasonable doubts,” and “in substantial compliance with the electoral laws.”

    Prior to the start of hearing on January 21, the Respondents, via Ferdinand Orbih (SAN), had asked the tribunal to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ petition on grounds of “incompetence” and “not filed in accordance with the extant law,” and to hands-off the petition for “lack of jurisdiction?”

    An inkling to such a possibility was the prayer by Okpebholo’s counsel, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), on Thursday, January 6, for the tribunal to grant him a date next week (this week), to enable him open defence, saying, “I never envisaged the first Respondent (INEC) would close its case today.”

    “I have not arranged for witnesses to be moved from Benin. A date next week would be okay,” Ikpeazu said, even as he promised “not to use the entire 10 or five days” allotted to the second Respondent (Okpebholo) for his defence.

    Reacting, Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that adjourning till Monday (today) would be too long, and urged the matter be adjourned to Saturday (January 8) for Okpebholo to open his defence. But the tribunal rejected the plea, and subsequently fixed February 10 for Okpebholo to open his defence.

    So, will Okpebholo advance his defence today by limiting the number of witnesses to be called, and reducing the alloted number of days thereoff; relitigate the pre-hearing call for the tribunal to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ petition; or align with INEC’s counsel, Agabi’s claim, and aver that his (Okpebholo’s counsel, Ikpeazu) “did justice to the case during the cross-examination of the petitioners’ witnesses?”

    Members of the public are anxiously waiting for Okpebholo’s moves on his first D-Day at the tribunal, which may be a harbinger of what to expect on his second D-Day during the tribunal’s judgment to close out the 180 days (six months) allotted by law to consider and decide the petitions!

     

    Mr Ezomon, Journalist and Media Consultant, writes from Lagos, Nigeria. Can be reached on X, Threads, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp @EhichioyaEzomon. Tel: 08033078357.

  • Edo governorship poll: PDP, Ighodalo close case at tribunal

    Edo governorship poll: PDP, Ighodalo close case at tribunal

    The Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP), and its governorship candidate in Edo, Asue Ighodalo, on Monday, closed their case at the Edo Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja.

    PDP and Ighodalo dragged the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), the All Progressives Congress (APC) and Gov. Monday Okpebholo to the tribunal challenging the outcome of the governorship election.

    When the matter was called, the lead counsel for the petitioners, Mr Robert Emukpoeruo, SAN, told the tribunal that his clients had concluded their case having called 19 witnesses.

    For its part, INEC tendered five additional Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, BVAS, machines that were used during the election.

    The electronic devices were tendered by Mr Anthony Itodo, a Senior Technical Officer in the ICT Department of the commission.

    They were admitted in evidence  even though all the respondents in the matter objected saying they would give their reasons in their final written addresses.

    Recall that the the tribunal had earlier admitted in evidence, a total of 148 BVAS that were used in 133 polling units where results of the election are being disputed by the petitioners.

    The Justice Wilfred Kpochi-led three-member tribunal subsequently adjourned the matter until Feb. 5 for INEC to open its defence.

    Similarly, the ADP also closed its case following the testimony of its Chairman in Edo, Mr Francis Obamwonyi.

    Obamwonyi told the tribunal that he would be surprised if anyone told him that the party’s candidate in the election also doubled as the state collation agents since that was his responsibility.

    The witness also told the tribunal that his party scored a total of 1,119 votes in the election that INEC declared the APC and it’s candidate as winners.

    When asked to substantiate the allegations he made in his witness statement of non compliance with the electoral act, over voting, harassment and intimidation, he said he wrote it based on the reports of his party’s agents at various polling units.

    The tribunal then fixed Feb . 6 for INEC to open its defence in this matter.

    In an interview with NAN, the Chairman of APC in Edo, Mr Jarrett Tenebe said that the PDP closed its case abruptly because they had no case abinitio and that it was an indication that they had abandoned the case.

    “They were called to testify but couldn’t produce more witnesses so closing their case at this point amounts to abandonment of the case.

    “If you are challenging about seven hundred and something polling units and you call only 19 witnesses does that not amount to abandonment?

    “I think they do not have a case that is why they hurriedly closed their case today which is a good thing for the APC,” Tenebe said.

    Tenebe expressed confidence that when the APC opened its case, the whole country and the people of  Edo in particular would know that the APC won the election.

    INEC had declared Okpebholo of the APC as winner of the Sept. 21, 2024 election having scored a total of 291, 667 votes to defeat his closet rivalry, Ighodalo of the PDP, who scored a total of 247, 655 votes.

    Not satisfied with INEC’s declaration, the PDP and its candidate approached the tribunal, asking it to nullify INEC’s declaration of the APC and it’s candidate as winners of the election.

    In the petition marked: EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024 the petitioners alleged that Okpebholo did not secure the highest number of lawful votes and that  the  election was invalid on grounds of  non-compliance with the Electoral Act.

  • Edo poll: Oshiomhole keeps mum on PDP’s petition hearing at tribunal

    Edo poll: Oshiomhole keeps mum on PDP’s petition hearing at tribunal

    Sen. Adams Oshiomhole, on Friday, refrained from making comments on the ongoing hearing of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)’s petition at the Edo Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja.

    Oshiomhole, who represents the Edo North Senatorial District, refused to comment on his observation of the proceedings while fielding questions from newsmen.

    “You know you don’t comment on matters in court. I came to watch, to observe the proceedings and I am satisfied that the proceedings are going well.

    “It is not for me to do any evaluation that is the prerogative and absolute responsibility of the tribunal.

    “Well, I cannot comment on it,” he simply responded.

    NAN reports that the hearing of the petition filed by the PDP and its governorship candidate, Asue Ighodalo, continued with the presentation of  their 16th witness.

    The witness, Haruna Ibrahim, told Justice Wilfred Kpochi-led three-member panel that he served as a polling unit agent during the Sept. 21, 2024 election that was held in the state.

    He told the tribunal that though the election was properly conducted, he observed some irregularities in the form of over-voting and immediately complained to officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) at the polling unit.

    Ibrahim mounted the box shortly after Oshiomhole, who is also a former governor of Edo, arrived at the venue of the tribunal to show solidarity with Gov. Monday Okpebholo.

    Okpebholo is the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) who was declared the winner of the governorship contest by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    The immediate-past Deputy Governor of Edo, Philip Shaibu, who had since defected from the PDP to the APC, was also at the tribunal to observe proceedings.

    NAN reports that the tribunal had, on Thursday, admitted in evidence, 148 Bimodal Voter Accreditation System Machines (BVAS) 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 Okpebholo of the APC secured a total of 291, 667 votes to defeat his closest rival, 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 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.

  • Edo governorship poll: Tribunal scolds PDP over failure to produce witnesses

    Edo governorship poll: Tribunal scolds PDP over failure to produce witnesses

    The Edo Gubernatorial Election Petition Tribunal on Tuesday in Abuja, berated the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP), and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo, over their failure to produce witnesses in court.

    PDP and Asue were to produce witnesses  to testify in the petition they filed seeking the nullification of the governorship election which took place in the state on Sept. 21, 2024.

    The tribunal had its first sitting in Abuja following it’s relocation to the Federal Capital Territory on Tuesday.

    A statement issued by the Secretary of the Tribunal, Mr Mu’azu Bagudu announced the tribunal ‘s relocation to Abuja

    Although no reason was expressly stated for the move,however, political experts opined that the move may not be far from the rising issue of insecurity and purported fears of plots to burn down the building housing the tribunal.

    Listed as respondents in the suit are the All Progressives Congress, (APC), Gov. Monday Okpebholo and the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC).

    At the resumed sitting in the matter,  counsel to the PDP and Ighodalo, Mr Adetunji Oyeyipo, SAN, called their witness, Mr Oseyili Anenih for cross examination.

    Recall that Anenih had given his evidence-in-chief as PW-12 while the tribunal was sitting in Benin.

    After Anenih was cross examined by all the respondents and  was discharged, the senior lawyer told the tribunal that most of their other  witnesses had suffered travel disruptions.

    “My lords, this is the reason we are unable to present them today. We urge your Lordships to give us another date.

    “We undertake that on the next date, we will bring as many witnesses as may be convenient for the tribunal.

    “We will also work assiduously to prime down our witnesses,”Oyeyipo prayed the tribunal.”

    Miffed by  the development, the Justice Wilfred Kpochi-led three-member tribunal berated the petitioners for wasting the judicial time of the tribunal.

    Kpochi said that the tribunal had earlier asked other parties that also lodged petitions challenging the outcome of the governorship election to take new dates so that Tuesday could be dedicated to hearing the PDP’s petition.

    “What you are just telling us is not good at all! Why then did we ask the other petitioners to take dates? We should have heard them today.

    “In fact, call those your witnesses, tell them to come, we are ready for them to come today,” Justice Kpochi said.

    The counsel, however,   pleaded that the witnesses may not be in the right frame of mind to mount the dock after their travel experiences.

    The tribunal subsequently adjourned the matter  untill Thursday.

    Earlier, Anenih told the tribunal that though there were a total of 4,519 polling units in Edo , the PDP and its candidate were challenging the results of 765 polling units.

    Anenih, who told the tribunal that he served as the Director of Research and Strategy for the PDP, during the election admitted that he did not visit all the polling units during the election.

    He told the tribunal that most of the results given to local government collation agents did not reach the state collation agents but ended up in the PDP situation room because the agents were prevented from transmitting them to the state collation centres.

    The witness maintained that if the lawful votes that were cast on the election day were sincerely collated, his candidate, Ighodalo, would have emerged victorious having polled the highest number of valid votes.

    Answering questions from Mr Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, counsel to Gov. Okpebholo, the witness admitted that  they did not have any physical access to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, BVAS, Machines, that were used for the election.

    He, however said that they were able to get some screenshots of it, which they tendered in evidence.

    He said they had since subpoenaed INEC to make the machines available before the tribunal.

    While being cross-examined by counsel to the APC, Mr Emmanuel Ukala, the witness confirmed that he was not trained by INEC to play any role during the election.

    He further admitted that none of the polling unit results was handed over to him personally by agents of the party.

    When he was handed one of the Exhibits to look at, the witness confirmed to the tribunal that out of 16 copies of the results in the bundle, only three of them were stamped.

    “To us, that three that were stamped is significant enough. It represents almost 20 per cent ,” the witness insisted.

    NAN recalls that the PDP and its candidate had approached the tribunal praying it to nullify the outcome of the governorship election.

    They based their petition  on the grounds of alleged  non-compliance with the Electoral Act and other malpractices.

    They insisted that Gov. Okpebholo of the APC did not secure the highest number of majority of the valid votes cast at the election to be declared winner.(

  • Edo Governorship Election: Tribunal relocates to Abuja

    Edo Governorship Election: Tribunal relocates to Abuja

    The Edo Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal has announced its relocation from Benin City to Abuja, effective Monday.

     

    The tribunal, according to a notice by its Secretary, Mua’azu Bagudu, on Friday in Benin, will now sit at the National Judicial Institute (NJI), Airport Road, Abuja.

     

    “I am directed to notify all parties that the governorship election petition tribunal sitting in Benin City has been relocated to Abuja,” Bagudu said.

     

    The secretary advised the parties involved in the case to contact him on 08037200013 for further inquiries.

     

    Meanwhile, a reliable source in the court told the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) that the relocation was at the instance of the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem.

     

    The source, which preferred anonymity, attributed the development to tension and feelings of insecurity at the premises of the tribunal in Benin.

     

    NAN had reported how a gunman suspected to be a political thug was seen shooting sporadically in the court area on Jan. 15, saying “give us our mandate”.

     

    The notice, however, came shortly after a data forensic expert called by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the 2024 election, Dr Asue Ighodalo, had testified before the three-man panel.

     

    The PDP and Ighodalo, who are petitioners in the case, are challenging the declaration of Gov. Monday Okpebholo as the winner of the poll by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

  • Edo guber Election Petition Tribunal to reconvene Monday

    Edo guber Election Petition Tribunal to reconvene Monday

    The ongoing legal battle regarding the September 21st governorship election in Edo State, the state’s election petition tribunal convened on Saturday, January 18, 2025, to consider the petition filed by Ighodalo Akintunde Asuelimen of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    Asuelimen is challenging the election victory of Senator Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    The tribunal, operating under petition number EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, is tasked with reviewing the claims brought against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and other respondents involved in the contentious election process.

    During the proceedings, the tribunal provisionally admitted a plethora of documents submitted by the petitioners, a step viewed as crucial in validating their claims.

    Counsel for the petitioners outlined the verification process undertaken by all parties prior to the submission of diverse documents as evidence, despite facing objections from the opposing respondents. These objections were noted, with the respondents opting to reserve their arguments for the final written addresses, indicating a protracted legal battle ahead.

    The tribunal’s provisional admission of these extensive documents is one step for the petitioners, albeit with the understanding that further conditions may be imposed before these documents are fully accepted as part of the case record. The evidence presented included a total of over 70 exhibits from various local government areas, along with multiple forms and booklets that are critical to substantiating the petitioners’ claims.

    Among the documents provisionally admitted were:
    1. Certified True Copies (CTCs) of Forms EC8B from various wards across Akoko Edo, Egor, Esan Central, Esan North East, and Esan South East.
    2. Forms EC8EL and EC8D, marked as Exhibits PA1 and PA2.
    3. CTCs of Form EC8D from 18 polling units, designated as Exhibits PA3-PA20.
    4. An extensive array of 320 copies of polling unit forms EC8A, admitted as Exhibit PCA1-PCA320.
    5. 58 CTCs of Form EC8A obtained from INEC’s IREV portal, marked as Exhibits BDA1-BDA58.
    6. 308 CTC polling unit booklets containing Form BC25B, noted as Exhibits PCB1-PCB308.

    The atmosphere at the tribunal on Saturday was notably charged, with heightened security measures in place as armed Police and other security operatives ensured a secure environment, reflecting the increasing tensions surrounding the tribunal’s sessions leading up to this point.

    The extended hearing on Saturday was indicative of the tribunal’s commitment to thoroughly addressing the substantial evidential submissions made by Ighodalo Akintunde Asuelimen and his legal team.

    Following the extensive examination of the documents, the tribunal adjourned, scheduling its next session for Monday, January 20, 2025.

    This upcoming session promises to be pivotal as the tribunal continues to navigate the complexities of the case and the implications it holds for the political landscape of Edo State.

    All eyes will be on the tribunal as it picks up where it left off, amidst a charged atmosphere and a community eager for resolution.