The Court of Appeal in Abuja has reserved its judgment on three appeals and a cross-appeal challenging the ruling of the Edo State Election Petitions Tribunal, which affirmed Governor Monday Okpebholo's victory in the September 21, 2024, governorship election.

The appeals were filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo, while the All Progressives Congress (APC), Okpebholo's party, submitted a cross-appeal against the tribunal’s decision delivered on April 2, 2025.

A three-member panel of the appellate court heard all four matters on Thursday and reserved its ruling for a later date to be communicated to the involved parties.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had declared Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the September 21, 2024, governorship election in Edo State.

According to INEC, Okpebholo secured 291,667 votes, defeating the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo, who polled 247,655 votes.

Challenging the result, Ighodalo and the PDP filed a petition before the election tribunal, naming INEC, Okpebholo, and the APC as the first, second, and third respondents, respectively.

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its governorship candidate, Asue Ighodalo, contended that Monday Okpebholo did not win the majority of lawful votes, alleging widespread electoral malpractice, including over-voting and breaches of the Electoral Act.

They called for the nullification of the election, citing issues such as the non-serialisation of ballot papers, inaccurate collation of results, and computational discrepancies in 765 polling units.

The petitioners further accused the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of failing to serialise and pre-record sensitive election materials, which they claimed facilitated rigging in favour of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

However, in its April 2, 2025 judgment, the Edo State Election Petitions Tribunal ruled that the PDP and Ighodalo were unable to substantiate their claims, leading to the dismissal of their petitions.

Unconvinced by the verdict, the petitioners filed an appeal.

At Thursday’s appellate court hearing, Ighodalo’s lawyer, Robert Emukpoeruo (SAN), urged the court to overturn the tribunal's decision.

He argued that the tribunal failed to give due consideration to their claims of non-compliance, particularly the omission of serial numbers on Form EC25B, which they contended violated Section 73(2) of the Electoral Act 2022. He also challenged the tribunal’s assertion that documents were merely “dumped” on the court, emphasizing that their case specifically addressed inconsistencies between results recorded at the polling unit and ward levels.

Responding, counsel to Governor Okpebholo, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), defended the tribunal’s decision, insisting that the petitioners did not sufficiently prove their allegations. He pointed out that the required serial numbers were present on Form EC40A rather than EC25B, and noted the petitioners’ failure to present Form EC25D, a critical document.

Emmanuel Ukala (SAN), representing the APC, also supported the tribunal’s verdict and called on the appellate court to dismiss the appeals. He argued that the petitioners did not present witnesses for each of the 765 polling units in question—a procedural necessity under Sections 73(2) and 137 of the Electoral Act 2022.

Ukala added that the petitioners called only 19 witnesses in total, with just five being polling unit agents—key figures who could have testified directly to the alleged irregularities.

Ukala further noted that while the appellants included Form EC25D among the documents listed in their petition, they ultimately failed to present it during the proceedings. He argued that any serial numbers the appellants claimed were missing should have appeared on Form EC25D, not Form EC25B as they alleged.

Counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Kanu Agabi (SAN), aligned with the arguments made by the APC and Okpebholo. He urged the Court of Appeal to dismiss the appeal and affirm the tribunal’s ruling.

Following the submission of final arguments, the appellate panel, chaired by Justice M. A. Danjuma, announced that judgment had been reserved and that the date for delivery would be communicated to all parties involved.