Documents said to be a judgement of the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal have surfaced online and across social media platforms.
The documents surfaced barely 24 hours after the panel summoned all parties involved in the case to appear before it on April 2, 2025, for judgement delivery.
The unexpected appearance of the documents has sparked confusion and debate over the tribunal’s final ruling.
The three-member panel, led by Justice Wilfred Kpochi, had on March 3 reserved judgement on the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Asuerinme Ighodalo, challenging the result of the September 21, 2024, governorship election.
However, before the official ruling could be delivered, copies of what seemed to be the judgement circulated widely on the internet, revealing a split decision among the judges.
According to the leaked documents, the tribunal’s chairman, Justice Kpochi, and another panel member, Justice A. B. Yusuf, ruled in favour of Governor Monday Okpebholo, dismissing the PDP’s petition and upholding his election.
However, the third judge, Justice A. A. Adewole, disagreed.
In his minority judgement, he reportedly declared that Okpebholo’s election was invalid due to irregularities and ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue a fresh Certificate of Return to Ighodalo as the rightful winner.
Justice Adewole was said to have based his decision on alleged non-compliance with the Electoral Act, stating that the total valid votes showed Ighodalo had 243,113 votes while Okpebholo had 210,326.
He argued that the PDP’s case was not properly countered and that evidence showed the final election results were incorrectly declared.
In contrast, the majority decision of the tribunal acknowledged certain irregularities but stated that the PDP failed to prove they were substantial enough to affect the overall outcome.
Justice Kpochi and Justice Yusuf referenced previous Supreme Court rulings, asserting that while errors in collation and exclusions were found, they did not change the margin of victory or prove that Ighodalo had more lawful votes.
In the lead and majority decision of the tribunal, its Chairman, Justice Kpochi, held that “while there was credible evidence of non-compliance particularly concerning section 73(2) (failure to record serial numbers in EC 25B) and section 51(2) (over-voting) the petitioners failed to demonstrate that these breaches substantially affected the outcome of the election as required under section 135(1) of the Electoral Act.
“On the issue of the majority of lawful votes, the petitioners established instances of incorrect collation and exclusion of results. However, their mathematical and documentary evidence did not conclusively establish that the margin of lead was overtaken or that they scored the highest number of lawful votes.”
Relying on the Supreme Court decided cases in Oyetola Vs Adeleke, 2023, 10NWLR (Pt 1892), as well as Atiku Vs INEC (2023), 19NWLR, pt. 1927, the panel held that the petitioners failed to prove not only that non-compliance occured, but also that it was substantial enough to have affected the result of the election.
Adding that the petitioners ought to have tied every complaint to figures, demonstrated the net effect of each infraction and shown that for the violation the outcome would have changed.
“We find that the petitioners have not discharged the dual burden to the satisfaction of the law.
“Accordingly, the petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed,” the document further read.
The situation has raised concerns over the security of judicial documents and the credibility of the process.
See documents below:
