News
Edo guber: S’Court reserves judgment on PDP, Ighodalo’s appeal
The Supreme Court has reserved judgment on the appeal filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Mr. Asue Ighodalo, challenging the outcome of the September 21, 2024 governorship election in Edo State, won by Governor Monday Okpebholo of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
In the appeal, marked: SC/CV/536/2025, the appellants are praying the court to set aside the May 29 judgment of the Court of Appeal, which dismissed their case and affirmed Governor Okpebholo as the valid winner of the gubernatorial contest.
They have maintained that the appellate court failed to properly evaluate the case they filed to challenge the outcome of the election, which they insisted was not conducted with substantial compliance with provisions of the Electoral Act.
A five-member panel of justices of the Supreme Court led by Garba Lawal adjourned to deliver judgment on the matter after all the parties adopted their final briefs of argument.
While the PDP and its candidate prayed the court to upturn the concurrent decision of the Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Okpebholo and the APC urged the court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the outcome of the election.
Specifically, Ighodalo whose appeal was argued by Ken Mosia, SAN, prayed the court to nullify the election that pronounced Okpebholo as winner of the polls.
He submitted that he scored the majority of lawful votes cast in the election.
However, the INEC, represented by Kanu Agabi, SAN, urged the court to dismiss the appeal in its entirety.
The former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice (AGF) argued that Ighodalo and his political platform, the PDP, had in their petition stigmatised as invalid and unlawful on ground of non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2022.
On its part, INEC submitted that having declared the election as unlawful and illegal, the appellants cannot turn around and pray the court to declare them as winners of illegality.
The electoral body equally accused the appellants of being inconsistent in the grievances against the election and pleaded that their case be dismissed for want of merit.
Responding, the apex court panel, led by Justice Lawal said it would communicate the judgement date to the parties.
A three-member panel of the Appeal Court, led by Justice M. A. Danjuma, had declined to nullify Okpebholo’s election.
The Court of Appeal held that it found no reason to dislodge the May 15 judgement of the tribunal, which validated the result of the election announced by INEC.
However, dissatisfied with the affirmation of the judgment by the appellate court, PDP and Ighodalo took the case to the Supreme Court.
The Justice Wilfred Kpochi-led three-member tribunal had dismissed as lacking in merit, petitions by the PDP and its candidate; the Action Alliance (AA) and its National Chairman, Adekunle Rufai Omoaje, as well as a case that was brought before it by the Accord Party (AP) and its own candidate, Dr. Bright Enabulele.
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 result, the petitioners approached the tribunal, alleging that the election was not conducted in substantial compliance with provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.
In the petition marked: EPT/ED/GOV/02/2024, PDP and its candidate alleged that Governor Okpebholo did not secure the highest number of lawful votes that were cast at the election.
It was equally the contention of the petitioners that INEC failed to serialise and pre-record some of the sensitive materials that were deployed for the poll, a situation they said aided the rigging of the election in favour of the APC and its candidate.
Specifically, PDP and its candidate alleged that there was wrong computation of results in 765 polling units in the state, even as they produced 19 witnesses that testified and tendered exhibits before the tribunal.
Among the exhibits the petitioners tendered before the tribunal were 153 Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines that were used in 133 polling units.
According to the petitioners, results from the polling units were manipulated at the collation centres, a situation they said resulted in over-voting in Okpebholo’s favour.
In its judgement, the tribunal held that the petitioners failed to, by way of credible evidence, establish why the outcome of the election should be set aside.
It held that the onus of proving that Okpebholo was unduly returned by INEC rested squarely on the petitioners, a legal burden it said was not successfully discharged.
According to the tribunal, the PDP and its candidate merely dumped exhibits before it without demonstrating them through competent witnesses as required by the law.
It held that most of the witnesses, who testified for the petitioners gave hearsay evidence, stressing that the failure to produce polling unit agents, presiding officers or voters who participated in the election to testify proved fatal to the case of the petitioners.
The tribunal held that section 137 of the Electoral Act did not preclude the petitioners from producing necessary and competent witnesses to testify in support of their case.
It further dismissed the contention of the petitioners that, contrary to the provision of section 73(2) of the Electoral Act, INEC failed to pre-record most of the materials that were deployed for the election.
In addition, the tribunal held that none of the BVAS machines tendered before it was switched on to demonstrate that the number of votes recorded in the disputed polling units exceeded the total number of accredited voters.
News
Watch FCT minister Nyesom Wike on TVC by 5pm today as he speaks on Rainbow Coalition, 2027 elections
The Minister of Federal Capital Territory FCT Nyesom Wike will today speak on the essence of Rainbow Coalition, President Bola TInubu and the 2027 general elections .
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has constituted a team to investigate individuals named in alleged questionable dealings linked to the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project, following a recent ruling by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Paris, France, in favour of Nigeria.
Sources familiar with the development told Premium Times that the investigative team is being supervised by the Chairman of the EFCC, Ola Olukoyede.
The investigation comes days after the ICC tribunal dismissed major claims brought before it by Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited against Nigeria over the 3,960-megawatt Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project in Taraba State.
The company had made a claim against the Federal Republic of Nigeria, demanding $680 million as a settlement sum and interest in respect of another arbitration in which it is claiming over $2.7 billion in compensation and interest.
Delivering its verdict on Thursday, the tribunal directed Sunrise and its promoter to refund Nigeria’s legal fees of $11.8 million. It also rejected Sunrise’s claim for an order that Nigeria should pay the company $400 million in satisfaction of the settlement sum of $200 million and the default sum of $200 million.
The tribunal insisted that Leno Adesanya, the promoter of Sunrise, is bound by the arbitration agreement with Nigeria pursuant to the settlement agreement, adding that it has jurisdiction over Nigeria’s counterclaim against him and his firm.
According to sources, EFCC investigation will focus on individuals mentioned in the tribunal’s findings over payments and transactions that the panel described as raising concerns or ‘red flags.’
The tribunal revealed that many Nigerian politicians and individuals who held public offices were named as associates or officials who had dealings with Adesanya
The officials include former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, his then-wife Jennifer Douglas, Abubakar Malami, Olu Agunloye, Sambo Dasuki, his son Abubakar Dasuki, Abdullahi Yola, and Dere Awosika.
Malami, a former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), was severely criticised by the tribunal for acting against Nigeria’s national interest. He was accused of maintaining an “inappropriate relationship” with Adesanya, and entering into a corrupt deal. Already, Mr Malami is facing trial after the EFCC accused him, his wife, and son of conspiring to conceal, disguise and retain about N8.7 billion proceeds of unlawful activities.
Atiku, former vice president of Nigeria, was named by the tribunal in its review of a $500,000 payment made by Adesanya on 30 January 2003 from the Swiss bank account of his offshore company, China Castle Investments Ltd, to a US bank account belonging to Ms Douglas, Atiku’s ex-wife.
The payment was made less than four months before the Mambilla BOT contract was purportedly awarded to Sunrise by then Minister of Power and Steel, Olu Agunloye. Mr Adesanya told the tribunal that the money was part of a foreign-exchange transaction carried out for Atiku through his bureau de change business.
But the tribunal said that the explanation was not supported by documentary evidence. It said Adesanya did not produce records showing the underlying naira payment, the exchange rate applied, instructions from Atiku or his aides, correspondence concerning the transaction or documentation establishing its commercial purpose.
The tribunal also noted that neither Atiku nor Ms Douglas provided a witness statement or declaration supporting the explanation.
It noted that Atiku had led a Nigerian government delegation to Beijing in July 2002, which included Adesanya, during which the Nigerian government and the Chinese state-owned NCPEC signed a memorandum of understanding covering, among other projects, the Mambilla project.
However, Atiku has denied being indicted by the tribunal and said he was not responsible for awarding the contract.
Agunloye, a former minister of Power and Steel, was linked to payments he described as part of “medical expenses”. He is currently standing trial over charges relating to the Mambilla power project.
The tribunal also questioned payments of $1.74 million made to Abubakar Dasuki, the son of Sambo Dasuki, a former National Security Adviser (NSA), adding that the transaction raised “considerable red flags.”
The tribunal said Dasuki failed to substantiate his claim that the payment was a loan, citing inconsistencies in his evidence, the absence of a loan agreement and the lack of records showing how the transaction was accounted for by Sunrise.
Yola and Awosika were also named among those involved in alleged bribery and the receipt of controversial payments.
Sources told Premium Times that the EFCC may invite Atiku and his ex-wife, Douglas, for questioning in the coming days or weeks.
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has demanded an explanation from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu over his decision to stay away from the United Nations General Assembly for the third consecutive year.
Atiku’s criticism followed the Presidency’s announcement that Vice President Kashim Shettima would represent Tinubu and lead Nigeria’s delegation to the 81st Session of the UNGA in New York. The 2026 General Debate is scheduled for September 22 to 28.
In a statement issued on Sunday by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku said Tinubu had been absent from the 79th UNGA in 2024, the 80th in 2025 and would again not attend the 81st session in 2026.
Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, said the repeated delegation of the Vice President could no longer be regarded as routine diplomatic representation.
He argued that the UNGA provides heads of government with an important platform to advance their countries’ interests, hold bilateral meetings, attract investments, pursue trade opportunities and engage development partners.
According to him, while Shettima could effectively represent Nigeria, the Vice President’s participation could not completely substitute for the President’s personal presence and visibility at a major international diplomatic gathering.
Atiku further argued that Nigeria could lose opportunities for investment and development financing when the President is absent from such high-level engagements.
“The cost is eventually transferred to ordinary citizens: fewer investments mean fewer businesses and fewer jobs,” he said.
The former vice president also questioned reports that Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Jimoh Ibrahim, had secured a seat for Tinubu close to United States President Donald Trump during the General Assembly.
“The seat was secured, but the President disappeared,” Atiku said.
He also questioned reports that the Tinubu administration had spent up to $9 million on American lobbyists, asking why Nigeria would commit such funds to lobbying efforts in the United States while the President repeatedly stayed away from the UN gathering in New York.
“What exactly did Nigerians purchase with that money?” Atiku asked.
Questions over Tinubu’s US legal history
Atiku subsequently raised questions about Tinubu’s past legal proceedings in the United States, citing Case No. 93 C 4483 before the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
He referred to the forfeiture proceedings involving funds held in accounts in Tinubu’s name and those of associated companies, alleging that US court documents linked the funds to narcotics trafficking and money laundering.
Atiku said the proceedings ultimately resulted in the forfeiture of approximately $460,000 to the US government.
However, he stressed that he was not claiming Tinubu was legally barred from entering the United States.
“We are not asserting that Tinubu is legally prohibited from entering the United States. The Presidency has announced no such restriction,” Atiku said.
He nevertheless questioned whether Tinubu’s past legal history in the US had any connection with his repeated absence from the UNGA.
“Nigerians are therefore entitled to ask whether Tinubu’s three consecutive UNGA absences have anything to do with this documented American history,” he said.
Atiku called on the Presidency to explain the reason for Tinubu’s absence if there was no legal, diplomatic, medical or personal impediment preventing him from attending.
“Has one man’s personal history become a burden on Nigeria’s diplomatic engagement?” he asked.
He also questioned whether the President’s absence could affect Nigeria’s diplomatic engagement with the United States and other countries.
Atiku concluded by demanding greater transparency from the Presidency over the decision to send Shettima to the UNGA for a third consecu
Watch FCT minister Nyesom Wike on TVC by 5pm today as he speaks on Rainbow Coalition, 2027 elections
Man City Survive Sunderland Scare, Liverpool Sneak Past Bournemouth
Fresh Crisis: Atiku, Malami, Others Fingered As EFCC Begins Fresh Probe Of Mambilla Power Deal
-
News20 hours agoTeeJay Yusuf mourns Ex-Kogi Governor Ibrahim Idris
-
Sports21 hours agoEPL: Shearer Warns Arsenal After Brighton Humbling
-
News23 hours agoArewa Youths Hail NNPCL Boss Ojulari For Launch of Nigeria’s Pioneer Smart Self-Service Station
-
News19 hours agoJust in: Former Kogi Governor Ibrahim Idris reportedly dies in UK
-
Politics9 hours ago‘They Don’t Want Wike To Win’ – Fayose Reveals Five APC Governors Secretly Backing NDC
-
Sports23 hours agoBrighton Humbling Is ‘Big Lesson’ for Arsenal, Arteta Warns After First Defeat
Warning: Undefined variable $user_ID in /home/naijuinz/public_html/wp-content/themes/zox-news/comments.php on line 49
You must be logged in to post a comment Login