NAME: Oyediji Joseph Adedeji

COURSE CODE: PUL 407

MATRIC NUMBER: 2021/35232

LEVEL: LLB 4 (400 LEVEL)

LECTURER: Prof Mojeed Olujinmi A. Alabi

DEPARTMENT: Public and International Law

PDP & IGHODALO V. OKPEBHOLO & ORS (EDO STATE GOVERNORSHIP

The two main contestants in the Edo State 2024 gubernatorial election: Peoples Democratic
Party (PDP) candidate Asue Ighodalo (left) and All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate
Monday Okpebholo (right). The Supreme Court affirmed Okpebholo’s victory after the
petitioners (Ighodalo/PDP) failed to prove the alleged irregularities would have altered the
outcome.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

In the September 21, 2024 Edo State governorship election, APC’s Senator Monday Okpebholo
was declared winner with 291,667 votes, defeating PDP’s Asue Ighodalo (247,655 votes) and
others. Ighodalo and PDP petitioned the Edo Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, alleging
widespread irregularities, over‑voting and non‑compliance with the Electoral Act (essentially
claiming Okpebholo did not score the highest lawful votes). The Tribunal (April 2, 2025)
dismissed the petition for lack of credible evidence. The Court of Appeal (Abuja Division) on
May 29, 2025 affirmed the Tribunal’s decision. Ighodalo and PDP appealed to the Supreme
Court (SC/CV/536/2025), which on July 10, 2025 unanimously dismissed the appeal as lacking
merit.

PARTIES:

The appellants (petitioners) were the PDP and its candidate Asue Ighodalo. The respondents
included the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Governor Monday
Okpebholo, and the APC. INEC’s stance, supported by Okpebholo, was to uphold the declared
result. The PDP/ Ighodalo argued that the election was not conducted in substantial compliance
with the law (Electoral Act 2022) and that substantial irregularities (over‑voting, missing votes)
invalidated Okpebholo’s win. INEC and Okpebholo countered that the petitioners bore the
burden to prove any non‑compliance and its effect; INEC additionally argued it was
impermissible for petitioners to characterize an election as “invalid and unlawful” on one hand
and yet seek to be declared winners on the other.

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK:

The Constitution (1999) and the Electoral Act 2022 set out the requirements for valid elections.
For a state governorship, the Constitution provides that a candidate is duly elected if he has both
the highest number of votes and at least 25% of the votes in at least two‑thirds of the State’s local
government areas. In this case Okpebholo met those thresholds. The Electoral Act 2022
incorporates “substantial compliance” standards (c.f. sections 130–134), requiring that any
irregularities be shown to have affected the election’s outcome. Moreover, Sections 133–134 of
the Act (aligned with Constitution s.188) provide that results are collated by polling unit and
constituency, and any illegally cast votes must be discarded to ascertain if a different candidate
would win.
ISSUES:

The key legal issues were: (1) whether the petitioners proved that non-compliance (over‑voting,
vote exclusions, missing BVAS records, etc.) occurred in any polling units; (2) whether any such
non‑compliance was shown to substantially affect the overall result; (3) whether the evidence
tendered was admissible and sufficient (particularly the handling of BVAS printouts and witness
testimony); and (4) related issues on burden of proof and effect of declared irregularities on the
validity of Okpebholo’s win. (INEC’s “unlawful election” argument also raised the principle that
a candidate cannot benefit from an election he himself contends was illegal.)

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous lead judgment by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba,
dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioners failed to meet their heavy burden of
proof. The Court noted that petitioners challenged results in only 395 out of 4,519 polling units
statewide (about 8.7% of units). It found the 19 witnesses and evidence called by PDP/Ighodalo
did not credibly establish any over‑voting or material non‑compliance. In particular, evidence of
votes was largely introduced “from the Bar” without witness verification; petitioners failed to
call any polling officers to explain BVAS (Bimodal Voter Accreditation System) printouts or
registers, making much of their proof “merely dumped on the tribunal”. The Court held that
such raw documents, unsupported by testimony, carried little weight. Critically, the Court
reiterated the principle that even if irregularities were proven in specific units, petitioners must
show how invalidating those votes would alter the result. Garba JSC explicitly held that
disqualifying all votes in the 395 contested units (even assuming those allegations were true)
could not “substantially affect” an election whose total votes spanned 4,519 units. In other
words, petitioners did not demonstrate that the errors alleged were so extensive as to put
Okpebholo’s plurality in doubt. The Court noted that to annul an election, the petitioner must
satisfy the tribunal of how the cumulative irregularities would change the outcome – a standard
not met here. As Justice Garba stated, “The Appellant did not satisfactorily discharge the burden
of proof placed on him by the law.”.

On specific points, the Court rejected Ighodalo’s claims of vote exclusion/reduction for want of
admissible evidence. It also implicitly endorsed substantial‑compliance doctrine: absent clear,
admissible proof of non‑compliance in sufficient units, the declared result stands. The Court
gave effect to existing precedent (e.g. Omotoso v. Sharafadeen, Oyetola v. INEC, etc.) that
technical breaches do not annul an election unless proven to have affected the final result. It
similarly upheld the lower courts’ findings that Form results and other returns tendered by PDP
did not independently displace the declared outcome.

PRECEDENTS AND AUTHORITIES:

The decision aligns with settled law that election petitions are sui generis and impose a strict
proof burden on petitioners. Section 134(2)(b) of the Constitution (1999) was confirmed – a
duly elected governor must have the highest votes and at least one‑quarter in two‑thirds of
LGAs. Although the Court did not cite a new precedent by name, its reasoning echoes prior
Supreme Court rulings that require petitioners to prove irregularities on clear evidence and show
how correcting them changes the result. For example, in Pianki v. Usman, Alaba v. PDP, and
other cases, the Court has emphasized that a mere allegation of irregularity without precise proof
is insufficient. Here the SC applied that standard: because the petitioners’ evidence was
“incomplete and untested,” the prima facie victory of the declared winner could not be
overturned.

The Court also underscored a long‑standing principle akin to volenti non fit injuria: a candidate
cannot challenge an election as unlawful and at the same time seek its fruits. INEC pointed out
that by attacking the election’s legality, Ighodalo effectively asked the court to validate an
illegality – a doctrine recognized in Nigerian election jurisprudence (e.g. Interfecto corpus etc.).
The Court appears to have agreed implicitly that the petition’s logic was flawed, although it did
not need to rest decision on that ground.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS:

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision finalizes Okpebholo’s mandate and reinforces the
high evidentiary bar in election petitions. The case illustrates that even widespread media or
public allegations of rigging must be backed by precise, admissible proof of specific
irregularities in particular polling units, plus a showing of actual impact on the outcome.
Statutorily, it reaffirms that elections conducted in “substantial compliance” (Electoral Act,
s.130) are upheld unless proven otherwise. Legally, the ruling underscores that concurrent
findings of the tribunal and Court of Appeal (if based on unchallenged facts) will generally not
be disturbed absent clear evidence of error.

The decision has practical effects: it signals to litigants that petitions relying on documentary
dumpers (e.g. photocopied forms without witnesses) are unlikely to succeed. It also confirms the
settled import of Constitution s.188(2)(b) on election thresholds. In the broader context, this
judgment contributes to electoral jurisprudence by emphasizing finality of elections (especially
where margins are substantial) and restricting the courts to evidence-oriented review. Future
petitioners must therefore marshal incontrovertible proof – including oral testimony to link
documents to alleged fraud – if they hope to overturn a declared result. In short, the Supreme
Court’s ruling fortifies the presumption of validity of declared results and leaves the onus on
petitioners to meet strict legal and evidential standards in Nigerian election petitions.

SOURCES:

Supreme Court of Nigeria, PDP & Anor v. INEC & Ors, SC/CV/536/2025 (delivered 10 July
2025); Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) ss.188(2)(b); Electoral Act 2022 (various
provisions on election conduct and proof); related Supreme Court precedents on election
petitions. All facts and quotes drawn from the official judgments and reports.