KEY POINTS

• Tribunal dismissed AA’s petition as meritless, ruling petitioner lacked standing to challenge Okpebholo’s victory.
• Decision reinforces courts’ strict adherence to electoral petition technical requirements over unsubstantiated claims.
• Back-to-back tribunal wins solidify APC’s hold on Edo governorship amid calls for electoral reforms.

The Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal in Abuja has delivered a decisive ruling, dismissing the petition filed by the Action Alliance (AA) and its candidate Adekunle Omoaje against Governor Monday Okpebholo’s election victory.

In a unanimous judgment delivered on Wednesday, April 2, 2025, the three-member tribunal panel described the petition as “lacking merit and frivolous,” dealing another legal blow to opposition challenges against the All Progressives Congress (APC) governor.

The Punch reports that the AA had contested the September 21, 2024 governorship election results, alleging widespread electoral malpractices and non-compliance with the Electoral Act.

The petitioners claimed Governor Okpebholo failed to secure majority lawful votes and that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) acted unlawfully in declaring him winner with 291,667 votes against PDP candidate Asue Ighodalo’s 247,655 votes. Additionally, they argued AA was improperly excluded from the ballot due to unsigned nomination forms.

Tribunal’s grounds for dismissal

Presiding Justice Abdullahi Suleiman declared Omoaje lacked locus standi (legal standing) to challenge the election outcome since he never participated as a candidate. “The petitioner’s grievances regarding INEC’s non-recognition of his AA chairmanship status have no bearing under the Electoral Act 2022,” the judgment stated. This ruling follows last month’s dismissal of PDP’s petition, effectively cementing Okpebholo’s electoral mandate through consecutive tribunal victories.

Legal experts note this decision reinforces judicial trends requiring strict compliance with electoral litigation procedures. “Courts are increasingly insisting petitioners demonstrate both legal standing and concrete evidence of irregularities,” explained constitutional lawyer Prof. Nnamdi Aduba. The tribunal’s dismissal without calling respondents to defend suggests it found the petition fundamentally defective at preliminary consideration.