Edo Guber: Monday Okpebholo wins again!

The governor of the state of Edo, on Monday Okpebholo, won again in the race to govern the state, therefore the time of the judicial field.

Previously he had won on September 21, 2024 on political political grass when he had conquered the first prize.

He defeated Asue Ighodalo of the Democratic Party Peoples, PDP, his closest competitor, who was banking on the power of the administration in charge PDP in the state to win.

Igodalo and the PDP had presented their petition to the court by challenging Okpebholo and the victory of APC to the survey.

But by issuing his judgment in the petition on Wednesday, the court of the electoral petitions of the Governor Edo has established that the petition of the PDP was unable to be able to lack competent witnesses

The Court said that the PDP petition that disputes the result of the 2024 governor’s elections also failed, due to insufficient evidence to confirm the statements of electoral negligence.

The signatories had stated that the inability to correctly record the electoral materials before the elections had influenced the results.

However, the court discovered that while the documents were presented, no witness was called to authenticate them correctly, making the evidence inadmissible.

Of the 19 witnesses presented by the signatories, 14 were agents of the local government and the local government, while their stellar witness, who claimed to be a director of the strategy, did not play any direct role in the conduct of the elections.

The Court observed that none of these witnesses provided testimonies on the alleged failure of the previous registration of the electoral materials, considering them incompetent to testify.

In addition, the Court stressed that to demonstrate the accusations of excess voting, the signatories must provide oral evidence, in line with the previous one established by the Supreme Court.

He underlined that he was destined to join strictly to the warning table of the Supreme Court in judging electoral disputes.

In addition, the Court observed that the witnesses called by the signatories had no direct knowledge of events in the electoral units, since they were not physically present during the elections.

He believed that the signatories should have called witnesses with first -hand accounts to confirm their requests.

On the basis of these results, the Court established that the signatories did not reach the requested burden of the test and subsequently affected their petitions.