The documents surfaced barely 24 hours after the panel summoned all parties involved in the case.
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 its 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.
On Tuesday, the tribunal directed both parties to appear the next day for the verdict.
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.
The situation has raised concerns over the security of judicial documents and the credibility of the process.
See documents below:
