Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Dr. Monday Ubani, has stated that the recent dismissal of the Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) petition in the Edo State governorship election by the tribunal aligns with current judicial interpretations of Section 137 of the Electoral Act 2022. He emphasized that while the provision was intended to ease evidentiary burdens, courts still retain the discretion to demand oral testimony alongside documentary evidence.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/NBBSPIDEL.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
In his analysis titled “Electoral Jurisprudence on Edo Gubernatorial Verdict by the Tribunal,” Dr. Ubani, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, examined the tribunal’s ruling on the PDP and its candidate, Asue Ighodalo, who challenged the Edo governorship election outcome. On March 29, 2025, the tribunal dismissed the petition, citing the petitioners’ failure to call competent witnesses to substantiate their claims of electoral non-compliance. Dr. Ubani noted that the tribunal criticized the PDP for merely “dumping” documents—such as polling unit results and voter registers—without providing oral testimony, deeming this insufficient to prove their case.
Section 137 of the Electoral Act 2022 was designed to ease the burden on petitioners by allowing them to rely on original or certified true copies of documents that clearly demonstrate non-compliance, without necessarily presenting oral evidence. Dr. Ubani explained, “The section was designed to alleviate the burden… by letting documents speak for themselves.” However, he highlighted that judicial interpretations have curtailed its application. Citing the case of Oyetola v. INEC, he pointed out that the Court of Appeal ruled that judges can require oral evidence at their discretion—a stance later affirmed by the Supreme Court. “This effectively limits Section 137’s scope,” he said.
Dr. Ubani stressed that the Edo tribunal’s decision reflects these higher court precedents, reinforcing the judiciary’s position that documentary evidence alone may not suffice without corroborative testimony. “The tribunal’s stance does not contradict Section 137 but aligns with the Supreme Court’s interpretation,” he asserted, noting that merely submitting documents without witnesses to explain their relevance leaves gaps in proving allegations such as over-voting or irregularities.
He further clarified that this is not a matter of opinion but “the position of the current law.” The Supreme Court’s ruling binds all lower courts, including itself, unless it later overturns its own precedent. Dr. Ubani suggested that if Nigeria aims to eliminate the need for petitioners to call polling unit agents for every disputed unit—allowing reliance on documents alone—an amendment to Section 137 would be necessary. “We may have to amend the section further to actualize its true intent,” he proposed, acknowledging that, for now, the law requires more than just paperwork.
In his “humble opinion,” Dr. Ubani underscored the practical challenge: petitioners face a significant hurdle in proving widespread irregularities without extensive witness testimony. While Section 137 was meant to ease this burden, judicial discretion has maintained the requirement. He urged lawmakers to revisit the provision to better serve electoral justice, warning that without reform, the status quo will persist.
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
