The Verdict Was Bought:How Justice Kpochi Ignored the Evidence, Endorsed Electoral Fraud, and Shattered Public Faith in Nigeria’s Judiciary

Introduction

Justice Wilfred Kpochi, a judge of the Benue State High Court and chairman of recent election petition tribunals, has come under scrutiny following controversial verdicts he delivered in high-profile election cases. In particular, the 2024 Edo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal (which he led) and a 2023 Benue State Governorship Tribunal outcome have prompted allegations of corruption, bias, and judicial misconduct. Observers and stakeholders have raised concerns that these tribunal judgments ignored critical evidence and may have been predetermined or influenced by improper motives. This report investigates credible claims regarding Justice Kpochi’s conduct in these cases, summarising the key issues, public reactions, and any patterns of questionable judicial behavior.

The 2024 Edo Governorship Tribunal Verdict

Case Overview: The Edo State Governorship election of 21 September 2024 saw Monday Okpebholo of the APC declared winner with 291,667 votes, ahead of Asue Ighodalo of the PDP (247,274 votes). Ighodalo and the PDP filed a petition challenging Okpebholo’s victory, alleging the election was invalid due to widespread non-compliance with electoral laws, irregularities, and over-voting in numerous polling units. Justice Kpochi chaired the three-member tribunal (sitting in Abuja) that heard the case.

Tribunal Findings and Judgment

On 2 April 2025, the tribunal delivered a unanimous judgment dismissing the PDP’s petition and upholding Okpebholo’s election. In the lead judgment, Justice Kpochi ruled that the petitioners “failed to prove their allegations of over-voting and electoral non-compliance” to the standard required. Key points from the tribunal’s findings include:

Lack of Witnesses: The tribunal noted the PDP called 19 witnesses, but none were polling unit agents or voters who directly witnessed the alleged fraud at the polling stations in question. Most were ward or local government collation agents offering second-hand (“hearsay”) testimony. Justice Kpochi held it fatal to the case that no polling station presiding officers or voters testified about the irregularities, effectively characterizing the evidence as insufficient.
“Document Dumping”: Over 1,000 documents (including INEC forms and data from the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, BVAS) were tendered by the PDP to demonstrate discrepancies. However, the tribunal criticized the petitioners for “dumping” documents without connecting them to witness testimony. The judges declined to personally sift through the voluminous exhibits, stating it was not the court’s duty to comb through documents that were not explicitly analyzed in witness evidence.
Over-voting Claims: The PDP identified 133 polling units where they said the number of votes cast exceeded accredited voters. They presented certified INEC polling unit results and BVAS records to back this claim. Justice Kpochi’s ruling acknowledged “credible evidence of non-compliance” in some areas—specifically citing failures to fill certain result form serial numbers and instances of over-voting. However, the majority decision held that the petitioners did not demonstrate these breaches were substantial enough to alter the outcome. The tribunal applied the legal test that non-compliance must be proven not just to exist, but to have affected the election result in a substantial manner. In the tribunal’s view, the documentary evidence and calculations presented were inconclusive—they did not clearly show that if the flawed votes were removed, Ighodalo would emerge winner.
Legal Precedents Cited: The judgment leaned on recent appellate decisions. It referenced the Supreme Court’s rulings in Oyetola vs. Adeleke (2023) and Atiku vs. INEC (2023), which underscore the principle that proven irregularities must substantially affect results to nullify an election. Using these precedents, the tribunal concluded the PDP had not met the “dual burden” of proving both the occurrence of infractions and their decisive impact on the final vote tally.

In sum, Justice Kpochi announced that “the petitioners have not discharged the dual burden to the satisfaction of the law… Accordingly, the petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.” The immediate effect was to affirm Governor Okpebholo’s mandate and reject all reliefs sought by the PDP.

Allegations of Ignored Evidence and Controversial Rulings

The Edo verdict sparked an outcry from the petitioners and some observers, who argue the tribunal sidestepped critical evidence and set an unreasonably high bar for proof:

Dismissal of Documented Over-voting: Critics note that the tribunal effectively ignored unchallenged documentary evidence of over-voting. Ogbeide Ifaluyi-Isibor, a public affairs analyst, questioned why Justice Kpochi insisted on live witnesses for over-voting when “the Electoral Act, Section 51(2), clearly states that in cases of over-voting, witness testimony is not required.” He pointed out that INEC did not dispute the documents showing more votes than accredited voters, and under the law documents alone can suffice to prove such claims. By demanding eyewitnesses from each affected polling unit (133 in total), the tribunal imposed an impractical burden, especially given the strict time limits on election petitions.
“Predetermined Judgment” Accusations: Some legal watchers and PDP officials went further, suggesting the outcome was pre-decided in favor of the incumbent. In interviews with ThisDay, figures reviewing the verdict “accused the three-man panel of working to produce a predetermined judgment,” noting that the judges appeared not to thoroughly examine the evidence tendered. They expressed shock that the tribunal’s reasoning was at odds with clear provisions of the Electoral Act and prior case law, describing the judgment as “a travesty” that effectively “turned the law on its head”. Dr. Tony Aziegbemi, Edo PDP chairman, insisted that the tribunal’s decision “with due respect to the judges involved, is a travesty”, arguing that the PDP had “sufficiently proved its case” but the panel chose to ignore the proof.
Reference to Minority Opinion (Leaked): Notably, a leaked version of the tribunal’s judgment circulated online about 48 hours before the official verdict. The unsigned document suggested the tribunal would split 2-1, with a dissenting judge ready to nullify Okpebholo’s win and declare Ighodalo as winner based on the evidence. According to the leaked “minority judgment” attributed to Justice A. A. Adewole, “the petitioner’s case was not rebutted” and a correct collation of results would show Ighodalo had the majority of lawful votes. This implied at least one tribunal member found the evidence of overvoting and irregularities compelling enough to overturn the election. Ultimately, however, no dissent was recorded in the final verdict—all three judges (Kpochi, Justice A.B. Yusuf, and Justice Adewole) signed on to the dismissal of the petition.

The leaked judgment raised suspicions that the tribunal’s unanimity may have been manufactured after the fact. On judgment day, Justice Kpochi himself took the unusual step of beginning the session by publicly confirming from each panel member that the decision was unanimous. This “ritual” was seen as an attempt to rebut the leak’s insinuation of a split. Both major parties traded blame over the leak—the APC accused PDP of circulating a fake unfavorable judgment “knowing they would lose,” while the PDP accused APC of floating the document “to gauge public reaction” in advance. The controversial leak and the tribunal’s response to it have fed into the narrative that something improper may have occurred behind the scenes, although no concrete evidence has emerged of tampering. As of this writing, the authenticity of the leaked document remains unconfirmed.

Public and Media Reactions in Edo

The Edo verdict immediately drew strong reactions from political stakeholders, media, and civil society:

PDP’s Rejection and Appeal: The PDP categorically rejected the tribunal’s decision. In an official statement, Edo PDP (through Chairman Tony Aziegbemi) maintained that its candidate actually won the majority of votes and that “we sufficiently proved our case before the tribunal.” The party expressed “complete disagreement” with the judges’ findings and vowed to challenge the verdict at the Court of Appeal. PDP leaders described the judgment as “a miscarriage of justice” and rallied supporters to remain calm but resolute in pursuing “the will of the people of Edo” through the higher courts.
Media and Analysts: Independent analysts echoed concerns. Columnist and rights advocate Chidi Anselm Odinkalu penned a scathing op-ed titled “Nigeria’s Fading Lights of Justice,” using the Edo tribunal as a case study. He highlighted how the advance leak of the judgment eroded public trust and noted this was not an isolated incident historically. Odinkalu observed that over the years “credible suspicions” of backdoor dealings in election cases have only grown, reflecting “a deep-seated deficit of credibility” in how judges handle political disputes. The Edo tribunal’s conduct, in his view, further dimmed the judiciary’s image. Local and national newspapers also reported “mixed reactions” to the verdict, with celebratory statements from the APC camp and outrage from PDP supporters and some civic groups.
Calls for Scrutiny: The unusual circumstances prompted calls for greater scrutiny of election tribunals. On social media and in press commentaries, some Nigerians questioned whether judicial officers might have been compromised. Allegations—though unproven—swirled that influential political figures could have influenced the judges’ unanimous turnaround, given the stark difference between the leaked minority opinion and the final judgment. While no concrete evidence of bribery or undue influence was presented in mainstream outlets, the cloud of suspicion remained. Even the Nigerian Bar Association was urged by some commentators to investigate the apparent leak and ensure that tribunal processes were not undermined by corruption.

In the end, the Edo case remains under appeal, and its full resolution will play out in the higher judiciary. But the tribunal phase under Justice Kpochi left behind serious questions. Many Edo observers felt that justice was not served at the tribunal level, an impression fueled by the perception of ignored evidence and possible behind-the-scenes manipulation.

Previous Verdicts: The Benue Tribunal Case (2023)

The March 18, 2023 Benue gubernatorial election was won by Rev. Fr. Hyacinth Alia of the APC, with about 473,933 votes, defeating Titus Uba of the PDP. Uba and the PDP did not primarily contest the vote counts; instead, their petition focused on allegations of non-qualification. They argued that:

The APC’s nomination process for Alia (governor-elect) and his deputy, Sam Ode, violated the law.
Sam Ode was accused of submitting a forged certificate and false information (on his INEC Form EC9) to secure his candidacy.
Because of these issues, the petitioners contended Alia and Ode were not validly nominated and should be disqualified, which would make the runners-up (PDP) the winners by default.

Notably, the PDP had filed a pre-election suit at the Federal High Court, Abuja, on the same forgery issue before the election; that case was decided against them, and they did not appeal it. Nonetheless, they raised the matter again as part of the post-election petition.

Tribunal Verdict in Benue and Controversy

On 23 September 2023, the Benue Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Makurdi delivered its judgment. The three-member panel (chaired by Justice Ibrahim Karaye) unanimously dismissed the PDP’s petition, thereby affirming Governor Alia’s election. The tribunal’s rationale was largely technical-jurisdictional:

Pre-Election Matters: The tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the core of PDP’s allegations, because challenges to a candidate’s qualifications and nomination process are pre-election issues that by law must be filed at a Federal High Court (and within a specified period). Only the Federal High Court has “exclusive jurisdiction” over such issues, and since the petitioners were essentially re-litigating a complaint about nomination and forgery that arose before the election, the tribunal could not lawfully adjudicate it.
Abuse of Court Process: The panel further pointed out that the petition was an abuse of process, given the petitioners had pursued the same forgery accusation in the earlier federal lawsuit which had been dismissed unchallenged. In other words, PDP had their day in court pre-election and lost; reviving the issue in the tribunal was procedurally improper since that earlier judgment stood unappealed.
Failure to Prove Forgery: Though the case was struck out on jurisdictional grounds, the tribunal briefly remarked on the merits as well. It held that the petitioners did not prove the alleged certificate forgery against Deputy Governor Ode. No definitive evidence was provided at the tribunal to establish that Ode’s documents were fake (likely because the issue wasn’t fully examined once deemed outside jurisdiction). Justice Karaye concluded that Alia and Ode were qualified to contest and that the petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge APC’s internal nomination since the PDP was not an APC member. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the entire case and upheld the INEC declaration of Alia as governor.

From a strictly legal perspective, many lawyers viewed the Benue judgment as straightforward application of election law—tribunals often refuse to delve into pre-election disputes. However, the PDP in Benue vehemently disagreed, perceiving the outcome as a denial of substantive justice:

PDP’s Reaction: The Benue PDP swiftly rejected the verdict. Through its spokesperson Bemgba Iortyom, the party argued that after reviewing the judgment with its lawyers, “it does not meet the requirements of substantive justice and is not in alignment with extant electoral laws, guidelines and regulations.” In other words, PDP felt the tribunal hidebound itself with technicalities instead of considering the gravity of the forgery allegation. The party announced it would appeal, maintaining faith that “though the walk to justice may be long, the goal of reclaiming the governorship mandate will surely be achieved in the end.” PDP officials lamented that evidence of wrongdoing (i.e. the alleged forged certificate) was left unexamined due to legal loopholes.
Allegations of Bias: While less publicized than Edo’s furor, there were undertones of suspicion in Benue as well. Some PDP members insinuated that the tribunal was protecting the ruling party’s victory at all costs, implying that throwing out the case on procedural grounds conveniently avoided scrutinizing potentially damning evidence. However, these insinuations were mostly confined to party statements and local media; no concrete proof of corruption (e.g. bribery of judges) surfaced. It was noted, though, that Justice Kpochi’s affiliation with the Benue judiciary and the fact that the outcome favored the APC added to PDP’s skepticism. (Justice Kpochi was not publicly singled out in this case since he was not the panel chair, but as a figure involved in political cases from Benue, his name was part of the discourse.)
Legal Community View: Many in the legal community saw the Benue tribunal’s decision as technically correct but unsatisfying. The focus on jurisdiction meant the serious claim of forgery was never resolved on merits. This led to commentary about the “justice versus technicality” dilemma in election cases. Some civil society voices argued that such strict adherence to procedure can result in “judicial miscarriage” if possibly fraudulent candidates remain in office unexamined. They did not accuse the judges of malfeasance per se, but criticized the election dispute resolution system that prioritizes form over substance.

Subsequent appeals in the Benue case eventually failed—the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court upheld the tribunal’s dismissal. But for the purpose of this report, the key point is that the PDP felt robbed of a fair hearing in Benue, just as it would later feel in Edo. This sets the stage for comparing the two tribunal outcomes under Justice Kpochi’s involvement.

Pattern of Alleged Judicial Misconduct and Conclusion

Examining both the Edo and Benue tribunal episodes, a pattern emerges in the accusations leveled against Justice Kpochi and his fellow panelists:

In both cases, the PDP – as the losing petitioner – contends that the tribunals did not truly dispense justice but rather found ways to justify the status quo. In Edo, this meant discounting evidence on technical grounds (no eyewitnesses for documents), while in Benue it meant avoiding evidence altogether (via a jurisdictional bar). The common theme is an alleged “bias” against the petitioners and a failure to honestly appraise the facts. PDP officials from both states have suggested that the tribunals’ rationale was contrived to achieve a predetermined result.
Both verdicts prompted the cry of “miscarriage of justice.” In Edo, this phrase was used widely in media reactions and PDP statements to describe how valid evidence was supposedly sidelined. In Benue, the PDP similarly implied the tribunal sacrificed justice for procedure. The frequency of these complaints across separate tribunals led by (or involving) Justice Kpochi has raised red flags.
There is an implicit accusation of corruption or external influence lurking behind many of these criticisms. While direct evidence is scarce, the circumstances have fueled speculation. The Edo leak incident, for example, led some to wonder if a draft judgment (including a pro-PDP dissent) was altered under pressure or inducement. The fact that Justice Kpochi felt compelled to stage a unanimity confirmation in open court shows an awareness of these suspicions. Moreover, Nigeria’s recent history provides context—revelations like Senator Adamu Bulkachuwa’s admission of influencing his wife (an Appeal Court president) for political allies have made the public highly sensitive to signs of judicial corruption. Thus, when tribunal outcomes appear one-sided or puzzling, many Nigerians are quick to assume foul play even if not proven.
Civil society and legal experts have underscored the damage such episodes do to public trust. The Edo tribunal verdict, coming on the heels of other controversial election judgments in Nigeria, has been cited as evidence that the judiciary’s credibility is waning. Chidi Anselm Odinkalu noted that allegations of leaks and predetermined outcomes now “enjoy high credulity with the public,” reflecting a belief that justice in political cases is often compromised. This perception is corrosive, feeding a cycle of mistrust: losing parties assume the worst of judges, and any irregularities (like the Edo leak) reinforce those beliefs.

In conclusion, Justice Wilfred Kpochi finds himself at the center of serious, albeit largely circumstantial, allegations of corruption and judicial misconduct related to these tribunal verdicts. In Edo State, he is accused of delivering a fraudulent judgment that ignored clear evidence and may have been coordinated in advance—accusations buttressed by the strange leaked ruling and unanimity charade. In the earlier Benue case, while his role was less prominent, the outcome still mirrored a pattern of decisions favoring the ruling party amid claims that material facts (like a forgery) were swept under the rug.

It must be stressed that no judge, including Justice Kpochi, has been formally found guilty of corruption in these matters at this time. The allegations remain claims by political actors and commentators based on perceived inconsistencies and circumstantial evidence. However, the consistency of complaints—that Justice Kpochi’s tribunals delivered one-sided verdicts dismissive of evidence—is notable. The tribunals’ own justifications (lack of witnesses in one, lack of jurisdiction in the other) have not convinced the losing parties or some observers, who suspect ulterior motives.

Going forward, these cases are being taken up on appeal (the Edo PDP has filed an appeal, and the Benue case went through appeals up to the Supreme Court). The appellate courts’ reviews may either validate the tribunals or correct any errors, but the reputation of the election petition process has arguably suffered in the interim. The saga of Justice Kpochi’s tribunal verdicts has ignited debate about the need for greater transparency and perhaps reform in how election cases are handled, to ensure that judgments are based on merit and evidence, free from leaks or prejudice.

As Nigerians await the final outcomes, the spotlight remains on Justice Kpochi and his colleagues. Whether through investigative journalism or judicial inquiry, many are calling for a closer look at these proceedings to either dispel the allegations of corruption or hold any erring arbiters accountable. In the words of the Edo PDP, it is a quest to ensure “the ultimate superiority of right over wrong” in Nigeria’s electoral justice system—a quest that these controversial verdicts have only made more urgent.