Anxiety grips politicians in Oyo State as the Governorship Election Tribunal gears up to deliver its verdict on the petition filed by the Accord Party governorship flag bearer in the last general elections, former Governor Rasheed Ladoja, against the victory of Governor Abiola Ajimobi of the All Progressives Congress (APC). In this report, BISI OLADELE examines the case and the expectations of the two sides.
AFTER six months of legal fireworks, the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal in Oyo State will today deliver its judgment on the petition filed by the Accord Party flag bearer, Senator Rashidi Ladoja, challenging the election of Governor Abiola Ajimobi of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Expectations are high in the camps of the two leading parties, the APC and the Accord.
Since after the April 11 governorship election, the political scene in the state has been dull; with the two leading figures slugging it out at the tribunal.
After eight months of strenuous political campaigns across the state, Ladoja and his supporters were disappointed with the outcome of the April 11 election, which placed the Accord Party candidate in the second position; behind Ajimobi, who was declared winner of the contest by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). But, as the tribunal delivers its verdict today, Ajimobi and his supporters are a bit optimistic that the judgment would swing in their favour.
According the result declared by INEC, Ajimobi polled 327, 310 votes to beat Ladoja, who scored 254, 520 votes. The candidate of Labour Party (LP), Adebayo Alao-Akala, trailed behind in the third position with 184, 111 votes, while the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) flag bearer, Sen. Teslim Folarin, was placed fourth with 79, 019 votes. Seyi Makinde of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) polled 54, 740 votes.
Among other things, Ladoja prayed the tribunal to declare him the winner of the election, saying he polled the highest number of votes in the election. He also prayed the tribunal to declare that Ajimobi’s election were tainted by “acts which clearly violate and breach various provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended including but not limited to rigging and manipulation of election result, unprecedented acts of violence, thuggery, deliberate refusal to use card reader and allocation of votes where election did not hold. “
The Accord Party flag bearer is also seeking the cancellation of the election in 10 local governments. The councils are Atiba, Atisbo, Iseyin, Iwajowa, Kajola, Itesiwaju, Oriire, Ogbomoso North, Ogbomoso South and Surulere. They are also seeking the cancellation of the same in some wards in 11 other local governments.
Ladoja is asking the tribunal to declare him winner of the election, because he secured the highest number of votes, but was marginalized through the irregularities in the above local governments and wards.
Alternatively, the Accord candidate is seeking for a fresh election in the entire state in accordance with the Electoral Act. He is being represented by Chief Richard Ogunwole (SAN).
He joined the APC, INEC and the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC), Amb. Rufus Akeju, as respondents in the matter.
Ladoja based his prayers on the grounds that Ajimobi’s election is invalid “by reason of corrupt practices and or non-compliance with the provision of Electoral Act 2010 as amended.” He posited, in the second ground that Ajimobi “was not duly elected by majority or highest number of lawful votes cast at the election.”
The Accord candidate tendered 200 exhibits and invited 29 witnesses to buttress his case.
But, Ajimobi and his camp are not folding their arms, wishing that Ladoja will fail in his bid to invalidate the election. His lead counsel Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) has been working hard to puncture Ladoja’s claims.
He called six witnesses. Nevertheless, APC and INEC’s counsels, Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN) and Yusuf Ali (SAN) respectively did not invite any witness.
According to Olanipekun, the petition has no precedent on the point of law. The erudite lawyer pointed out that the petitioner failed to ask for certain relieves which he should have sought.
Olanipekun also faulted the petition for challenging the election in places where the Labour Party won. He argued that the petitioner failed to substantiate the case of rigging and violence and urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition. He posited that such petitions be discouraged from being entertained, because it lacked substance.
While adopting his own address, Akeredolu (SAN) submitted that the petition was vague or nebulous in nature. He also posited that it is absurd that the Accord flag bearer is challenging results in local government areas where the Labour Party (LP) won, but that it did not deed it necessary to join the LP in the petition.
The lawyer further submitted that there was no linkage of documents with the petition and that petitioners abandoned their pleading such as ballot box stuffing and rigging. He added that all witnesses failed to establish the claims.
Akeredolu added that the star witness confirmed that he didn’t make use of voters’ register and form EC8A and that this makes his testimony null and void. He said the Accord Party’s evidences had been destroyed while cross-examining the witnesses.
Ali (SAN) urged the tribunal to strike out or dismiss the petition, because it lacks merit. He argued that the petitioner cannot use sentiment or morality, but rather it should be based on facts.
He submitted: “When petitioner fails to establish his case the onus does not fall on respondent to call witness.”
Ali further argued that the mere fact that the petitioner brought election materials to the court shows that there was election. The INEC counsel posited that any party that brings material to the court must be able to link them to his case.
He also pointed out that admission of star witness in the person of a farmer, rather than a professional, punctured the qualification of the said witness to give acceptable evidence. He said the case should be dismissed for lacking in substance.
But the petitioners’ counsel, Ogunwole (SAN), argued that address of counsel could not be substituted for good delivery but facts.
He described submissions raised by respondents as baseless, arguing that it was not necessary to join the LP in the petition and stressed that the respondents failed to support their claims.
During the proper hearing, the tribunal ruled against an application by the petitioner to bring in a ballot paper/forensic expert. It ruled that the application was filed without first seeking the leave of court since it was to be heard after pre-trial.
The petitioners appealed the ruling, but the appellate tribunal upheld the ruling of the lower tribunal.
Now that the stage is set for the judgment, members of the APC are hopeful of victory just as Accord is also hopeful.
The State Chairman of the APC, Chief Akin Oke, said going by the arguments and the entire hearing of the petition, the party is not expecting anything less than victory. The APC chieftain said he attended all the hearing sessions and that it was very clear that the petitioner could not prove his claims.
He said the petitioner could not fault INEC result and materials, meaning that the election was credible.
He said: “Going by the entire hearing, we expect that the APC will coast home with victory on Tuesday.”
The Director-General of the Rashidi Ladoja Campaign Organization, Hon, Adeolu Adeleke, said: “The expectation of Accord as a party is the declaration of Sen. Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja as the duly-elected governor in the April 11, 2015 election. More importantly, our own grounds are almost the same with the grounds of the APC in Rivers State, which is largely on the issue of Card Readers and incidence form. The only difference is while the Rivers State Chapter requested for cancellation of the poll, we requested declaration of Senator Ladoja as governor.”
Today’s judgment will mark another important milestone in the history of politics in Oyo State.
