The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Tribunal

  • Three more parties dispute Buhari’s victory

    The number of political parties, challenging the outcome of the last presidential election has risen to four, with three more depositing their petitions before the Presidential Election Tribunal in Abuja.

    Beside the one filed on March 18 this year by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the election, Atiku Abubakar, three other parties have also filed.

    There is the one filed by Hope Democratic Party (HDP) and Ambrose Owuru, who claimed to be the party’s presidential candidate. The petition, marked: CA/PEPC/001/2019 was filedonMarch7 this year, before that of the PDP and Atiku, marked: CA/PEPC/002/2019.

    The third, marked: CA/PEPC/003/2019was filed by the Coalition for Change (C4C) and Geff Ojinika, who claimed to be the party’s presidential candidate.

    The core contention of the authors of the third petition is that the election, held on February 23 this year, “was vitiated by substantial non-compliance with mandatory statutory provisions, which irregularity substantially affected the election, such that the 1st respondent (Buhari) was not entitled to be returned as the winner of the presidential election.”

    The fourth petition, marked: CA/PEPC/004/2019, was filed on March 19 this year by the People’s Democratic Movement (PDM) and Pastor Aminchi Habu, listed as the party’s presidential candidate.

    At a pre-hearing session conducted on Wednesday, the tribunal acceded to the request by the People’s Democratic Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the last presidential election, Atiku Abubakar for permission to serve their petition of President Muhammadu Buhari through his party, All Progressives Congress (APC).

    Read Also: Buhari, APC chiefs endorse Lawan for Senate President

    PDP and Atiku, who, by their petition, are challenging Buhari’s victory at the election, applied for leave to effect service of the petition on the President on the grounds that they were having difficulty serving him.

    The three-man tribunal, after listening to Chris Uche (SAN), who moved the ex-parte filed by the PDP and Atiku, granted them permission to serve through substituted means.

    Justice Abdul Aboki, who led the panel, ordered that Buhari, who is listed as the second respondent to the petition, be served through any senior official or an officer of the APC at the party’s secretariat in Abuja.

    Justice Aboki, in his lead ruling, said “it is in the interest of justice” to grant the prayers in the petitioners’ motion.rant the prayers in the petitioners’ motion.

  • Onnoghen: No allegations of $3m, 55 houses before tribunal – Prosecutor

    Mr. Aliyu Umar (SAN), the lead prosecutor in the trial of the suspended Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, said yesterday that the Federal Government did not table allegations of undeclared $3million against Onnoghen before the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

    He also said all the six charges against Onnoghen made no references to 55 houses.

    Government, he said, only accused Onnoghen of breaching the Code of Conduct Act with his failure to declare and disclose five Standard Chartered Bank’s Statement of Accounts in his Asset Declaration Form.

    He said the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) wrote a separate petition to the National Judicial Council (NJC) on some accounts and issues on inflows into Onnoghen’s accounts.

    The Nation gathered yesterday that the EFCC had quizzed the driver to the CJN, Mr. Emmanuel Essien as part of its ongoing probe.

    Essien was released after his interrogation by the operatives of the anti-graft commission.

    Umar, who spoke exclusively with our correspondent, said: “There is a lot of falsehood in the public space which I need to correct. The government did not file complaints bordering on $3million and 55 houses against Onnoghen before the Code of Conduct Tribunal.

    “I am aware that the EFCC wrote a separate petition to the NJC on some alleged infractions, including the accumulated $3million in Onnoghen’s accounts but those allegations are not before the CCT. The NJC is handling this matter separately.

    “There is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public by using the proceedings at the tribunal to address the petition before the NJC. They are even alleging that the prosecution could not prove its case. There was a distortion of the proceedings of the tribunal to fit a propaganda focus.

    “The case before the tribunal is just about failure to declare five accounts and alleged violation of the Code of Conduct Act. The same figures being twisted in the public space were the exhibits presented to the tribunal by the prosecution to prove its case against Onnoghen.

    “The Exhibits the government presented to the tribunal were as follows:

    • CCB4o, CCB4p, CCB4q for Onnoghen’s Euro Account No. 93001062686 with NUBAN No. 5001062686 with a balance of $10, 187.18(USD) as at 11th January 2019
    • CCB4r, CCB4s, CCB4t and CCB4u for Onnoghen’s Pound Sterling Account No. 285001062679 with NUBAN No. 5001062679 with a balance of £13, 730.70 as at 11th January 2019
    • CCB4v, CCB4w, CCB4x, CCB4y and CCB4z, CCB4za, CCB4zb, CCB4zc, CCB4zd, CCB4ze, CCB4zf for Onnoghen’s Dollar Account No. 0001062650 with a balance of $63, 832.99 USD as at 11th January 2019.
    • CCB4zg, CCBzh, CCB4zi, CCB4zj and CCB4zk for Onnoghen’s Naira NUBAN Account No. 0001062667 with a balance of N2, 556, 019. 25 as at 11th January 2019.
    • CCB4zl, CCB4zm, CCB4zn, CCB4zo and CCB4zp and CCB4zq, for Onnoghen’s Nigerian Naira NUBAN Account No. 5000162693 with a balance of N12, 852, 580.52 as at 11th January 2019.

    “Any Nigerian is free to apply for a copy of the charges against Onnoghen at the CCT and he or she will know that they were explicit.

    Quoting from “Further affidavit and Better Affidavit before the tribunal, Umar said: “We submit that there are two important reasons to be observed from this case against the defendant.

    “These reasons are as follows:  (1) The complainant no doubt is the body responsible for code of conducts of the public servants in Nigeria. (2) That the depositions and exhibits attached to the further affidavit glaringly show that the allegations of breach of code of conduct against the defendant are strong, cogent and compelling.

    “We submit that by the strength of the allegations of the breach of Code of Conduct Act, the defendant was alleged to have failed to declare and  disclose his five Standard Chartered Bank Statement of Accounts in his Asset Declaration Form of Public Officer Exhibit CCB 3 and Exhibit CCB5 deposed to in paragraphs 5-11 of the Further Affidavit.”

    Umar dismissed allegations that the prosecution chickened out by closing its case when it had no fact.

    He added: “The prosecution also did not close its case abruptly as being insinuated by some commentators. We listed six witnesses including the petitioner, a staff of Standard Chartered Bank and four from the Code of Conduct Bureau.

    “Two staff of the Code of Conduct Bureau testified as PW 1 and PW2 and a staff of the Standard Chartered Bank testified for the prosecution. Those who came for the Code of Conduct Bureau were investigators and at a point during cross-examination, it was the defence which asked one of them that their testimony was likely to be the same.”

    Meanwhile, the EFCC has interrogated a driver of the CJN, Mr. Emmanuel Essien.

    A source said: “As part of our investigation, we interrogated Essien and released him afterwards. We will still need to interact further with him,” a top source added.

    The Coalition of United Political Parties (CUPP) alleged yesterday  that Essien was abducted.

    The coalition, in a statement by its spokesman, Ikenga Imo Ugochinyere, also condemned the interrogation of Essien.

    It said: “The CUPP sees this new offensive against Onnoghen as one too many.

    “We note that the government, having seen from yesterday’s proceedings at the Code of Conduct Tribunal that the trump up charges filed against him may not fly, has resorted to hunting for evidence to further indict him.

    “We reiterate our position that President Muhammadu Buhari is desperate to see Onnoghen resign without any justifiable reasons.”

     

  • APC defiant as tribunal voids Oyetola’s election

    The Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal yesterday voided the election of Adegboyega Oyetola of the All Progressives Party (APC) as governor of Osun State.

    In a two-to-one split decision by a three-man panel, the tribunal declared Senator Ademola Adeleke of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) winner of the election and ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue him with a certificate of return.

    Justice Peter Obiora, who read the majority judgment on the petition by Adeleke and the PDP, held that the petitioners were able to prove their allegations of irregularities and substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act in the conduct of the governorship election in Osun State on September 22 and 27, 2018.

    Justices Obiora and Anyinla Gbolagunte, in the majority judgment, held that the petitioners were able to prove irregularities in the results declared by INEC in relation to 17 polling units that cut across about five local government areas.

    The tribunal Chairman, Justice Ibrahim Sirajo, however, disagreed with the two other judges and gave a minority judgment in which he dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petitioners failed to prove their case.

    Justice Obiora held in the majority judgment that the tribunal was left with no option but to believe that INEC altered results sheets from the 17 polling units after elections had been counted and party agents signed.

    He said the similarity in the alteration in the copies of the result sheets, which were not reflected in the pink copies issued to party agents, and the failure of INEC official to fill the first eight columns of the result sheets, betrayed a fraudulent intention on the party of INEC.

    Justice Obiora proceeded to cancel the results in the 17 polling units affected on the grounds that the petitioners did not only to prove that the non-compliance was substantial, but also that the non-compliance substantially affected the outcome of the election.

    The judge noted that in the 17 polling units, which was cancelled, the APC scored 2029 votes, while the PDP scored 1249 votes.

    Justice Obiora, also in the majority decision, voided the rerun election held on September 27, 2018.

    He held that the state returning officer, who announced the cancellation of election results in the seven polling units cutting across four local governments in which the rerun elections were held, acted outside his/her powers.

    Justice Obiora said a state returning officer has no power under any law to cancel an election and order a rerun.

    He then proceeded to deduct the results cancelled in the majority judgment from the total scores of both the APC and PDP both before and after the rerun election

    Justice Obiora said: “By our earlier calculation, the votes affected by non-compliance are: APC-2,029; PDP-1,246, which we hereby nullify.

    “If the above votes are deducted from the scores of the parties as at September 22, 2018 election, the stand of the parties will be as follows:

    “APC: 254,345 votes, minus 2,029 votes equals 252,315 votes. PDP: 264,698 votes, minus 1,246 votes, equals 253,452 votes.

    “If per chance, the rerun election is found to be valid, and the final scores of the parties declared after the rerun election of September 27, 2018 is allowed to stand, then deducting the votes that were found to be afflicted by non-compliance shall stand the parties in the following scores:

    “APC: 255,505 votes, minus 202,029 votes, equals 253,476 votes. PDP: 255,023 votes, minus the afflicted votes of non-compliance which is 1,246, will give us 253,777 votes.

    “In both situations, it is obvious that the petitioners won the election into the office of the Governor of Osun State.”

    Justice Obiora awarded N200,000 cost against the APC and Oyetola, in favour of the petitioners.

    Sirajo, in minority judgment, said the rerun election of 27th September 2018 was properly held.

    He noted that the petitioners failed to prove that election results were actually conducted in the seven polling units in which the rerun elections were held and that it was the state returning officer that cancelled the result.

    Sirajo also faulted the majority judgment position that the non-recording of accreditation and voting record in the result sheet substantially affected the outcome of the election.

    He held that under Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act, the tribunal lacked the powers to have deducted the cancelled votes and declare the petitioners winners.

    Justice Sirajo said: “It is the law that where there is no accreditation, the resultant votes are unlawful votes as the election itself is null and void.”

    “The legal implication of non-accreditation cannot be applied to the 23 polling units under consideration, in view of the abundant evidence of accreditation in all the 23 poling units through the affirmative evidence of the petitioner witnesses.

    “The non-filing of information in some portion of the result sheets were not sufficient to have prompted the tribunal to cancel the election in the 17 of the 23 polling units under review.

    “In this petition, it is not in dispute that about 90 per cent of the process involved in the conduct of election in a polling unit have been fully complied with. Voters were duly accredited before they cast their votes.

    “At the conclusion of voting, ballot papers were sorted out and counted. The presiding officers announced the votes scored by the parties, entered the figures in the result sheets and signed.

    “The parties’ agents counter-signed the result sheets and collected copies. The only non-compliance is that the collation officer did not record the column for accreditation and ballot accounting. There is no complaint that the poling units were afflicted by any other irregularities

    “I am satisfied that there is non-compliance by way of omission to record the columns accreditation and ballot accounting in the 23 polling units out of the total 3010 polling units. What then is the degree of non-compliance? Has it attained the degree of substantial non-compliance?

    “I hold that the omission to record the column of accreditation and ballot accounting in the result sheet does not amount to substantial non-compliance

    “Merely chorusing that the certified true copies of the result sheets were doctored, altered or mutilated, as did by the petitioners’ witnesses before the tribunal does not amount to demonstration of how the alleged non-compliance substantially affected the results of the election.

    “The net result of my analysis above is that the petitioners have failed to show how the non-compliance, with respect to the recording of the columns for accreditation and ballot accounting in 23 polling units substantially affected the results of the election in those polling units as to lead to their cancellation.

    “In the final analysis, I hold that this specie of non-compliance is not substantial, and even if it is substantial, it has not been proved that it substantially affected the result of the Osun State Governor’s election held on the 22nd September 2018 and 27th September 2018.

    “Let me conclude by saying that even if this specie of non-compliance is found to be substantial, as to substantially affect the results of the election, the tribunal does not have the power to subtract the votes affected by the non-compliance from the scores of the candidates and proceed to declare the candidate with the highest number of votes as the winner of the election. The tribunal does not have that power.

    “This my remark is informed by the provision of Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), which gives the tribunal the power to only order a fresh or rerun election where non-compliance is established.

    “By no stretch of imagination or ingenuity of reasoning can a tribunal import the provision of section 140(3) of the Electoral Act into Section 140(2) of the same Act, where the proved electoral malfeasance is substantial non-compliance.

    “Where the allegation of non-compliance is proved, the tribunal is only permitted to nullify the election and order a supplementary election in order not to disenfranchise voters in the affected polling units in line with the principle of the Act.

    “I only need to add that the order for a supplementary election can only be made where it is expressly asked for.”

    He proceeded to dismiss the petition and awarded cost of N200,000 each in favour of the APC and Oyetola, against the petitioners.

  • Tribunal fixes judgment in Osun governorship tussle for Friday

    THE  Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal sitting in Apo, Abuja, has scheduled this Friday for judgment in the petition by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the September 2018 governorship election, Senator Ademola Adeleke.

    PDP and Adeleke are, by their petition, challenging the declaration of Adegboyega Oyetola of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    The date for the judgment was communicated to parties via hearing notices sent to them yesterday to that effect by the tribunal’s secretariat, a copy of which The Nation sighted in Abuja.

    The tribunal chairman, Justice Ibrahim Sirajo, had, on March 7, this year, after parties adopted their final written addresses, announced that judgment in the case would be reserved till a later date.

    Justice  Sirajo said the parties would be informed, at least, 48 hours before the date of delivery of the judgment.

    Wole Olanipekun (SAN) appeared for Oyetola; Akin Olujinmi (SAN) represented  the APC and Lasco Pwahomdi appeared for INEC on March 7. The petitioners’ legal team was led by Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN).

    In adopting their separate final addresses, Olanipekun, Olujinmi and Pwahomdi urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the petitioners failed to prove their case.

    On his part, Ikpeazu urged the tribunal to uphold the petition and grant all the reliefs prayed by the petitioners.

    Olanipekun, while adopting his final address, noted that the petition was full of confusing claims and betrayed the petitioners’ lack of understanding of the nation’s election petition jurisprudence.

    In identifying what he described as the many contradictions in the petition, Olanipekun noted that “in pages 37, 38 and 39, the petitioners are presenting a different case entirely from their pleadings”.

    “The petition is a bedlam of confusion,” he said.

    Olanipekun noted that the petitioners have admitted breaching the electoral law by seeking that some of their votes be quashed.

    He added: “They are also asking the tribunal to quash some of their votes. A self-confessed petitioner, who has in writing, admitted infringing the law, cannot be asking to be returned as a winner of the election.

    “In their relief seven, they want the court to nullify the certificate of return, but they failed to present the certificate before the tribunal. Where is that certificate? Can the tribunal nullify what is not before it?

    “They said the certificate of return is with us. If it is with us, should they not have given us a notice to produce it? They did not give us notice to produce,” Olanipekun said.

    He relied on a decision of the Court of Appeal in the motion filed by the PDP presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar and urged the tribunal to decline the petitioners’ prayer to void the guideline issued by INEC for the conduct of the election.

    In similar argument, Olujinmi faulted the evidence given by 63 polling agents called as witnesses by the petitioners.

    He noted that though the petitioners called 80 witnesses in all, 63, who were polling unit agents gave common evidence by saying similar things and using almost exactly the same words.

    Olujinmi also argued the evidence by the petitions’ 74th witness, who was the state polling agent, amounted to hearsay evidence because he admitted getting the information from the documents submitted to him.

    He urged the tribunal to ignore the various documents tendered by the petitioners, which he said they merely dumped on the tribunal without demonstrating their link to the case.

    Olujinmi also noted contradictions in the case of the petitioners and the evidence they led.

    Read also: Ogun APC warns banks over Amosun’s alleged loan requests

    He noted that while the petitioners want the tribunal to declare them winner of the first part of the election held on September 22, 2018 and void the supplementary election held on September 27, 2018, their 74th witness said they have no cause of action as it relates to the election of September 22, 2018.

    Ikpeazu, in his counter argument, urged the tribunal to disregard the issues raised by the respondents’ lawyers.

    He faulted the written addresses by the second and third respondents, which he argued, were not filed as required by law.

    Ikpeazu said there was no confusion as it relates to the case of the petitioners. He said the respondents’ claim of existence of confusion betrayed their misunderstanding of the case.

     

     

     

  • Breaking: Tribunal to rule on Buhari, APC requests to inspect election materials

    The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) is about to deliver ruling on two motions by the All Progressives Congress (APC) and its candidate in the last presidential election, Muhammadu Buhari.

    APC and Buhari are asking the tribunal to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to allow them access to materials used for the election, inspect same and obtain certified true copies of the materials.

    The tribunal took arguments from lawyers to APC and Buhari and rose to write its ruling.

    Details shortly….

  • Breaking: Tribunal rejects Atiku’s prayer for forensic analysis of election materials

    The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal has rejected the request by candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar and his party to be allowed to conduct forensic scanning and analysis of materials used for the February 23 presidential election.

    The tribunal said such request was beyond the scope of the provisions of Section 151(1) & (2) of the Electoral Act (as amended).

    In a unanimous ruling on an ex-parte application by Atiku and PDP, a three-man panel of the tribunal granted them the permission to inspect the materials and obtain certified true copies (CTC) of the materials.

    Read Also: Tribunal opens hearing in Atiku’s motion to inspect election materials

    In the lead ruling read by the leader or the panel, Justice Abdul Aboki, said the request by Atiku and PDP to call experts to engae in forensic anylysis and scaning of INEC materials was outside the scope of the meaning of inspection under Section 151 of the Electoral Act.

    Details shortly…

  • Atiku faces uphill task at tribunal, says Agbakoba

    National Intervention Movement Co-chairman, Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), on Wednesday said Alhaji Atiku Abubakar faces an uphill battle to overturn Presidential Muhammadu Buhari’s victory at the Election Petition Tribunal.

    According to him, it has to be proven that there were electoral irregularities and that they affected the election results.

    Agbakoba, a Life Bencher who chairs the Peoples Trust Party (PTP) and the “third force political parties”, said he was misquoted in his earlier statement to say that Atiku would lose at the Tribunal.

    “That is far from the truth. I meant the former Vice President will face an uphill task, given the circumstances of challenging the election results.

    “My initial decision to charge the former Vice President not to go to court is based on the fact that President Buhari has subverted the Supreme Court by the removal of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Walter Onnoghen, and the appointment of the Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria.

    “My perception is that we need to resolve the status of the Supreme Court. I wonder what is taking the National Judicial Council so long.

    “I am also worried about the historical precedent, as no petition on presidential election result has ever succeeded.

    “As one of Nigeria’s experienced election petition lawyers, I know that the burden of proof to succeed in an election petition is unfairly huge.

    “We first have to prove that there are electoral irregularities and in my view, once you prove this, you should succeed.

    “Unfortunately, even if you prove electoral irregularities you will have to show how that affected the results of the election.

    “Remember that the gap between former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar and President Buhari is about four million votes,” Agbakoba said.

    The former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President believes the presidential election results were “manifestly riddled” with electoral irregularities.

    Read Also: Buhari’ll decide senate presidency – Omo-Agege

    He, however, emphasised that Atiku is constitutionally entitled to approach the tribunal.

    “My personal advice has become irrelevant. I fully support and wish former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar every success,” Agbakoba.

    In the earlier statement urging Atiku not to challenge Buhari’s victory, Agbakoba said: “I understand the PDP is aggrieved about the outcome of the election and alleged massive irregularities. But, I urge former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar not to approach the Election Petition Tribunal.

    “He might have moved backwards by his loss but he should not lose sight of the legacy and greatness that lies in front of him. He is in a strong position to take up the mantle of a statesman.

    “He can build a new Nigeria movement from the motley of small parties, third force actors, change actors and millions who are desperate for a strong, united Nigeria.”

  • Ekiti governorship election tribunal fixes judgment for tomorrow

    The Ekiti State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja will on Monday deliver judgment in the petition by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and one other.

    The PDP and its candidate in the last governorship election in Ekiti State, Kolapo Olusola are, by their petition, challenging the decision by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to declare the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Kayode Fayemi, winner of the election.

    The Nation learnt on yesterday that parties to the petition, marked: EPT/EKS/GOV/01/18. – PDP, Olusola, INEC, APC and Fayemi, have been informed about the date of judgment via notices of hearing, issued by the tribunal’s Registry. The tribunal, led by Justice Suleiman Belgore had, on January 9 this year, adjourned indefinitely, but told parties they would be informed 48 hours before the day to be set for the delivery of the judgment.

    Justice Belgore announced the adjournment after parties adopted their final written addresses and prayed the tribunal to grant their prayers. The tribunal Chairman praised the conduct of lawyers and parties in the case. He particularly noted that the senior lawyers were professional and mature in their conduct. Charles Edosomwan (SAN), Akin Olujinmi (SAN) and Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) adopted the final addresses of INEC, APC and Fayemi, while Yusuf Ali (SAN) adopted the petitioners’ address.

    Edosomwan, Olujinmi and Fagbemi urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition by the PDP and Olusola.

  • Osun governorship dispute: Tribunal directs PDP, Adeleke to open case Monday

    The Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal has directed the petitioners – the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the last governorship election in the state, Senator Ademola Adeleke – to open their case on Monday by calling witnesses.

    Tribunal Chairman, Justice Ibrahim Sirajo, gave the directive, following the prayer by the petitioners’ lawyer, Paul Ananaba (SAN), to allow the petitioners some time to prepare their witnesses and bring them from Osun State.

    Ananaba made the request for an adjournment till Monday after the tribunal ruled yesterday on two applications by the second and third respondents.

    The PDP and Adeleke are, by their petition, challenging the outcome of the election.

    They are querying the victory of the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Isiaka Oyetola, in the election.

    Respondents to the petition are: the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), APC and Oyetola (first, second and third respondents).

    Many people, including lawyers to the respondents who expected the petitioners to be eager to prove their case, expressed surprise at the request by Ananaba.

    Respondents’ lawyers: Adesina Agbede (for the first), Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN) for the second, and Abiodun Layonu (SAN) for the third, were unhappy that Ananaba sought the postponement of hearing till Monday.

    They applied for cost to, among others, compensate for the wasted time.

    But, due to tribunal chairman’s intervention, to the effect that the case was adjourned till Thursday for the hearing of the applications by the second and third respondents, the respondents’ lawyers changed their minds and conceded to an adjournment.

    At the commencement of proceedings around 10am on Thursday, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who led Owonikoko for the second respondent, and Akin Olujinmi (SAN), who led Layonu for the third respondent, moved their applications, in which they prayed the tribunal to, among others, decline jurisdiction over the petition and dismiss it.

    Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) led the petitioners’ legal team, which included Ananaba.

    He also adopted the petitioners’ counter-argument.

    The tribunal reconvened at noon and dismissed the applications by Olanipekun and Olujinmi on the grounds that the Fourth Alteration to the Constitution, as reflected in Section 285(8), precludes an election tribunal from dismissing a petition without hearing it.

    Justice Sirajo said the Fourth Alteration had altered the position of the law that existed when an election tribunal, some years ago, dismissed a petition by Jimi Agabje (now PDP’s governorship candidate in Lagos State) without hearing it.

    The tribunal said under Section 285(8) of the Constitution, it was empowered to reserve ruling on all preliminary applications, including those challenging its jurisdiction, and deliver ruling at the point of judgment.

    Justice Sirajo said the tribunal would stick to its earlier decision to reserve ruling on two applications argued by the respondents, which touched on the tribunal’s jurisdiction and the competence of the petition.

    Adeleke, who had witnessed the proceedings till the ruling was delivered, did not return when the tribunal returned from its noon short break.

    Olanipekun, Olujinmi and Ikpeazu also did not witness the afternoon proceedings.

    At the commencement of proceedings after the one hour break, Justice Sirajo asked if the petitioners were ready to open their case. Ananaba, who took Ikpeazu’s place, said the petitioners needed time to get their witnesses.

    He sought an adjournment to enable the petitioners bring their witnesses from Osun State.

    Justice Sirajo granted Ananaba’s request and adjourned till Monday for the petitioners to open their case.

     

  • INEC witness to tribunal: Ekiti poll free, fair

    A Deputy Director General of the John Kayode Fayemi Campaign Organisation, Mr Aduwon Rufus Sunday, yesterday told the Ekiti Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal sitting at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Apo, Abuja, the nation’s capital, that the July 14 poll was free, fair and credible by all standards.

    Sunday averred that contrary to the allegations of bias, violence, vote-buying and general malpractices by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Prof Olusola Kolapo, who are the petitioners, the election was devoid of rancour and violence.

    Led in evidence by Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), counsel to Governor John Kayode Fayemi, the witness informed the tribunal, headed by Justice Suleiman Belgore, that officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) were not biased against any party.

    The witness maintained that it would be a daydream for anybody or group to say that the election was not free, fair, credible and acceptable.

    Sunday, who claimed to be in the situation room established by the campaign organisation to monitor the election, told the tribunal that he never got any report of violence, vote-buying and malpractice.

    The witness said all agents of political parties who participated in the election signed the result sheets.

    He said: “It is not true that INEC favoured John Kayode Fayemi in the election. The allegation of vote-buying is also not true. In fact, the election was among the best conducted by INEC.”

    Under cross-examination by Chief Roland Otaru (SAN), counsel to the petitioners, the witness, who tendered the judgment of FCT High Court delivered by Justice Othman Musa, said he was not a member of the Action People’s Party (APP), which instituted the case that sought to disqualify Governor Fayemi from contesting the July 14 election but was dismissed by the court.

    The witness admitted that his disposition on oath was based on the reports he obtained from other All Progressives Congress (APC) agents during the election.

    The PDP and Prof Kolapo filed the petition, praying the tribunal to declare them as winners of the election on the ground that they scored majority of the lawful votes.

    They alleged that the victory of Governor Fayemi was as the result of vote-buying, widespread rigging, malpractices.

    According to them, INEC officials favoured the governor during the election.

    Also, Fayemi, who was present at yesterday’s proceeding, told reporters that he was confident the tribunal will do justice to all issues raised by the petitioners.

    His lawyer, Fagbemi, expressed optimism that the tribunal would complete hearing of the petition within the time allowed by law due to the steady progress being made by the tribunal and cooperation of counsel to parties.