The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Tribunal

  • Tribunal declares Minister House of Reps member

    Tribunal declares Minister House of Reps member

    The Election Petition Tribunal Sitting in Umuahia has declared Hon. Nkeiruka Onyejeocha winner of the February 25 National Assembly election in Isukwuato/Umunneochi Federal Constituency.

    The panel while delivering Judgement stated after recomputing the votes cast polling unit by polling unit, it was found out Hon Onyejiocha of the All Progressives Congress (APC) scored 11,936 while Amobi Ogah of Labour Party scored 9,738.

    Read Also: Reps committee summons two ministers, AGF, HCSOF over failed mass transit scheme

    The tribunal ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to withdraw the certificate of return issued to Ogah and reissue same to the petitioner, Hon. Nkeiruka Onyejeocha.

    Speaking to journalists after the judgement, the counsel to the petitioner Prof Olatoke expressed confidence in the judiciary stating that the Tribunal granted them all the reliefs and restored the mandate freely given by the good people of Isukwuato/Umunneochi to Hon Onyejeocha.

    But Ogah responding to a message by The Nation: said: “It will be revised at the appeal court”.

  • Tribunal affirms Alli as Oyo South Senator

    Tribunal affirms Alli as Oyo South Senator

    The National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal, sitting in Ibadan, has upheld the election of Senator Sharafadeen Alli of All Progressives Congress (APC) as declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    The panel dismissed the petition filed by the candidate of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Chief Joseph Tegbe, who challenged the February 25, 2023 victory of Alli, at the tribunal.

    The tribunal dismissed Tegbe’s petition and ordered him to pay N500,000 each to the three respondents.

    This is coming two days after the same panel dismissed the petition of the New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) and its Oyo South Senatorial Candidate, Funmilola Gbogbolomo against Alli on the grounds that the petition was incompetent. 

    Alli in the election held in over 2,000 polling units across the nine local government areas of Oyo South scored 111,513 votes against Tegbe’s 92,481 votes.

    In the petition, marked: EPT/OY/SEN/04/2023, Tegbe is the first petitioner, while PDP is the second petitioner. However, Alli, APC, and INEC are the first second, and third respondents respectively. 

    Tegbe had asked the three-man tribunal, led by Justice A. M. Yakubu, to order a rerun of the election, alleging that Alli failed to garner the majority of lawful votes in the election, which constituted non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral laws.

    Tegbe called 32 witnesses including himself, to prove his case that the election which produced the winner was fraught with irregularities and failed to comply with the provisions of the Electoral Act.

    In the judgment, however, the tribunal held that the signatures of the majority of the witnesses, who introduced themselves as PDP polling agents during the election, did not match on the documents signed at their respective polling units and the ones on their statements on oath. 

    According to the panel, one of the witnesses, when docked, said he did not make the statement on oath ascribed to him and that the signature on it was not his own. 

    The panel also stated that the witnesses did not provide means of identification, such as identity cards that could show they worked as PDP polling agents on  election day. 

    It added that the statements on oath for some of the petitioners’ witnesses said they were females, whereas men made appearance before the special court.

    Deciding the allegation of over-voting,  the tribunal noted that the petitioners failed to rely on voter register to establish over-voting, adding that the voter register is an integral part of proving the allegation, and that the Electoral Act has not  abolished voters register. 

    Every voter,  the panel said, must have found his or her name in the voter register and the name would be ticked at each polling unit, before the register would be made to go through Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) for accreditation. 

    The tribunal also said the evidences presented before it by the petitioners were not credible and difficult to believe.

    “The petitioners have failed to present cogent, reliable, and compelling evidence, sufficient to affect the results of the poll” as declared by INEC,” the tribunal said.

    On the issue of reconfiguration of BVAS raised by the petitioners that the panel should take judicial notice of, the tribunal held that the petitioners failed to prove that reconfiguration of the BVAS for the purpose of conducting governorship and house of assembly polls, did not mean that all the data on the system had been erased. 

    It stated further that the petitioners should have called INEC to answer questions on reconfiguration of the BVAS.

    While delivering the final judgment in the NNPP case, the Tribunal held that the petition was incompetent as the ground upon which it was premised related to a pre-election matter which ought not to be brought before the Tribunal.

    The tribunal in the NNPP case held that having regards to the pleadings and evidence before the Court, the petitioners also failed to rebut the presumption of regularity in the conduct of the Election by INEC.

     Alli described the judgment as a reaffirmation that his electoral victory in February 25 election was well-deserved.

    Read Also: Eight key issues determined so far by Presidential Election Petition Tribunal

    A statement by his Special Adviser on Media, Akeem Abas expressed appreciation to God as well as the people of Oyo South who gave him their mandate and stood by him throughout the process. 

    The statement reads: “I am deeply humbled and grateful to God for the victory at the National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal, my sincere appreciation to the people of Oyo South Senatorial District who gave me their mandate and have stood by me throughout this process. 

    “The outcome of the tribunal’s verdict reaffirms that the election was won in a transparent and fair manner, and my victory was well-deserved.”

  • Eight key issues determined so far by Presidential Election Petition Tribunal

    Eight key issues determined so far by Presidential Election Petition Tribunal

    The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (PEPT) has delivered a number of judgement so far in petitions filed against the outcome of the 2023 presidential election.

    The Nation reports five political parties including the PDP, LP, Action Peoples Party (APP), Allied Peoples Movement (APM) and the Action Alliance (AA) had lodged separate petitions before the tribunal seeking to annul Tinubu’s victory.

    Justice Haruna Tsammani is the lead judge of the five-man panel presiding over the judgement.

    Others include Justice Stephen Adah – Court of Appeal (Asaba division); Justice Monsurat Bolaji-Yusuf – Court of Appeal (Asaba Division); Justice Moses Ugo – Kano division and Justice Abba Mohammed – Ibadan Court of Appeal.

    Read Also: JUST IN: Tribunal declares Natasha Akpoti winner of Kogi Central senatorial poll

    These five jurists will continue to deliberate and possibly vote to take a final decision, in case there are disagreements on issues thrown up at ongoing trial.

    Here are the key issues which have been determined so far:

    1. The allegation of double nomination by APM against Vice-President Kashim Shettima holds no water.

    2. LP’s Peter Obi could not prove that his votes were suppressed and that he scored the majority of lawful votes cast.

    3. Out of the 13 witnesses called by Obi/LP, 10 were not accepted by the court.

    4. The tribunal said President Bola Tinubu was not convicted because civil forfeiture is not a criminal matter.

    5. The tribunal said INEC is at liberty to define the mode of results transmission it intends to use.

    6. The tribunal said there is no specific provision for the electronic transmission of election results in the Electoral Act 2022.

    7. Obi/LP failed to prove INEC deliberately refused to upload results.

    8. Obi/LP failed to prove how they were affected by the failure of INEC to electronically transmit results.

  • Abia guber: Tribunal fixes date for judgement in PDP, APC’s petitions against Governor Otti

    Abia guber: Tribunal fixes date for judgement in PDP, APC’s petitions against Governor Otti

    The governor of Abia State, Alex Otti, who was a candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Okey Ahiwe of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and Ikechi Emenike of the All Progressive Congress (APC) would know their fate in the ongoing election petition tribunal sitting in Umuahia.

    The Tribunal fixed October 6, to deliver judgment on the petition challenging the declaration of Otti as winner of the March 18, 2023 governorship election.

    The Nation reports that the governorship candidate of the APC, Emenike had prayed the court to sack Otti over allegations of non-resignation of his membership before joining the Labour Party.

    He also alleged that Otti’s name was not in the Labour Party’s register before his nomination as the party’s standard-bearer in the 2023 polls in the state.

    Read Also: JUST IN: Tribunal declares Natasha Akpoti winner of Kogi Central senatorial poll

    Also, joined in the petition were the candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party, Okey Ahaiwe; the Young Progressives Party, Nana Nwafor and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    Speaking to journalists, Otti’s led counsel, Abiodun Owolekoko (SAN), said his team was optimistic that the tribunal judgment would favour his client

    However, the counsel to Emenike, Tochukwu Maduka (SAN), claimed that the defendant’s counsel failed to provide the Labour Party register where his name appeared.

    He said that his team prayed the court to cancel Otti’s votes as well as the PDP and YPP candidates; and declare his client the lawful winner of the election having scored the highest of lawful votes in the election.

    The lead counsel to the PDP, Paul Anaba, said his team agreed with the petitioner to sack Otti but added that the PDP would benefit from the petition, saying the case of non-resignation as the chief of staff to the former holds no water in the eyes of the law.

  • Tribunal verdict on poll: Tinubu, Obi confident

    Tribunal verdict on poll: Tinubu, Obi confident

    • Court okays live telecast of judgment tomorrow

    The Presidency last night expressed confidence that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s election will be upheld tomorrow by the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC).

    Also yesterday, Peter Obi, candidate of the Labour Party in the February 25 presidential election expressed optimism that with the evidence they brought before the court, he would upturn the results declared by Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    The position of the President and the challenger came after the tribunal announced that judgment will be delivered tomorrow.

    The tribunal’s statement, signed by the Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal, Umar Bangari, reads: “The Court of Appeal wishes to inform the general public that judgment in the petitions before the Presidential Election Petition Court will be delivered on Wednesday 6th  September, 2023

    “In a bid to promote transparency and openness, these judgments will be televised live by interested Television Stations for the public to follow.

    “Access to the court premises will be strictly on accreditation. Only accredited individuals, including counsel and representatives of political parties, will be granted access into the courtroom.

    “Interested members of the public are advised to watch proceedings from their television sets.

    “We appeal for the maximum cooperation of the general public to ensure a hitch-free exercise, please.”

    In the election Tinubu secured 8,794,726 votes to defeat Atiku who got 6,984,520, and Obi who polled 6,101,533 votes.

    Read Also; Wike frowns at N85bn Wasa housing infrastructure, says project poorly negotiated

    The judges presiding over the presidential tribunal are: Justice Haruna Tsammani, Justice Stephen Adah, Justice Monsurat Bolaji-Yusuf, Justice Moses Ugo and Justice Abba Mohammed.

    On August 1, counsel to parties adopted their final written addresses and made their last submissions.

    The petition by Atiku and the PDP was taken during the court’s morning session that ended at 12 noon while the adoption of the petition by Obi and the LP was done during the afternoon session, which ended around 5:30pm

    Counsel to the respondents – Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN) for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Wole Olanipekun (SAN) for President Bola Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima, and Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) for the All Progressives Congress (APC) – prayed the court to dismiss the petition for lacking in merit.

    Mahmoud, Olanipekun and Fagbemi argued that the petitioners failed to prove their case with relevant evidence.

    Mahmoud argued that Atiku and Obi based their petitions on the wrong assumptions, adding that  they attempted to make a mountain out of a molehill

    The INEC lawyer argued that the petitioners’ claim of non-compliance with the Electoral Act and other regulations and guidelines was base on their contrived belief that election results were collated electronically.

    Mahmoud, who said INEC deployed manual collation for the election results, wondered why the petitioners failed in their lead evidence to support their claim that there was electronic collation.

    He added that the petitioners also misunderstood the essence of the technical innovations introduced into the election process by claiming the existence of an electric collection system.

    The INEC lawyer argued that the essence of uploading results to the INEC Results Viewing (IReV) portal was to enable the public to access them and not for the purpose of collation.

    Mahmoud, who argued that the evidence, even from the petitioners, showed that the election was properly conducted, adding that the over four hours glitch recorded during the transmission of presidential election result was a normal system error and not human interference as claimed by the petitioners.

    Olanipekun said the petitioners’ contention that a candidate in presidential election must score 25 percent of votes in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to be declared a winner was absurd as it attempted to place voters in the FCT above other voters in the country.

    He argued that by a conjunctive reading and interpretation of the constitution, the FCT is taken as the 37th state  for the purpose of a presidential election, adding that even if election in the FCT was cancelled, that will not stop INEC from declaring a winner.

    He added that if the requirement of 25 percent votes was to be considered, Tinubu scored more than 1/4 of the 2/3 of votes recorded in the FCT.

    Olanipekun argued that the two sets of petitioners abandoned their petitions by virtue of the final written addresses they submitted to the court.

    On the petition by Atiku and the PDP, Olanipekun said: “The petitioners have abandoned their petition in so far as the 2nd respondent (Tinubu) is concerned.”

    He drew the court’s attention to page 7 of the petition where they formulated four issues for determination, pages 36 to 38 where they drew conclusions, and noted that there is nowhere the petitioners made any submission that will enure to their benefit.” There is no line where they drew the court’s attention to the number of votes scored by the 1st petitioner (Atiku).

    “The court is not a Father Christmas. The court cannot give to these petitioners because they did not ask in their written address,” Olanipekun said.

    He argued that Obi and the LP have no final written address before the court because the one they submitted was wrongly  headed as “reply to the final written address of the 2nd and 3rd respondents” (Tinubu and Shettima).

    Olanipekun, who cited the recent decision of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, which affirmed INEC’s discretion in the mode of transmitting results, argued that uploading of results to IREV play no role in the collation of results, adding that collation is always physical and done manually.

    Fagbemi, who described the petition by Obi and the LP as “ambitious,” argued that the issue of double nomiation which they raised in relation to Shettma has been effectively resolved by the Supreme Court in it’s judgment in the case by the PDP against INEC and others.

    He faulted the petitioners claim that Tinubu was not qualified to contest the election, arguing that the civil forfeiture relied on by the petitioners did not qualify as a ground of disqualification under the Constitution.

    Fagbemi noted that none of the petitioners provided alternative evidence to prove their claim that Tinubu did not attend the Chicago State University or that the academic records that he tendered before the court were not authentic.

    He added that the petitioners also failed to tender evidence that Tinubu has any criminal record in the United States.

    Fagbemi said: “There is no evidence that a charge was filed, there is no evidence that there was arraignment, that there was trial and that there was conviction. In the face of the pleading, it was a civil forfeiture.

    “The meaning of fine is not the same as forfeiture, which was purportedly pleaded as an indictment. In any event, it is over 30 years since the alleged incident took place.”

    On the petitioners’ claim that Tinubu has dual citizenship, he argued that the petitioners’ have failed to prove their allegation of dual citizenship.

    He argued that the constitution provides that a person who is a Nigerian citizen by birth, like Tinubu, cannot be disqualified from contesting election simply because he is a citizen of another country.

    But, lawyer to Atiku and the PDP, Chris Uche (SAN) urged the court to uphold his clients’ petition and grant all reliefs sought, adding that they have led substantial evidence to ground their case.

    He insisted that INEC failed to comply with the Electoral Act and other relevant regulations by failing to transmit the presidential election result to IREV real time from the polling units.

    Uche argued that the glitch which INEC claimed disrupted its transmission of results was caused by human interference to enable them manipulate the election results.

    He further argued that it was mandatory for a candidate to score 25 percent of votes in the FCT before he/she could be declared winner of a presidential election.

    Lawyer to Obi and the LP, Livy Uzoukwu (SAN)  also argued in similar manner, and prayed the court to allow their petition and grant the reliefs as contained in it.

    Uzoukwu faulted the respondents’ contention that, in an event of a rerun, Obi was excluded by the constitution.

    He argued that the election was manipulated, which account for why INEC supplied his clients certified true copies (CTCs) of blurred and unreadable result sheets.

    Although the decision of the court is not final, as a displeased party can still appeal to the Supreme Court, many feel that the decision of the jurists would definitely set the tone of the final decision of the Supreme Court, either in concurrence or disagreement.

  • APC, INEC ask Ogun tribunal to dismiss PDP’s petition

    APC, INEC ask Ogun tribunal to dismiss PDP’s petition

    Ogun State Governor Dapo Abiodun and the All Progressives Congress (APC) yesterday urged the Ogun State Election Petition Tribunal to dismiss the petition filed by the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Ladi Adebutu and his party against the election of Abiodun during the March 18, 2023 governorship election.

    The tribunal reserved judgment in the petition as counsel for all the parties submitted their final written addresses.

    The Chairman of the three-man tribunal, Justice Hamidu Kunaza, told the counsel that the final day of the judgment would be communicated to all the parties.

    Adebutu had approached the tribunal to challenge the declaration of Prince Abiodun as the winner of the governorship election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), saying the election was marred by corrupt practices and non-compliance with the Electoral Act.

    In their separate submissions however, counsel for the 1st respondent (INEC), Mr. Remi Olatubora (SAN), 2nd (Dapo Abiodun), Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), and the 3rd (APC), Mr. Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), told the tribunal that the petitioners failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Read Also; Poor turnout in Lagos schools as students resume 2023/24 session

    Counsel for INEC, Olatubora, prayed the tribunal to dismiss the petition for being absolutely unmerited and a waste of the tribunal’s precious time.

    He said that allegations of corrupt practices, non-compliance, multiple thumb printing of ballot papers, ballot stuffing, and forgery as alleged by the petitioners were not proved beyond any reasonable doubt

    He described the testimony of the witnesses brought by the petitioners as heresy, which is not admissible in law.

    Counsel for Prince Abiodun, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), in his final address, described Adebutu’s petition as a mere academic exercise.

    He noted that the soul of the petition was not duly signed and stamped and, therefore, lacked merit to be adopted and should be struck out.

    “The document is not signed, not dated, no heading, no title, no identity, no signature, no stamp. The CTC has no signature,” he said.

    However, in his counter-argument, counsel for Adebutu, Chris Uche, SAN, told the tribunal that all documents presented by the petitioners were obtained from INEC.

    He urged the tribunal to declare Adebutu the winner of the governorship election or, in the alternative, order a rerun of the election in 99 polling units where he alleged that there were disruptions.

    Counsel for APC, Tayo Oyetubo, who spoke to reporters shortly after the adjournment, said the respondents have presented a good case, even as he expressed confidence that the judgment would be in their favour.

  • Tribunal affirms APC’s Okunlola’s victory

    Tribunal affirms APC’s Okunlola’s victory

    • Awards costs against PDP

    The National/State Assembly Election Tribunal sitting in Ikeja, Lagos yesterday upheld the election of Lanre Okunlola of the All Progressives Congress (APC), as the member representing Surulere Federal Constituency II in the House of Representatives, following the February 25 general election.

    The tribunal, in a unanimous decision, dismissed the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP)’s Olatunji Shoyinka challenging Okunlola’s victory.

    Read Also: Glo marks 20 years

    It agreed with Okunlola’s counsel, Mr. Wahab Shittu (SAN), that Shoyinka’s petition failed and ought to be dismissed.

    The tribunal granted the senior lawyer’s prayer and awarded a punitive cost of N200,000 against Shoyinka, and in favour of Okunlola and the APC.

    Shoyinka and the PDP are 1st and 2nd petitioners in the petition.

    Okunlola, APC and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) are the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents.

    The petitioners, through their counsel, C. A. Abengowe, had by a March 16 petition challenged Okunlola’s victory on two grounds.  

    Firstly, they alleged that the election was invalid because of corrupt, illegal and wrongful practice perpetuated by INEC in connivance with Okunlola and the APC through falsification, manipulation and forgery of results done by the 3rd Respondent (INEC).

    Secondly, they argued that the election was invalid because of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act.

    They prayed the tribunal for an order setting aside the results of the several polling units won by the APC, alleging that same were not returned in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act.

    They also sought a declaration that Shoyinka be declared the winner of the election.

    But Okunlola filed a preliminary objection dated May 7, 2023, for an order striking out and/or dismissing the petition for being incompetent.

    He also filed a motion dated May 9, for an order striking out the petitioner’s reply dated and filed on April 15.

    Shittu canvassed two grounds for the preliminary objection. They are that the petitioners’ petition did not contain any valid ground to sustain itself under Section 134 of the Electoral Act.

    The lawyer premised the May 9 motion “on the fact that the petitioners’ reply was an attempt to enlarge the petition, contrary to paragraphs 14 (2)(a) and 16(1)(a) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2022.”

    In reply, the tribunal reserved ruling on both applications till the date of judgment.   Shittu further argued during proceedings that Paragraph 16(1(a) prohibited the petitioners from enlarging or amending their petition by the use of their reply.

    “We urge this tribunal to pronounce on the two applications and resolve all issues raised in the two applications in favour of the 1st Respondent,” Shittu said.

    Shittu also addressed the allegations of manipulation. He argued that the petitioners “in the course of proceedings, failed to prove the commission of the allegation beyond reasonable doubt.

    “They also failed to show that those allegations were committed by the agents of the respondents.

    “We urge this tribunal to hold that the petition has failed, it fails, and ought to be dismissed with punitive cost in favour of the respondents.

    “We humbly submit that the tribunal should hold that the petitioners have failed to prove the allegations contained in the petition.

    “Consequently the reliefs claimed by the petitioners are not grantable by this tribunal and we therefore urge your Lordships to dismiss this petition with substantial cost in favour of the respondents inclusive of the 2nd respondent.”

    Delivering its decision yesterday, the tribunal upheld Shittu’s argument and affirmed Okunlola’s election as the lawmaker representing Surulere Federal Constituency II.

    Okunlola emerged winner at the polls with 27,725 votes, while Shoyinka came second with 4,875 votes.

  • Tribunal reserves judgment in petition by Ayade

    Tribunal reserves judgment in petition by Ayade

    The National Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal in Cross River State, hearing a petition brought before it by Sen. Ben Ayade against the election of Sen. Jarigbe Agom, yesterday reserved judgment for a date to be communicated to the parties.

    The parties are Sen. Ayade and the All Progressives Congress (APC), the petitioners; vs. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Sen. Agom and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the respondents, who filed and adopted their written addresses in defence of their arguments.

    They were also given the chance by the tribunal headed by Justice M. A. Sambo to adumbrate on their written addresses as filed.

    Presenting his written address for adoption, Mr. Michael Ozekhome, SAN, counsel for Sen. Ayade, called on the tribunal to punish INEC for the misleading information sent to the tribunal.

    He said: “INEC should be thrashed with a whip legally for issuing us with Form EC 8 A and coming here to tell us that it should have been Form  EC8A(1), which is misleading and fraudulent.”

    Ozekhome said the 2010 Electoral Act provisions are in pari-pasu with those of the 2022 Electoral Act, therefore reference to the 2010 Electoral Act is not in error.

    He restated his position that the 2023 senatorial election for Cross River North was fraught with violence, mayhem and malpractices, which made it shambolic and should therefore be annulled in the interest of democratic growth and justice.

    Read Also: Two dead, 37 rescued in Abuja building collapse

    “We presented 43 witnesses who amplified, testified and identified the 770 exhibits tendered in the proceedings, which shows how the results of both parties were reached at fraudulently.”

    Ozekhome refreshed the tribunal on its pre-hearing rules that responses by counsel could not be filed after the agreed period and said: “Paragraph one to five of the First Schedule states that respondents’ arguments in this tribunal cannot extend the time which a party can do anything that relates to the Electoral Act and that is what the third respondent did.

    Therefore his argument should be dismissed because tribunal matters are special matters and do not allow the extension of time for a party to file his report.”

    Mr. Mba Okweni, counsel for Sen. Agom, said the petition lacked merit, adding that the result of the election showed that Agom scored 18,500 votes ahead of Ayade and the petitioner was not able to prove that the votes nullified in the election could upturn the votes with which Agom was ahead.

    The tribunal Chairman, Justice M. A. Sambo, called on the counsel to provide the tribunal with reference materials cited by them, which would facilitate a fast decision on the matter, “as the tribunal still has House of Representatives matters outstanding and has just three weeks left to round off all matters.”

  • Tribunal sacks Lagos LP Rep

    Tribunal sacks Lagos LP Rep

    The National Assembly Elections Petition Tribunal sitting in Lagos has nullified the return of the Labour Party’s (LP’s) candidate, Seyi Sowunmi, as the House of Representatives member for Ojo Federal Constituency in Lagos State.

    Instead, the three-man panel led by Justice Abdullahi Ozegya declared the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Lanre Ogunyemi, as the duly elected candidate of the election conducted on February 25, 2023.

    The other members of the panel are Justice Ashu Ewah and Justice Muhammad Sambo.

    Read Also: NAFDAC okays varsity’s herbal medicine for diabetesol

    Ogunyemi, a two-term state lawmaker and former secretary of the APC in Lagos, had challenged the declaration of Sowunmi by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the winner of the election on the grounds that the respondent was not duly sponsored and qualified to contest the election under the candidacy of Labour Party for Ojo Federal Constituency.

    In its judgment, the tribunal agreed with the petitioner that the candidate of the Labour Party was not qualified to contest the elections.

    It, therefore, declared his votes wasted and held that the second runner up, APC’s Ogunyemi, ought to have been declared winner of Ojo Federal Constituency.

  • Tribunal reserves judgment in alleged certificate forgery by Reps member

    Tribunal reserves judgment in alleged certificate forgery by Reps member

    The National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Asaba, Delta State, has reserved judgment in the case between the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for Warri federal constituency seat.

    The petitioner, Ekpoto-Ekpoto Emmanuel, urged the tribunal to nullify the declaration of Thomas Ereyitomi by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the winner of the election.

    Joined in the petition are 1st respondent (INEC), 2nd respondent (PDP) and 3rd respondent (Thomas Ereyitomi).

    He said the election that produced Ereyitomi was fraught with irregularities and also accused him of forging his West African Examinations Council (WAEC) results.

    Ekeme Ohwovoriole (SAN), counsel for the 3rd respondent, urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition for lack of merit. 

    Read Also: NGO seeks government partnership

    Counsel for PDP, Robinson Ariyo, in his final written address, aligned with the submission of the counsel for the 3rd respondent.

    They argued that the petition was incompetent and inconsistent in material facts, and urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition.

    Ohwovoriole argued that the petitioner failed to tender copies of Forms EC8A (II) to be compared with the original copy.

    He further argued that the petitioner could not establish the allegation of over-voting as the BVAS report from the inspection in each polling unit where the alleged malpractice occurred did not support the petitioner’s case.

    Ariyo, in his final written address, argued that since the institution that issued the certificate did not issue a disclaimer, the case should be dismissed.

    Oghenero Okoro, counsel for the petitioner, said the petition was not contradictory.

    According to him, what Section 6611 of the 1999 Constitution as amended seeks to penalise is integrity, and that if the 3rd respondent must sit in the National Assembly to make laws, he must be like Caesar’s wife and be above board.

    Okoro argued that the petition did not plead that an election did not take place, but instead pleaded that an election known to law did not take place in Warri South Local Government.

    He urged the tribunal to “discountenance all the preliminary objections and hold that the 3rd respondents was not qualified for infracting against Section 6611(I) of the 1999 Constitution and declare the petitioner winner.”

    But the three-man panel headed by Justice Catherine Ogunsola held that ”judgment is hereby reserved. Notices of the judgment day will be served on the parties involved.”