Oyo Tribunal to Give Report on Pre-hearing against Makinde Today

Kemi Olaitan in  Ibadan

The Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, sitting in Oyo State, yesterday, heard the applications of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM), challenging the victory of Governor Seyi Makinde in the March 18,  election and his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), citing non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act.

The three-man Panel comprising Justices Ejiro Emudainohwu (Chairman), Baraka Wali and I.S. Galadima, having listened to the arguments of counsel to the first respondent (INEC), the second respondent (PDP) and the third respondent (Governor Makinde), with regards to the pre-hearing session submissions, adjourned to today (Tuesday), by 3.00 p.m, to give its report.

The APM as Petitioner, represented by Egwuaba Reuben, whose brief was held by M.0. Owolabi, is challenging the victory of Governor Makinde on the grounds that,  “The election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act. And that the second respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.”

The party, therefore, urged the tribunal to declare “APM winner of the election.”

The PDP won the March 18, 2023 election by polling 563,756 votes while the APM polled 303 votes.

The party which filed the petition, however, did not list its gubernatorial candidate in the state, Adeniran Adeyemi Oluseye, as part of the petitioners, and he with the party’s state Chairman (Otunba Peter Fagbemi), and other executive members, have dissociated themselves from the petition.

At the hearing yesterday, Dr. A. O. Ajana (SAN) and K. G. Duru appeared for INEC; Isiaka Abiola Olagunju (SAN) with Ogunkunle Abiola and Oluwasesan Dada represented the PDP; while Otunba Kunle Kalejaye (SAN) with Oladipo Olasope (SAN) with S.S. Akinyele appeared for Makinde.

In his Motion on Notice dated 10th June and filed on 11th June, 2023, Ajana said the INEC counsel used some vexatious expressions in his written address particularly paragraphs 2.6 and 2.7, where he said the 1st respondent in his reply was “being unreasonable and brought the application in an attempt to waste the time of the court”, noting that “the court has its language and that such abusive words should not be indulged.”

He submitted that the petition of the APM “is incompetent and should be struck out”.

Responding, Owolabi on behalf of the petitioner apologised and sought that the offending paragraphs be expunged from the petition “in the interest of the ethics of the profession.”  

The tribunal consequently expunged the offending paragraphs from the petition and struck it out.

After hearing the submissions of the counsel on all sides, the tribunal adjourned to 3.00 p.m today to give its report.