Ekiti Gov Election: Tribunal Set To Deliver Judgement

By Ayodele Oni

The Election Petition Tribunal hearing complaints arising from June governorship election in Ekiti state is set to deliver judgement.

This followed adoption of written addresses by parties in the petition on Wednesday.

Segun Oni, candidate of the Social Democratic Party, (SDP) had filed the petition, challenging the victory of Biodun Abayomi, candidate of the All Progressive Congress (APC) in the election.

At the sitting of the tribunal in Ado Ekiti, chairman of the three member tribunal, Wilfred Kpochi announced that the date of judgement will be communicated to the parties.

At the adoption of written addresses, Governor Oyebanji, his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) urged the Election Petition Tribunal to dismiss the petition filed by the Social Democratic Party (SDP) governorship candidate, Chief Segun Oni.

Prof. Kayode Olatoke (SAN), Counsel to Oyebanji, told the Tribunal that their written address was dated 29th October and filed on 30th October and adopted same before the Tribunal as evidence that the election of his clients be affirmed.

Oyebanji maintained that Oni and his party, the SDP, have failed woefully to sufficiently discharge the burden of proof on them to convince the Tribunal that the election did not comply with the provisions of the Electoral Act and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.

Counsel to the Petitioners, Mr. Owoseni Ajayi, told the Tribunal that he had received written addresses of all the Respondents in the petition adopting the written address of his client and relying on same as evidence as he responded  to the Respondents one after the other.

Ajayi told the Tribunal that the written address of the Petitioners was dated 5th November and filed same day seeking leave of the Tribunal to grant all the reliefs contained therein.

The Petitioners’ counsel made an oral application to amend a typographical error in response to the 2nd Respondent’s address as contained in Point 2.09 on Page 4 in which the relied on Grounds 1,2 and 4 urging the Tribunal to strike out the paragraphs with errors

Ajayi countered Olujinmi by saying he had not withdrawn Ground 1 in the petition as claimed by the 2nd Respondent’s counsel.

Counsel to all Respondents opposed Ajayi’s oral application citing different grounds for their opposition.

Counsel to the APC, Olujinmi opposed the application to orally amend the written address after the Respondents had filed replies on points of law before the day of adoption of written addresses.