Court of Appeal declines SDP request to relocate Ekiti governorship tribunal

Stay Connected

Follow Very Nigerian

Get the latest Nigerian news, trending stories and breaking updates directly on WhatsApp.

Join Our Channel →

The Court of Appeal has rejected a request by counsel to the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in Ekiti State, Ebenezer Akinbuli, seeking the relocation of the state Governorship Election Petition Tribunal over alleged security concerns.

The tribunal had earlier adjourned proceedings from September 16 to September 23 to allow the President of the Court of Appeal to consider the petitioners’ request for a change of venue.

The request followed an alleged assault on the SDP counsel, which raised concerns about the safety of lawyers and other participants in the proceedings.

However, in the absence of SDP’s counsel, another letter was served on the court seeking a further adjournment.

The counsel asked the tribunal to suspend the hearing until the Court of Appeal had considered and determined the application seeking the relocation of the proceedings.

The court, however, rejected the request to move the tribunal to another venue.

During the proceedings, the chairman of the three-man tribunal, Justice Abubakar Kutigi, informed the court that the President of the Court of Appeal, Hon. Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem, had declined to order the transfer of the sitting, adding that the tribunal was properly constituted to continue hearing the petitions.

While counsel to the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Kabir Akingbolu and Bunmi Ipinlaiye, denied awareness of the order of the Appeal Court which was served through the secretary of the tribunal, Justice Kutigi further adjourned the case to September 24 for the continuation of the hearing to clear all doubts.

Speaking with journalists after the proceedings, APC counsel, Kabir Akingbolu, said the petitioners had renewed their demand for the relocation of the tribunal from Ado-Ekiti to another venue, stressing that the request for relocation was made in respect of the SDP petition and not the Action Alliance (AA) petition.

The APC counsel also alleged that the petitioners were responsible for seeking the latest adjournment, saying the request was contained in letters filed in respect of the two election petitions.

Akingbolu, however, described the petition challenging Governor Biodun Oyebanji’s victory as unusual, arguing that the margin and voting pattern in the election made the case unprecedented in his view.

He claimed that the governor won across the 16 local government areas and most of the 177 wards in the state, while questioning the basis of a challenge to the election by petitioners whom he said recorded relatively low vote figures.

Akingbolu further alleged that the petitioners were resorting to different tactics to delay the proceedings, including seeking repeated adjournments, while urging them to focus on the substantive issues before the tribunal.

Akingbolu said, “There is confusion, so we need to clarify it. The SDP filed a petition and the AA filed a petition. On the last adjourned day, September 16, a petition was written by counsel to the party, SDP, saying that there was no security and that the venue of the tribunal should be moved to Abuja or elsewhere.

“As it is today, they are secure. They are the ones that sought the adjournment. The court has now adjourned the matter to tomorrow for continuation at the instance of the petitioners because they wrote the petition and a letter of adjournment to that effect on both election petitions.

“It is an unprecedented petition. The success of the governor and the people is unprecedented. The 16 local governments, almost the entire 177 wards, were won by the governor.

“There was no challenge from the people that filed the petition. None of the political parties called up to 200 votes. It has never happened in Nigeria in a governorship election that somebody who has not scored thousands, or even hundreds, will come and file an election petition.

“For me, I don’t think it is proper. We are here because this is litigation. If somebody writes that kind of petition when there is no ground, I think it is an illegal step.”