**withdraws Omisore’s application seeking to exclude APC
representatives at the inspection of election materials.
The Osun Election Tribunal began its hearing today (Thursday
30/10/2014) with the lead counsel of senator Iyiola omisore, Dr. Alex
IZiyon opining that the Omisore team had already wasted two out of six
months slated for the petition.
He also asked for
the withdrawal
of Omisore’s
application
seeking to
exclude the 1st
and 2nd
Respondent
(Aregbesola/APC)
from further
inspection of
election
documents at
INEC office having realised that the application was dead on arrival.
> The election tribunal which was chaired by his Lordship Elizabeth
N.Kpejomia commenced with pre-hearing sessions. Other members
include Hon. Justice Vincent Ofesi and A.I Kutigi.
The session started with an opening remark by the Tribunal Chair, Hon.
Justice Elizabeth Nkpejomi who asked for the cooperation of all parties
towards ensuring smooth adjudication of the matter before them. She
particularly warned the media to ensure accurate reportage of events at
the Tribunal.
The tribunal frowned at the lies being peddled around that the tribunal
had given an order for recount when in actual fact no such order was
granted. He warned that henceforth, the tribunal will not take kindly to
any attempt at spreading outright falsehood against the tribunal.
While responding on behalf of other Counsel in the matter, Chief Akin
Olujinmi SAN appreciate the courage of the tribunal in pointing out the
reckless dissemination of falsehood by some segment of the press and
assured the tribunal that they will cooperate fully with the tribunal to
ensure that justice is done without fear or favour.
Dr.Alex IZiyon who led 4 SAN and 14 other Lawyers on behalf of the
petitioners (Omisore and PDP) informed the court that there are four
pending applications before the court. One from the petitioner; two
from 1st and 2nd Respondent and one from the 3rd Respondent. He
informed the court that issues have been joined on the two Respondent
motions. He posited that the two motions which issues are joined
bothers on the issue of jurisdiction and competence of the petition
which can be taken together with the main petition.
He is of the opinion that they had already wasted two months out of six
months slated for the petition and it is in the interest of justice for the
other applications to be heard together with the petition. He also
withdrew the only application by the petitioner seeking to exclude the
1st and 2nd Respondent from further inspection of polling documents
at INEC office having realised that the application is dead on arrival.
Chief Akin Olujinmi while responding to the application of the Learned
Counsel for the petitioner Dr. Alex Iziyon SAN referred to Paragraph 53
(5) of 1st Schedule of Electoral Act 2010 as amended which provides that
an objection challenging the regularity of the petition shall be heard
and determined after close of pleadings. Pleadings have closed, the
objection challenges the competence of the petition and so cannot be
taken along with the petition.
The court on its own referred Chief Olujinmi to paragraph 12 (5) of the
amended Act but Chief Olujinmi insisted that Section 53 (5) is specific
on jurisdiction while 12 (5) is general. According to the learned Silk, the
essence of the motion is that if the petition is not properly filed, there
will be nothing for the court to look at. While the other motion relates
to pre-trial, failure to apply within time. In his word, “there is no
authority that pre-hearing motions should be taken together with the
main petition”.He cited Okonkwo v. INEC (2004) 1NWLR pt 854 pg.242
at 247.
Oluwarotimi Akeredolu SAN who appears for the 2nd Respondent asked
a pertinent question to wit: if a petition is filed out of time will this
tribunal proceed to hear it? The Electoral Act is strict as to time to file
petition. The issue in question is analogus to the issue of competence we
have raised.
Ogunleye Esq, Counsel to INEC alligned himself with the submissions of
the two learned silk. He posited by submitting that paragraphs 12 (5)
and 53 (5) are distinguishable. According to him, paragraph 12 (5)
envisages a competent petition that is already before the court and
there is a challenge to its hearing. While Sect. 53 (5) deals with when a
petition’s competence is challenged. Which shows you can’t put
something on nothing. He also submit that going by paragraph 18 (3,4)
1st schedule to the Electoral Act, the only jurisdiction the court has in
the circumstance is to look at the petition with a view ti striking it out
or validate it.
The rulling on whether the pending should be heard together with the
main petition is adjourned to 3rd Nov. 2014.
Short URL : http://www.osundefender.org/?p=192250