Osun governorship tr‎ibunal ‎reserves judgment on PDP, Adeleke’s petition


The Osun State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Abuja, on Thursday reserved judgment on the complaints lodged against the outcome of the September 2018 election in the state by the People‎s Democratic Party and its candidate in the poll, Senator Ademola Adeleke.

The Ibrahim Sirajo-led tribunal said parties to the suit would be informed of the date the judgment would be delivered 48 hours prior to the yet-to-be-picked date.

The three-man panel reserved judgment after lawyers representing the petitioners and the respondents adopted their final written addresses and made brief closing oral arguments on Thursday.

Aggrieved by the Independent National Electoral Commission’s declaration of Adegboyega Oyetola of the All Progressives Congress as the winner of the election held on September 22, 2018, with the supplementary poll held on September 27, 2018, the petitioners had filed their petitions asking the tribunal to upturn Oyetola’s victory.

They alleged that Oyetola’s victory at the poll was marred by irregularities, including massive rigging, vote buying and other forms of malpractices.

They urged the court to nullify Oyetola’s victory.

The petitioners claimed that they scored the majority of the lawful votes in the election, and should be declared the winner of the election.

At the Thursday’s proceedings of the tribunal attended by Oyetola,  Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) represented the governor, Chief Akin Olujinmi (SAN), represented the APC, while Lasco Pwahomdi appeared for INEC.

In adopting their separate final addresses, Olanipekun, Olujinmi, and Pwahomdi urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the petitioners failed to prove their case.

Opposing their submissions, the petitioners’ counsel, Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), while adopting his final address, urged the tribunal to uphold the petition and grant his clients’ prayers.

While adopting his final address, Olanipekun noted that the petition was fraught with confusing claims, adding that it showed that the petitioners lacked understanding of the nation’s election petition jurisprudence.

He claimed that there were many contradictions in the petition, adding that “in pages 37, 38 and 39, the petitioners are presenting a different case entirely from their pleadings.

“The petition is a bedlam of confusion,” the senior lawyer said.


Get more stuff like this
in your inbox

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply