National and
State House of Assembly election petitions tribunal, sitting in Ibadan, the Oyo
State capital, chaired by Justice Tanko Usman, was yesterday asked not to enter
any appearance for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the
state Resident Electoral Commission, Dr. Rufus Akeju, in a petition filed by
Senator Olufemi Lanlehin of the Accord Party.
Lanlehin, who contested the March 28, 2015 National Assembly poll for Oyo South
Senatorial District, had dragged Senator Soji Akanbi of the All Progressives
Congress (APC), who was declared winner of the election, the INEC and Akeju
before the tribunal over alleged rigging.
At the proceedings yesterday, counsel to Lanlehin, Mr. Michael Lana, on sighting the lead counsel for INEC and Akeju, Mr. Adeboye Shobanjo, at the tribunal, told the panel that INEC and Akeju had no right to appear before the tribunal in view of the ruling of the Court of Appeal delivered on August 7.
At the proceedings yesterday, counsel to Lanlehin, Mr. Michael Lana, on sighting the lead counsel for INEC and Akeju, Mr. Adeboye Shobanjo, at the tribunal, told the panel that INEC and Akeju had no right to appear before the tribunal in view of the ruling of the Court of Appeal delivered on August 7.
The Appellate Court’s ruling set aside the ruling of the Justice Tanko
Usman-led tribunal, delivered on June 23 on an application for extension of
time filed on June 4 by INEC and Akeju. The tribunal had granted the
application, but Lanlehin, through his counsel, had challenged the competence
of the application, saying INEC and Akeju filed their responses 44 days after
they were served with the petition.
The petitioner relied on the 2010 Electoral Acts (as amended), which stipulated that a respondent was required to file a reply to an election petition not later than 21 days from the day of service of the petition. But the tribunal anchored its decision to extend the time on Paragraph 45 of the first schedule of the Electoral Acts.
The petitioner relied on the 2010 Electoral Acts (as amended), which stipulated that a respondent was required to file a reply to an election petition not later than 21 days from the day of service of the petition. But the tribunal anchored its decision to extend the time on Paragraph 45 of the first schedule of the Electoral Acts.
Counsel to Lanlehin, Lana, contended that the Appeal Court ruling on the
petition made it mandatory that INEC and Akeju, who were third and fourth
respondents in the petition, could no longer participate in proceedings on the
petition, adding that the barred respondents had no rights to appear before the
panel, adding that they failed to file a memorandum of appearance in accordance
with the provision of the law.
But the lead counsel to Akanbi, Otunba Olayinka Bolanle, and the lead counsel to INEC and Akeju, Mr. Shobanjo, opposed Lana’s submission. They jointly asked the petitioners’ counsel to formally file an application before the panel on the matter.
But the lead counsel to Akanbi, Otunba Olayinka Bolanle, and the lead counsel to INEC and Akeju, Mr. Shobanjo, opposed Lana’s submission. They jointly asked the petitioners’ counsel to formally file an application before the panel on the matter.
According to Shobanjo, “If they don’t want us here again, they should apply
that we should go and we will go. After all, we came from somewhere.”
Responding, Lana, who reminded the panel that the petition had only 59 days to
expire, cited a Supreme Court judgment in support of his position. He argued
that there was no longer any contest between the petitioner and the barred
respondents.
The tribunal, however, asked the petitioner’s counsel to bring a formal application on the request to shut the doors against INEC and Akeju in the petition.
The tribunal, however, asked the petitioner’s counsel to bring a formal application on the request to shut the doors against INEC and Akeju in the petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Lets know if this report was helpful to you. Leave your comment here. Thanks