Key Takeaways
- The Court of Appeal has declined the Social Democratic Party's (SDP) request to relocate the Ekiti State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal from Ado-Ekiti.
- The SDP counsel had cited alleged security concerns, including an alleged assault, as reasons for the relocation request.
- Justice Abubakar Kutigi, Chairman of the three-member tribunal, confirmed the Appeal Court President's decision, stating the tribunal remains properly constituted in Ado-Ekiti.
- Proceedings were adjourned to clarify the status of correspondence and allow all parties to be fully informed.
- Counsel for the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) expressed readiness to proceed with substantive hearings, questioning the merit and delays caused by the petitioners' applications.
ADO-EKITI – The judicial landscape for the Ekiti State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal has been clarified, as the Court of Appeal firmly rejected a plea by the Social Democratic Party (SDP) to relocate its proceedings from Ado-Ekiti. This decision, announced by the tribunal chairman, Justice Abubakar Kutigi, ensures that the legal challenge to Governor Biodun Oyebanji's victory will continue within the state capital, despite persistent calls for a change of venue due to alleged security concerns.
The request for relocation, spearheaded by SDP counsel Ebenezer Akinbuli, stemmed from claims of insecurity, including an alleged assault on a legal representative. The tribunal had previously adjourned from September 16 to September 23 to allow the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem, to consider the petitioners' application. However, during Tuesday's sitting, Justice Kutigi informed all parties that the application for transfer had been declined, affirming the tribunal's mandate to continue its work in Ado-Ekiti.
The development led to a brief adjournment of proceedings to Wednesday, September 24, aimed at clarifying the status of correspondence related to the proposed relocation. This move was deemed necessary after counsel for the All Progressives Congress (APC), Kabir Akingbolu, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Bunmi Ipinlaiye, indicated they were not fully aware of the Court of Appeal's decision, which had been served through the tribunal secretary.
Speaking to journalists after the session, APC counsel Kabir Akingbolu highlighted the petitioners' renewed efforts to relocate the tribunal, specifically noting that the application pertained to the SDP's petition, not that of the Action Alliance (AA). He also pointed out that multiple letters seeking adjournments had been filed for both petitions, contributing to delays in the substantive hearing.
Akingbolu strongly questioned the basis of the petition challenging Governor Biodun Oyebanji's victory, describing it as "unusual" given the significant margin and widespread support demonstrated during the election. He emphasized that Governor Oyebanji secured victories across all 16 local government areas and the majority of the 177 wards in the state. He urged the petitioners to shift their focus from procedural applications to the core issues of their case, arguing that the continuous adjournments were impeding justice.
The legal framework governing election petitions in Nigeria is designed to ensure timely resolution of electoral disputes, upholding the integrity of the democratic process. Tribunals are typically established within the jurisdiction where the election took place, fostering accessibility and local understanding. Requests for relocation, while permissible under specific circumstances, often face stringent scrutiny, requiring compelling evidence of threats to judicial impartiality or the safety of participants.
Why This Matters
The Court of Appeal's decision to keep the Ekiti Election Tribunal in Ado-Ekiti underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining established legal procedures and resisting delays in election petition hearings. This ruling sets a precedent for the continuation of judicial processes within their designated jurisdictions, emphasizing the importance of focusing on substantive legal arguments rather than procedural applications, thereby ensuring the swift and fair resolution of electoral disputes.