A’Court to decide appeals against Mimiko
JUNE 26, 2013
Governor Olusegun Mimiko of Ondo State
The Akure Division of the Court of Appeal on Tuesday reserved judgment on the appeals before it challenging the verdict of the Ondo Election Petitions Tribunal that upheld the re-election of Governor Olusegun Mimiko, for a second term in office.
The Presiding Judge, Justice M.L. Garba, who is leading a five-member panel, stated this during the adoption of written addresses by counsel for the petitioners and the defendants.
With the conclusion of the necessary legal processes by the various parties in the appeal, the Appellate Court may deliver its judgment early next month which would have been 90 days between the tribunal verdict and the conclusion of hearings on the suits.
The Action Congress of Nigeria candidate in the election, Mr. Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, and his Peoples Democratic Party counterpart, Chief Olusola Oke, had filed separate appeals against the tribunal’s verdict which was delivered in favour of Mimiko, who contested the poll on the platform of the Labour Party.
Akeredolu’s lead counsel, Chief Akinlolu Olujimi, in his submission, urged the court to uphold the appeal as the tribunal erred by dismissing his petition without considering the merit.
He said, “The central issue in this appeal is the 2012 voter register which we discovered was not used on election day after having been assured by the Independent National Electoral Commission that it was the valid register for the poll.”
Mimiko’s lead counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun, told the court that “the appellant adumbration have clearly showed the futility of the appeal.”
He said based on Section 19 and 20 of the Electoral Act 2010, the tribunal was right in its judgment that the opening of the soft copy of the voters register issued by INEC at its Stakeholders Meeting on 28th September, 2012 was a pre-election matter.
He added, “Even if you open it a day to the election, it remained a pre-election matter. It was held by the lower tribunal that all the allegations you levelled thereafter were even criminal not electoral.
“The appellant was the only person who confirmed that his name was transferred, no other person again came up to allege that his name was illegally injected into the register or that his name was on the register and was prevented from voting.”
No comments:
Post a Comment