[ad_1]
The proper sitting of the Osun State Election Petition Tribunal in Osogbo suffered another setback on Wednesday due to the failure of petitioners to serve respondents documents to be tendered before the panel.
During the sitting, the counsel to the petitioner Abiodun Layoonu (SAN), informed the court that the petitioners have filed a subpoena dated November 3, 2022, compelling the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) to appear before the court to present Adeleke’s Form CF 001, which is the nomination form and all its attachments, including the certificates used in the 2018 election.
He prayed to the court to adjourn the sitting till Monday, November 21, 2022, saying that the bailiff were yet to serve REC with the subpoena.
Counsel for the first respondent, Paul Ananaba, SAN, objected to the application for adjournment, saying that it was clear evidence that the petitioners were not prepared for diligent prosecution of the petition, citing paragraph 18(11) of the Electoral Act.
ALSO READ FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
Ananaba argued that REC being subpoenaed to bring the said documents was never mentioned in the petition, saying that by planning to call REC as a witness without informing the tribunal earlier, the petitioners had violated paragraph 3 of the tribunal’s pre-hearing report.
He noted that paragraph 3 indicated that the tribunal must be furnished with a list of witnesses to be called 24 hours before the hearing day.
However, counsel to the second respondent, Niyi Owolade, and the third respondent, Nathaniel Oke (SAN), adopted Ananaba’s arguments and prayed that the tribunal should dismiss the petition.
Responding, Oyetola’s counsel, Layoonu, SAN, described the respondents’ arguments as baseless, saying the question of not being diligent in the prosecution of the petition was just a blanket statement by the respondents.
He argued: “The question of diligence is a question of fact. My learned friends have just made blanket statements, but they have never come with any facts to that effect. Your Lordships know that there was no hearing day that we had not been here to prosecute our case.
“Besides that, my Lord, it is our prerogative to conduct our case the way we want as permitted by the law and we have been so diligent with it because we know what we are doing. What then is their problem?”
Layoonu also referred to paragraph 69(vi) of the petition where it was expressly stated that the documents in question would be relied on.
In his further arguments, Layoonu said since the tribunal has not issued the subpoena, it could not have been served on the respondents, asking the INEC counsel to take a hint from the tribunal and stop being apprehensive unnecessarily.
He then urged the tribunal to discountenance all the arguments of the respondent’s counsel.
Thereafter, the tribunal chairman, Justice Tertsea Kume, adjourned the matter till Monday, November 21, for the continuation of the hearing.
[ad_2]
