The Ondo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal has dismissed the petitions filed by the Action Alliance(AA), the Allied People’s Movement (APM) and the Social Democratic Party (SDP), challenging the victory of Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa in the 16 November, 2024 governorship election.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and the All Progressives Congress (APC) were listed as respondents in the petitions sedately by the parties.
|
|
The judgment comes as Mr Aiyedatiwa marks his 100 days in Office. He was inaugurated on 24 February.
In a unanimous ruling, the tribunal held that the AA lacked the locus standi to challenge the election outcome, having failed to present a candidate in the poll.
|
|
|
|---|
The AA and its National Chairman, Adekunle Omoaje, through their counsel, had alleged irregularities in the election and accused INEC of deliberately excluding the party’s name and logo from the ballot papers.
However, in the lead judgment delivered by Imelda Etiape and supported by two other Justices, Daurabu Sikkam and Benson Ogubu, the tribunal voided the petition on the grounds that AA failed to field any candidate for the election.
The tribunal held that the claim of unlawful exclusion was no longer a valid ground for challenging election results, as that provision was repealed with the enactment of the 2010 Electoral Act.
On the allegations of corrupt practices and vote buying, the tribunal noted that the petitioners failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate their claims.
It consequently dismissed the petition but declined to award costs against the petitioners.
Also, the tribunal dismissed the petition of the APM, saying its petition lacked material facts and was not supported by credible evidence.
Benson Ogbu, the judge, who read the lead judgment, stated that the allegations of voting without accreditation, over-voting, corrupt practices, and substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act were not backed by any verifiable facts.
The panel further held that the evidence presented was of no probative value, and the written statement of the APM’s witness should be discountenanced for failing to disclose the source of information.
READ ALSO: INEC announces date for Ekiti, Osun off-cycle elections
The tribunal concluded that the APM’s petition lacked merit and that the petitioner was not entitled to any of the reliefs sought.
The case was subsequently dismissed with an order for parties to bear their respective costs.
On the SDP’s petition, the tribunal dismissed it, holding that it lacked merit and failed to provide the required material facts.
It said the petition was based on speculation and not supported by concrete evidence, emphasising that reliefs cannot be granted on the basis of hearsay, propaganda, or emotions.
The tribunal dismissed the SDP’s petition as baseless and a waste of judicial time, while also directing that each party should bear their own costs.
