The hearing in the Election Petition Tribunal between Chief Lukman Oyebisi Ilaka and Right Honourable Mulikat Sumonu, the All Progressives Congress and the Independent National Electoral Commission was held Monday morning before Hon. Justice G. Abundaga, Hon. Justice G.C. Nnamani, and Hon. Justice A.H. Suleimann.

The tribunal had earlier promised to issue its report and that all parties would be served with the report and the date of the hearing. This was agreed upon at the close of the pre-hearing on June 30. Consequently, all respondents were served with the report and the date of hearing on Friday with the exception of the third respondent representing the Independent National Electoral Commission, who received the process this morning before the hearing began.

Mr O. Akanni, who is the counsel representing the first respondent, Honourable Mulikat Sumonu, accused the petitioner of not coming to the tribunal with his witnesses and thus was practically foisting an adjournment on their Lordships.

"It is very strange that the petitioner who is challenging the return and the victory of the candidate is not prepared to proceed with his petition. The tribunal fixed hearing of the petition to start this morning and the petitioner has now filed an application asking for an adjournment of this petition to a later date on the basis that they are still trying to get their documents sorted out,’’ he told CEOAfica.

"It is very strange and obvious to us that they do not have a case and are probably just fishing for evidence or in a quandary as to how to begin proceedings. The tribunal was however very clear that trial was supposed to start this morning but because of them, it could not commence.

When asked what he felt about the decision of the tribunal not to award the cost he required for since the case had been adjourned, Mr Akanni told CEOAfrica that he had no problem with that. According to him, the tribunal has discretion whether to approve the cost or not.

In a similar vein, the counsel representing the third respondent, INEC, Oluwatosin Adisa told CEOAfrica after the hearing at the tribunal that the application in his own light reeked of frivolity.

He said, The petitioner came to court with an application which in their opinion was frivolous. But then, the court has asked us to respond to that application. We were only served in court this morning. We told the court that they intended to frustrate today’s proceedings and to that effect, the court actually awarded cost in our favour against the petitioner.

When asked the reason why the court did not award cost in favour of the other respondents, he said it was because others had been served the application earlier. He said further that if they had inkling that there would be an application for them in court, they would have responded long ago.

The counsel for the petitioner, Mr O.L. Omoniyi, had earlier told the tribunal that he and his bailiff were at Mr Adisa’s chamber on Saturday but met it locked. Mr Adisa nevertheless told CEOAfrica that it was irrational for the petitioner to have stopped by at his chamber late in the evening.

"I don’t think he expects us to wait for an application that might not be filed,’’ he noted.

The counsel for the second respondent, Mr Yakub Fadare, was however underwhelmed with the decision of the tribunal, saying, "We felt very bad. The matter was adjourned for the hearing on substantive petition today. As at the close of the pre-hearing section on June 30, the tribunal promised to issue its report and that all parties will be served with the report and the date of the hearing. Consequently, all respondents were served with the report and the date of hearing on Friday. We were here for that today but unfortunately, the petitioner served us with a motion seeking for adjournment/hearing of the substantive petition which shows that they are not ready to proceed with the hearing today.

"We asked for a cost but the tribunal in their wisdom believed that we are not entitled to cost because we were served three days ago notwithstanding that we had seven days to file our response. Our contention was the petitioner was aware that the matter would be going for hearing today and it was the basis of it going for hearing that we are in court today notwithstanding that there is a pending application. That notwithstanding, we may not contest that ruling but I think the petitioners are not being fair to us,’’ Mr Fadare said

The respondents are expected to notify the court that they have responded to the process filed by the petitioner on July 8 while the petitioner is also to notify the court that he received their responses before July 9. The hearing had been adjourned till July 10.