The hearing of the election petition tribunal between Chief Oyebisi Ilaka and Right Honourable Mulikat Sumonu met another brickwall as the matter has been adjourned till 27th, 28th and 29th of July, 2015.
The case which was presided before their Lordships; Honourable Justice G. Abundaga, Hon. Justice G.C. Nnamani and Hon. Justice A.H. Suleimann at the State High Court in Ibadan had to be adjourned due to the forthcoming celebration of the Ramadan festival coupled from the fact that their Lordships were from different jurisdictions across the country.
Hon Justice Abundaga told the counsels that going by the situations they found themselves; there was no way they could rule on the application.
Mr Tola Osoobi; the counsel to the first respondent in the petition for the Oyo Central Senatorial District sought for the earliest date believing that the counsel to the petitioner; Mr Omoleye would have more time to manufacture evidences that might not be factual enough. Mr Omoleye in turn accused the counsel to the first respondent for not being cooperative in their bid to obtain the needed documents from INEC’s office in Ibadan.
Mr Osoobi however perceived the accusation as a frivolous one arguing that it was not rational for the petitioner to expect his team at the INEC office in Ibadan when the information reached them late. He further stated that it was simply too tasking to respond to an ill-timed request from Mr Omoleye knowing well that their chamber was in Lagos.
Upon the complaint of Mr Omoleye that he encountered problems obtaining the electoral materials from INEC, the presiding Chairman, Hon. Justice Abundaga reminded the counsel to INEC; Oluwatosin Adisa of the need to serve as an intermediary without being skewed toward any of the parties. Mr Adisa assured their Lordships of the liberality of INEC and also the logistics which INEC had to deal with.
Before coming to terms with the adjournment, Mr Osoobi insisted that it was pertinent to clarify if the petitioner was ready to dissolve the application which he had earlier served upon them. Mr Omoleye agreed to this and the counsel to the All Progressive Congress; Yakubu Fadare who is the second respondent in the case was neither opposed to the withdrawal of the application.
Justice Abundaga nevertheless emphasized how imperative it was for the petitioner to exploit the opportunity as no motion for adjournment would be heard by the Tribunal be it orally or written. Failure to do so would leave the tribunal with no other option than to invoke provisions of the electoral act against the petitioners. All parties then agreed that the case be adjourned till the 27th, 28th and 29th for definite hearing.
While speaking with CEOAFRICA, the counsel to Right Honourable Mulikat Sumonu; Mr Tola Osoobi was confident in their case and also berated the petitioners for being hesitant in the pursuant of their case despite being the ones who brought them to court.
‘’The matter was supposed to come up for trial on Monday, the 6th of July and we were ready to go on. The petitioners brought an application seeking an adjournment of the hearing of the matter which is strange because they brought the matter and should be anxious for their matter to be heard and determined’’
‘’When we came to court on Monday, we were ready to go on despite the fact that we were just served a day before the tribunal sat. We believed in our case and we were ready to go on but the court directed that we should go file a formal written application because we had sought the leave of court to respond orally. We filed the papers the court asked us to file. The court also directed them to respond back before close of work yesterday.
As usual they filed their papers behind schedule; struggling to file it this morning. They served us with their papers in court ten minutes before the court. But nevertheless we were ready to go on. However, their Lordships indicated that they have been sitting for the past two months. As you know, their Lordships, they are from different jurisdictions from all over the country and they’ve been hear in Oyo State to help us with this petition for the past two months and they also indicated that they hadn’t seen their families and they just had to go on recess. Also putting into consideration, the attendant ceremonial requirements of the Ramadan festival, it was only necessary that they went on recess. In any event, they would be entitled to a break even if they had been within their jurisdiction.
The court informed us of this and obviously, we were sensitive to the needs of the judges and we conceded. Well enough, the petitioners have gotten what they wanted which is fine anyway. We however hope that they would not come back again with applications to delay, scuttle or undermine the hearing of this matter. We are very confident in our case and we don’t know why they are hesitant about the pursuant of their case. It is crystal clear that they don’t have any evidence to back up their case. They are merely running around to fish for evidence and buying time in the process with the hope that they would manufacture some forms of evidence to sustain their case. We are however ready for them and confident that the tribunal will do justice’’ He said.
When asked how supportive he was willing to be with the petitioners in sorting for electoral materials, he said:
‘’I have never in anyway hindered the Independent National Electoral Commission from giving parties electoral materials. The truth is that election petitions are very time sensitive matters and the law makes it mandatory that proceedings should be adjourned only in extreme circumstances. They had the opportunity to bring this application as far back as when they filed their petition but they did not bring it. They filed a similar application as far back as April and could have sought this prayer way back then’’
‘’We have been going to INEC every day because we are anxious for this process to be concluded so that the proceedings are not delayed. When we got to INEC, we were reasonably informed that this is not the only petition in Oyo State. There are over thirty petitions in Oyo state alone which in every realistic sense is way out of proportion to their staff strength. Other more up and doing petitioners had brought similar applications much earlier and the court had granted those orders. I mean they have brought the orders from court to count ballot papers. Of course, there were three senatorial elections, several House of Representatives elections, the House of Assembly elections and of course, the gubernatorial elections are all being contested. INEC has to attend to everyone but only in the order in which all petitioners brought their orders from the court. So if other petitioners have obtained their orders months ago, how do you expect INEC to stop them all because you just obtained your order barely two weeks ago? It is not just fair!’’
‘’INEC duly informed us of their limited staff strength. Ballot papers and other election materials are extremely sensitive documents that must not be tampered with or interfered with because INEC also has their integrity to protect. So personally, I think the fault is not from INEC but in fact, from the petitioners in not acting timeously. The onus is on INEC to treat all petitioners fairly based on their time at which they brought their orders from the court. So I will reiterate once again that the fault is with the petitioners and thus; should not place the faults on the respondents or INEC’’ he concluded
The counsel to the petitioner, Mr O.L. Omoleye was however satisfied with how the proceedings seemingly went in his favour again.
‘’We somehow got what we wanted with the extension of the date for the hearing till the 27th, 28th and 29th of July’’
When asked if he was optimistic about getting all the election materials he was seeking going by the number of petitions being handled by INEC, he said: ‘’I know that the INEC would not do that because we got an order from the court to that effect. If they fail to oblige us with the necessary documents contained in the order, we know what steps to take based on the provisions of the law. Nevertheless, I am cocksure that INEC will want to comply with the orders of the court by furnishing us with every document needed to prosecute this petition’’
In spite of having exhausted almost ninety days out of the one hundred and eighty days provided for prosecuting cases in an election tribunal, Mr Omoleye was still upbeat. He reiterated that once the needed documents were at their disposal and were put in, the next thing would be leading oral evidence on them.
When asked on his stance about INEC, he said: well I still believe that they have taken a neutral stance all along. I however don’t know what could happen hereafter. But as for today and since the proceedings began, they have been acting as if they are a neutral authority.
When asked why he had to use the word ‘if’, he hesitantly said: ‘’Let me use that word’’
