Mohammed Shosanya
The Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abeokuta, Ogun State, Monday struck out a reply filed by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Ladi Adebutu, on an alleged vote-buying against Governor Dapo Abiodun of the All Progressives Congress, APC, during the March 18 election in the state.
The three- man panel led by Justice Hamidu Kunaza ruled on one of the preliminary applications during its pre-hearing sitting on Monday.
Dapo Abiodun,had through his lead Counsel, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), in his reply to the main petition alleged voting buying against Adebutu and his party during the said election.
However,the petitioner’s counsel in the response in turn, also accused Abiodun and his party of also engaging in financial inducement for voters during the election.
A member of Abiodun’s legal team, Prof Taiwo Osipitan (SAN) who argued the application before the tribunal said the petitioner had surreptitiously introduced vote-buying as a new issue and fact while responding to the second respondents’ reply.
According to him, introduction of new issue/fact in the reply was against paragraph 16(1) (a) of the First Schedule of Electoral Act.
Osipitan said some paragraphs in the petitioner’s reply were offensive and prayed the tribunal to strike it out for being incompetent.
Counsel to Adebutu, Goddy Uche (SAN) asked the tribunal to reject the second respondents’ application for lacking in merit, saying it was used as a delay tactic on the petition.
Uche said the second respondent in some paragraphs in his reply made allegation of financial inducement of voters by Adebutu during the March 18 governorship election, saying the petitioner merely responded to the opponent’ accusations as contained in the reply to the original petition.
He said the petitioner didn’t raise the issue of vote-buying in the petition ab initio.
In its unanimous ruling read by the Chairman, Justice Hamidu Kunaza, the petitioner’s reply dated May 22, 2023 was strucked out.
The tribunal held that the petitioner’s reply if allowed would constitute injustice as the second respondent doesn’t have opportunity to respond to the petitioner’s reply.
The panel held that a reply should not be a medium to raise new issue which was not raised in the petition.
“The petitioner’s reply dated May 22, 2023 is hereby struck out,” the tribunal held.
The Chairman emphasised that the ruling didn’t affect the merit of the petition as petition itself would be determined during the hearing stage which would soon commence.
