The People’s Democratic Party, PDP, Mr. Ladi Adebutu’s “reply” about suspected vote-buying during the state’s March 18 election was dismissed by the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal in Abeokuta, Ogun State, on Monday.
Adebutu, in the petition, marked EPT/OG/GOV/03/2023, is challenging the victory of Governor Dapo Abiodun, based on alleged non-compliance to the Electoral Act and corrupt practices during the election.
The three-man panel, led by Justice Hamidu Kunaza, ruled on one of the preliminary applications during its pre-hearing sitting.
Lead Counsel to the second respondent (Abiodun), Wole Olanipekun, SAN, had filed an application challenging the petitioner’s reply dated May 22, 2023, bothering on the allegations of vote-buying by the governor during the last election.
The governor’s legal team raised the issue of vote-buying against Adebutu and the PDP in the reply to the original petition, but the petitioner’s counsel in the response, in turn, accused the second respondent (Abiodun) of the same allegation of financial inducement of 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 respondent’s reply.
According to him, the introduction of a new issue/fact in the reply was against paragraph 16 1A of the First Schedule of the Electoral Act.
Osipitan said some paragraphs in the petitioner’s reply were offensive and prayed the tribunal to strike it out for being incompetent.
But the counsel to Adebutu, Goddy Uche, SAN, asked the tribunal to reject the second respondent’s application for lacking in merit, saying it was used as a delay tactic on the petition.
He said the petitioner didn’t raise the issue of vote-buying in the petition ab initio.
In its unanimous ruling, the chairman of the tribunal, Justice Hamidu Kunaza, struck out the petitioner’s reply dated May 22, 2023.
The Tribunal held that the petitioner’s reply if allowed would constitute injustice as the second respondent doesn’t have the opportunity to respond to the petitioner’s reply.
The panel held that a reply should not be a medium to raise a new issue which was not raised in the petition.
“The petitioner’s reply dated May 22, 2023, is, hereby, struck out,” the tribunal held.
However, the Chairman emphasised that the ruling didn’t affect the merit of the petition as the petition itself would be determined during the hearing stage which would soon commence.
He, however, adjourned the sitting to June 22, 2023, for another ruling.