Site icon Naija Blitz News

Kogi: Appeal Court reserves judgment in Ajaka’s petition against Ododo

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has reserved judgment in the appeal by candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in the November 11, 2023 Kogi governorship election, Muritala Ajaka, and his party, against the decision of the state election petition tribunal.

In its May 27 judgment, the tribunal upheld the victory of Usman Ododo of All Progressives Congress (APC) and dismissed Ajaka’s petition.

A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal yesterday took final submissions from lawyers to parties in the case, and announced that judgment is reserved, to be delivered on a date to be communicated to them (the parties).

Kanu Agabi (SAN), while adopting the briefs filed on behalf of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), prayed the court to dismiss Ajaka’s appeal for lacking in merit. He said there were inconsistencies in the appellant’s case.

Advertisement

Agabi argued that the Appeal Court had decided that if the grounds of a petition were inconsistent with one another, and were not consistent with the reliefs, it should be struck out. He also argued that the evidence of the petitioners were grossly insufficient, citing a Supreme Court decision.

The former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) argued that once the evidence called is grossly insufficient, there is no evidence. He said the petitioners only called 25 witnesses out of the scores listed.

According to him, of the 25 witnesses called by the petitioners, there was no single polling unit agent among them. He also argued that the first petitioners’ witness (PW1) did not file any witness deposition beforehand as required by law and, as such, cannot give evidence in an election petition.

Ododo’s lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN), noted that no single evidence of the PW1 was admitted as evidence by the court on the ground that he failed to front load his witness statement beforehand.

Advertisement

He said the tribunal was right to have expunged the evidence of PW1, having declared it inadmissible, and added that the appellants failed to prove the allegation of over voting in their petition.

Exit mobile version