Ambode vs Agbaje: Tribunal Considers Objection Today

The Lagos State Governorship Election Tribunal sitting in Ikeja has fixed today to make a resolution whether to examine the preliminary objection filed by the state Governor, Akinwunmi Ambode against a petition which was filed by Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Jimi Agbaje in the April 11 election challenging the governor’s victory.

Agbaje and Ambode

Vanguard reports that the PDP candidate is asking the tribunal to reverse Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC’s) declaration of Ambode as the winner of the election stating that he should be pronounced and installed as the victor.

However, at the time the matter surfaced yesterday, the tribunal presided by Justice Mohammed Ibrahim Sirajo, said that it would take all preliminary objections alongside with the petitions subjecting the issues to open debate and asked parties in the matter to make their submissions.

To this end, counsel to Agbaje, Clement Onwuenwunor aligned himself with the proposal of the court, saying that “the proposal represents the position of the law contained in paragraph 12 of the Electoral Act, 2012 as amended.”

Onwuenwunor further argued that if the preliminary objections are taken and later result in an appeal which would take months. This according to him would infringe upon his client’s right PRESENT his case. He prayed the court to follow the proposal it had suggested.

Debating against that, counsel to Akinwunmi, Wole Olanipekun ,(SAN), nevertheless opposed the proposal, arguing that paragraph 18 and 47 (1) of the Electoral Act specifies that objections shall be taken before the hearing of the petition.

He further argued that paragraph 47 of the Act particularly forbids that any motion be heard without first taking preliminary objection except in extreme circumstance.

Olanipekun also emphasized that the petitioner has not PRESENTED any extreme circumstance before the court to warrant the non-hearing of the preliminary objection before the substantive motion.

 Justice Ibrahim eventually insisted that the statutory 180 days period for the hearing would commence after the ruling.