The 2024 Ondo State Election Petition Tribunal has validated the election of Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa.
It dismissed the petitions filed by the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP and its Governorship candidate, Hon. Agboola Ajayi, against the election for lacking in merit.
Also, it thrashed the petitions filed by the Allied People’s Movement (APM), and the Social Democratic Party (SDP) challenging his victory in the November 16, 2024 governorship election.
Subsequently, the tribunal upheld Aiyedatiwa of the APC as the validly elected governor of the state.
It said Agboola failed to prove the case of academic certificate forgery against Aiyedatiwa’s running mate, Olayide Adelami while he also failed to prove the case of over voting during the election.
The Tribunal uprooted the petition by the PDP candidate and described it as a failure.
While dismissing the petitions filed by the APM, and SDP, it described the petitions as embarking on a useless and meaningless journey.
Listed as respondents in the cases filed by the APM, and SDP candidates, and Otunba Bamidele Akingboye, are Aiyedatiwa, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and the APC.
In its ruling on the APM’s petition, the Tribunal said that the case lacked material facts and was not supported by credible evidence.
Justice Benson Ogubu, who read the lead judgment, stated that the allegations of voting without accreditation, over-voting, corrupt practices, and substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act were not backed by any verifiable facts.
The panel further held that the evidence presented was of no probative value, and the written statement of the APM’s witness should be discountenanced for failing to disclose the source of information.
Justices Daurabu Sikkam and Imelda Etiape concurred with the ruling.
The Tribunal concluded that the APM’s petition lacked merit and that the petitioner was not entitled to any of the reliefs sought.
The case was subsequently dismissed with an order for parties to bear their respective costs.
Similarly, the Tribunal dismissed the petition filed by the SDP, represented by its counsel Prince Adewole Adebayo, who alleged discrepancies in vote entries in Form EC8A, over-voting, and non-compliance with the Electoral Act.
Responding, Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN, counsel to the respondents, urged the Tribunal to dismiss the petition for lacking substance.
In its judgment, the Tribunal ruled that the SDP’s case lacked merit and failed to provide the required material facts. It said the petition was based on speculation and not supported by concrete evidence, emphasizing that reliefs cannot be granted on the basis of hearsay, propaganda, or emotions.
The Tribunal dismissed the SDP’s petition as baseless and a waste of judicial time, also directing that each party should bear their own costs.
Also, the Tribunal dismissed the petition filed by the Action Alliance (AA) challenging the Governor’s victory, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and the All Progressives Congress (APC).
It said, in a unanimous ruling, that the AA lacked the locus standi to challenge the election outcome, having failed to present a candidate in the poll.
The AA and its National Chairman, Mr. Adekunle Rufai Omoaje, through their counsel, had alleged irregularities in the election and accused INEC of deliberately excluding the party’s name and logo from the ballot papers.
In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Imelda Etiape and supported by Justices Daurabu Sikkam and Benson Ogubu, the Tribunal declared the petition a nullity due to AA’s failure to field a candidate.
It further held that the claim of unlawful exclusion is no longer a valid ground for challenging election results, as that provision was repealed with the enactment of the 2010 Electoral Act.
On the allegations of corrupt practices and vote buying, the Tribunal noted that while such claims are serious and punishable under the Electoral Act, the petitioners failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate them, rendering the petition legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal consequently dismissed the petition but declined to award costs against the petitioners.
