ONI FAILS TO BRING MORE WITNESSES TO GIVE EVIDENCE, GETS LAST WARNING FROM TRIBUNAL.

ONI FAILS TO BRING MORE WITNESSES TO GIVE EVIDENCE, GETS LAST WARNING FROM TRIBUNAL.

....PANEL ADJOURNS TO OCTOBER 11

The three witnesses scheduled to give evidence in support of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) candidate, Chief Segun Oni, before the Election Petition Tribunal were not called by the Petitioners to testify at Friday's proceeding of the Ekiti State Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Ado Ekiti.

Oni and SDP who are the 1st and 2nd Petitioners said they would not be able to take the three witnesses in view of a fresh application filed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) with which they was served earlier in the day.

The Governor-elect, Mr. Biodun Oyebanji and the Deputy Governor-elect, Mrs. Monisade Afuye are the 1st and 5th Respondents respectively in the petition. The All Progressives Congress (APC) is the 2nd Respondent while Alhaji Mai Mala Buni is the 3rd Respondent. INEC is 4th Respondent in the petition.

With the latest application, INEC now has two applications before the three-man Panel which the Petitioners insist must be heard before they bring their next set of witnesses to give evidence at the Tribunal.

One of the two pending INEC  applications is a Motion on Notice to object to the subpoena to compel the appearance of the state Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) to produce some documents and give evidence at the Tribunal.

The Petitioners through their counsel, Mr. Obafemi Adewale (SAN), sought an adjournment of sitting  while also informing the Tribunal that they had filed objection and counter affidavit and accordingly served parties in the petition.

Adewale, said the Petitioners "vigorously and vehemently" opposed what he called the "disruptive motion by INEC seeking leave of the Tribunal to continue with the witnesses already listed to give evidence after the determination of the two pending motions.

But the Respondents opposed the application of the Petitioners insisting that the already listed witnesses should be taken in line with the dictates of the Pre-Hearing Report agreed to by all parties in the petition.

The disagreement among lawyers in the two sides of the divides sparked exchange of verbal jabs albeit in a friendly manner sometimes throwing everybody inside the courtroom into laughter.

Counsel to 1st and 5th Respondents, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) while opposing the application of the Petitioners saying "this is not the appropriate situation to grant such an adjournment" arguing further that "such an adjournment must be based on cogent and compelling reasons."

Fagbemi said the Tribunal had given an order that parties should forward the schedule of the order of their witnesses for Day 3 as they are all polling units agents of the Petitioner on the day of election.

He maintained that the two pending motions have nothing to do with the evidence of the witnesses who intended to give evidence on how election went on their polling units saying "there was no basis for not calling the witnesses for Day 3in line with Paragraph C of the Pre-Hearing Report."

Counsel to 2nd Respondent, Chief Akin Olujinmi (SAN), adopted "in-toto" the submission of Fagbemi urging Their Lordships to reject the Petitioners' application which he described as "disrespect to the noble lord's ab initio."

Counsel to 3rd Respondent, Mr. Umar Abdulhameed, adopted what he described as "the brilliant submission of the learned counsel to the 1st and 5th Respondents (Fagbemi)" in opposition the Petitioners' request for adjournment.

Counsel to 4th Respondents, Chief Charles Uwensuyi-Edosomwan (SAN), simply said "we will all do our duty and work while noting that the motion in question was not ripe for hearing.

The Tribunal in its short ruling delivered by its Chairman, Justice Wilfred Kpochi, recalled that the Panel had earlier provided the roadmap in the Pre-Hearing Report in which it was decided that hearing would take place everyday and witnesses would be heard on stipulated days while those who failed to appear would be deemed to have abandoned their case.

Justice Kpochi said the pending application by INEC was capable of causing a dislocation on the sequential order of proceedings including the evidence of witnesses as the Panel had not been told of the "boomerang effect" it will have.

While agreeing with Fagbemi that the Petitioners' request to stop their witnesses from continuing with their evidence was contrary to one of the resolutions at the Pre-Hearing stage, the Panel "would be reluctant in invoking such an order for now."

While holding that the Petitioners' position was necessitated by INEC's new application, it was incumbent on them (the Petitioners) to know that they should not come with applications that will ebb away the time available to adjudicate on the petition.

Justice Kpochi said the Panel would "reluctantly" grant the application of the Petitioners but it was granting same with "last warning" to them.

He subsequently adjourned hearing to Tuesday, October 11 for the continuation of hearing of the petition as the Federal Government has declared Monday, which would have been the day to adjourn to, as a public holiday.