Tribunal Strikes Out PDP’s Petition Against Faleke

An Ikeja Election Petitions Tribunal on Friday struck out an application challenging the victory of Mr James Faleke, representing Ikeja Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives.

The election was held on Feb. 23, 2019.

The Chairman of the Tribunal, Justice Kunaza Hamidu, struck out the application, following a motion filed by the petitioner, Mr Mutiu Okunola, a candidate of the PDP, who ran against Faleke in the election.

Okunola, who defected to the APC, had raised a petition against Faleke, the APC and the Independent National Electoral Commission.

He had sought a reversal of Faleke’s victory, asking the tribunal to declare him winner of the election.

During proceedings, Okunola’s Counsel, Mr Owoyemi Ibrahim, informed the tribunal that Okunola had made a decision to withdraw the petition he filed against the respondents.

Ibrahim told the three-man panel that in withdrawing the petition, Ibrahim filed a motion pursuant to Section 145(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010, alongside an 11- paragraph affidavit which was deposed by Okunola, the petitioner.

He, therefore, urged the tribunal to grant the prayers contained in the motion and withdraw the petition filed against all the respondents.

Responding, Mr Kolawole Salami, Counsel to Faleke and Mr Ademola Adefolaju, Counsel to the APC, told the tribunal that they would not oppose the petitioner’s motion to withdraw.

Salami and Adefolaju also informed the tribunal that their clients had filed a nine-paragraph affidavit in response to the petitioner’s motion.

Counsel to INEC Mr Z. S. Makinde, also informed the court that INEC would not be opposing the motion.

Following the submissions of counsel, Hamidu said, “having read through the petitioner’s motion dated and filed on May 30, with the affidavit and written address and having gone through the first and second respondents’ affidavits, leave is granted to the petitioner to withdraw his motion.

“Consequently, the petitioner’s petition against all the respondents is hereby struck out”.

NAN