The National and State Assembly Election Tribunal sitting in Lagos has upheld the election of the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) for Surulere Federal Constituency II in the House of Representatives in the last elections, Lanre Okunlola.
The Tribunal, in a unanimous judgment, dismissed the petition filed by the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the February 26 elections, Olatunji Abiola Shoyinka after holding that he failed to prove that Okunlola’s victory was unlawful.
The Tribunal, which agreed with Okunlola’s counsel, Mr. Wahab Shittu (SAN), that Shoyinka’s petition failed and ought to be dismissed, also awarded a punitive cost of N200,000 to him in favour of Okunlola and the APC.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)has declared Okunlola winner of the polls with 27,725 votes while Shoyinka came second with 4,875 votes.
Shoyinka and the PDP are first and second petitioners in the petition marked EPT/LAG/HR/03/2023, while Okunlola, the APC and INEC are the first, second and third Respondents.
The petitioners, through their counsel Christopher Abengowe, challenged the elections on two grounds.
In their first ground, they alleged that the election was invalid because of corrupt, illegal and wrongful practice perpetuated by INEC in connivance with Okunlola and the APC through falsification, manipulation, and forgery of results done by the 3rd Respondent (INEC).
While in their second ground, they submitted that the election was invalid because of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act.
They prayed the tribunal for an order setting aside the results of the several polling units won by the APC, alleging that the same were not returned in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act.
They also sought a declaration that Shoyinka be declared the winner of the election.
But Okunlola filed a Preliminary Objection dated May 7, 2023, for an order striking out and/or dismissing the petition for being incompetent.
He also filed a Motion dated May 9, for an order striking out the Petitioner’s Reply dated and filed on April 15.
