The counsel, Mr Akinbuli, who was absent at the sitting, sent a letter to the court seeking an adjournment of the hearing pending the appellate court’s address on the application for the relocation of the hearing.
The ongoing legal battle over the outcome of the June 20, 2026, Ekiti State governorship election took a new twist on Wednesday as counsel to the Social Democratic Party (SDP), Ebenezer Akinbuli, boycotted the resumed sitting of the Ekiti State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, citing security concerns arising from previous appearances.
However, Mr Akinbuli, who was absent from the sitting, sent a letter to the court seeking an adjournment of the hearing pending the appellate court’s address on his application for the relocation of further hearings.
During the proceedings, the chairman of the three-person tribunal, Abubakar Kutigi, a judge, informed the court that the President of the Court of Appeal, Monica Dongban-Mensem, had declined to order the transfer of the sitting, adding that the tribunal was properly constituted to continue hearing the petitions.
While the counsel to the All Progressives Congress (APC), Kabir Akingbolu, and that of the Independent National Electoral Committee (INEC), Bunmi Ipinlaiye, denied awareness of the order of the Court of Appeal, which was served through the secretary of the tribunal, Mr Kutigi, however, adjourned the case to 24 September for the continuation of the hearing to clear all doubts.
Speaking with journalists after the proceedings, the APC counsel, Mr Akingbolu, said the petitioners had renewed their demand for the relocation of the tribunal from Ado-Ekiti, stressing that the relocation request was made in respect of the SDP petition and not that of the Action Alliance (AA).
The APC counsel also alleged that the petitioners were responsible for seeking the latest adjournment, saying the request was contained in letters filed in respect of the two election petitions.
Mr Akingbolu, however, described the petition challenging Governor Biodun Oyebanji’s victory as unusual, arguing that the margin and voting pattern in the election made the case unprecedented.
He claimed that the governor won in all 16 local government areas and most of the 177 wards in the state, while questioning the basis for the petitioners’ challenge to the election, saying the petitioners recorded relatively low vote figures.
He further alleged that the petitioners were resorting to various tactics to delay the proceedings, including seeking repeated adjournments. He urged them to focus on the substantive issues before the tribunal.
“There is confusion, so we need to clarify it: the SDP and the AA filed petitions. On the last adjourned day, 16 September, counsel to the party, SDP, filed a petition, stating that there was no security and that the tribunal’s venue should be moved to Abuja or elsewhere.
“As it is today, they are secure. They are the ones who sought the adjournment. The court has now adjourned the matter to tomorrow for continuation at the instance of the petitioner, who filed the petition and a letter of adjournment to that effect in both election petitions.
“It is an unprecedented petition. The success of the governor and the people is unprecedented. The governor won 16 local governments, almost the entire 177 wards.
“There was no challenge from the people who filed the petition. None of the political parties received more than 200 votes. It has never happened in Nigeria in a governorship election that somebody who has not scored thousands, or even hundreds, will come and file an election petition.
“For me, I don’t think it is proper. We are here because this is litigation. If somebody writes that kind of petition when there is no ground, I think it is an illegal step,” Mr Akingbolu said.
