There was a mild drama at the Ekiti State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Ado-Ekiti on Monday as the governorship candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), Isaac Adedayo Alade, withdrew his petition challenging the victory of Governor Biodun Oyebanji in the June 20 election, against the position of his party.
Alade’s counsel, Barrister Umar Abdulhamid, told the three-member tribunal that the second petitioner had filed a Motion on Notice dated September 12, 2026, informing the panel of his intention to discontinue the petition.
The development caught the counsel representing the SDP and the first petitioner, Adewole Adebayo, who is also the party’s presidential candidate, by surprise.
Adebayo described the withdrawal as an “ambush”, saying he was not aware of the candidate’s decision to discontinue the case.
He, however, said he would not oppose the application because Alade’s withdrawal would not prevent the party from continuing with the petition.
In his ruling, the tribunal chairman, Justice Abubakar Idris Kutigi, granted the application and struck out Alade’s name from the petition.
Speaking after the ruling, Adebayo said the SDP would continue with the case despite the candidate’s decision to withdraw.
He said, “If he stands his ground and says he wants to withdraw or discontinue, then we will have no reason to stop him. If he withdraws and decides to go home, he is free. It doesn’t stop us from continuing with the case.”
Counsel to Oyebanji and the second respondent, Adetunji Oso, said he would not oppose the application, arguing that the candidate had exercised his legal right in line with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026.
Oso also dismissed claims that the withdrawal of petitions by the opposition candidates was the result of coercion or intimidation.
He said that the governor, being the Chief Security Officer of the state, would not interfere with the tribunal’s proceedings or do anything capable of undermining the administration of justice.
The development came a week after the tribunal struck out the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party governorship candidate, Dr Oluwole Oluyede, following his withdrawal from the case.
Meanwhile, proceedings in the SDP petition also witnessed some drama as one of the party’s witnesses, Toluwalope Oluwandabira, struggled to identify the name of the party’s governorship candidate when questioned during cross-examination.
The witness was among those called by the SDP to give evidence concerning the conduct of the election.
Another witness, Odabira Olumuyiwa, gave evidence concerning his role as an agent at Ward 2, Unit 007, Ikole Local Government Area, but admitted that he did not wear the Independent National Electoral Commission identification tag while monitoring the poll.
Also, Bamisaye Julius, who alleged massive vote buying during the election, told the tribunal that he saw people sharing money but could not establish the amount involved or identify those responsible for the alleged act.
Another witness, Awoleye Sunday Samuel, said there were skirmishes among supporters of rival political parties at the polling unit where he served as an agent, but added that the incidents did not prevent the election from being successfully conducted.
The SDP called seven witnesses after the tribunal returned from a 30-minute recess to enable the party to assemble its witnesses.
In a separate petition filed by the Action Alliance, the party’s chairman and state collation agent, Elder Sunday Ajayi, admitted under cross-examination that he was not issued an appointment letter to serve as the party’s collation agent.
He, however, told the tribunal that he received the mandate from the party to perform the role, being its number one member in the state.
After the seven witnesses had testified, counsel to the petitioners requested a short adjournment.
The application was not opposed by counsel to the respondents and was granted by the tribunal.
Oso, however, urged the panel to ensure that the petitioners did not delay proceedings, reminding the tribunal that election petitions were sui generis and must be determined within the time prescribed by law.
“My Lord, they are hampering us. You have to tell them to present their witnesses who could give evidence based on where they worked during the election timely. We can’t waste the time of the court”, he said.