APC afraid of election, resorted to violence — Commissioner for Information, Alimi

The Osun State Commissioner for Information and Public Enlightenment, Kolapo Alimi, speaks with IMOLEAYO OYEDEYI on the ongoing battle for the control of local government in the state

Can you share the genesis of the crisis on local government control in the state?

The former governor of Osun State, Gboyega Oyetola, who is now the Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, caused the crisis. The last governorship election in Osun State was conducted on July 16, 2022, which brought in Senator Ademola Adeleke as the incumbent governor. However, after losing the election to Adeleke, Oyetola started engaging in questionable activities, which showed that he was not a true statesman. He had used caretaker chairmen for over three years, but suddenly decided to conduct the local government election just three months before leaving office. All the political parties in the state, except the APC, told him that the required notice under the law for a local government election is 360 days, whereas he had only three months left. He insisted he would provide a two-month notification, which is illegal. He proceeded with the election through the state electoral commission.

The entire political parties, except the APC, vowed to boycott the election. The Peoples Democratic Party then approached the Federal High Court. At the time, the election notice had not yet been formally issued. Later, when the Oyetola government officially announced the election notice, the PDP returned to court to amend its originating summons, and the court granted the amendment. The case proceeded to a hearing, and the court ruled that the two-month notice given was not valid under the law. The court ruled that the state electoral body under Oyetola ought to have given a 360-day notice. The judgment was delivered on November 25, 2022, before the swearing-in of Governor Adeleke.

Meanwhile, before the PDP’s case was heard, another party, the Action People’s Party, had also approached the court, challenging the same local government election. That case also proceeded to a hearing. The difference between the two cases was that while the PDP filed its case before the Oyetola government issued the formal election notice, the APP filed its suit immediately after the notice was issued. Both cases eventually received judgments.

What were the judgments?

In the PDP case, the court annulled the local government election conducted by the Oyetola government and ordered the APC council chairmen and councilors who emerged from the election to vacate their offices because the poll was illegally conducted. The same judgment was delivered in the APP suit. The APC appealed both judgments. However, when they got to the Court of Appeal, they did not find any grounds to challenge the judgment obtained by the APP, so they abandoned that appeal. After several months, the APP applied to the Court of Appeal to dismiss the abandoned appeal. The court granted the request, meaning the judgment obtained by the APP became legally binding.

Such judgments have finality and force, just like Supreme Court rulings. However, the APC pursued the appeal against the PDP judgment because they found a legal loophole: the PDP had filed its case before the formal election notice was issued. The APC challenged this, and the Court of Appeal agreed, ruling that as of the time the PDP filed its case, the election notice was speculative.

The court held that the PDP should have waited for the notice to be published before filing. The APC then asked the court to strike out the PDP suit and reinstate the sacked local government chairmen. The court struck out the PDP suit but refused to grant the consequential order reinstating the sacked chairmen. Despite this, the APC chairmen claimed they had obtained a court verdict reinstating them. We then asked them to review the judgment carefully and see that nowhere did the court order their reinstatement.

We acknowledged that the PDP’s case was struck out, but we pointed out that the APP judgment, which also nullified the same election, was still valid, and the APC’s appeal against it had been dismissed. Unlike the PDP’s case, which was struck out on a technicality, the APP’s case was determined on merit, making its judgment more authoritative.

Even if the APC had a valid judgment, there is a legal procedure for enforcement. They should have returned to the Federal High Court to seek clarification or applied under Section 287 for enforcement. The Chief Registrar of the court would then write to the police to help enforce the judgment. However, they refused to follow this process because they had no valid judgment to enforce. Instead, they resorted to self-help, which is exactly what they did. As it stands today, the law is clear: they remain sacked based on the valid judgment obtained by the APP at the Federal High Court, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. It does not matter which party filed the case—what matters is that there is a binding court judgment.

Does this mean that the judgment in the APP case supersedes that of the PDP case?

Of course, it does. The PDP case was challenged on jurisdictional grounds, meaning the court never addressed the substantive issue. The only question before the court was whether the election notice was valid. In contrast, the APP case was determined on merit. A case decided on merit will always supersede one struck out on a technicality. Had the PDP case been heard on merit and the court ruled that a two-month notice was acceptable, we (the PDP) would have appealed to the Supreme Court. However, the Court of Appeal only ruled that the PDP filed too early. If the APP judgment did not exist, the APC would have been correct in relying on the ruling in the PDP case. However, since there was another valid judgment on merit, their argument holds no weight.

At the time the PDP’s case was struck out, had the court delivered judgment on the APP case?

Yes. The PDP case was determined at the Federal High Court on November 25, 2022, while the APP case was decided three days later. Both cases were filed around the same time, and the APC appealed them simultaneously. However, the APC was only clever by half. They knew that if they pursued the appeal against the APP judgment, they would lose since the APP case was filed after the formal election notice was issued. So, they abandoned that appeal and focused on the PDP case, which had a technical loophole.

Even so, the Court of Appeal only struck out the PDP case; it did not order the reinstatement of the sacked chairmen. I believe the court took that decision because it knew there was another subsisting judgment—the APP case. That is why we have written to the Attorney General of the Federation to interpret both cases. However, he has remained silent due to political considerations. If we were wrong, I believe the AGF would have issued a legal position by now, but he is avoiding embarrassing the APC.

Some APC chieftains argue that the PDP cannot benefit from a case it did not file. What is your response?

Once it comes to the constitution, anybody can apply to the court. So whoever applies doesn’t matter. But the moment a judgment has been given, that verdict becomes the judgment of the court. The judgment doesn’t belong to the person who obtained it but to the court. As a journalist, if you see any lacuna in the constitution and challenge it, if the court delivers a judgment in your favour, it benefits all parties worldwide. And that same thing applies to the judgment obtained by the APP. It is binding on all.

What is the next move of your party?

We have no move to make. The APC is the one making moves because they are afraid of today’s election. That is why they resorted to violence and lawlessness. But everything they are doing is being documented. We will take them to court. They met the local government offices under lock and key because NULGE had withdrawn their services. But the APC people burgled the gates, broke down the doors, and forced their way into the secretariats. They even looted the government properties. They can never get away with all of these. It is just because the atmosphere is tense. All of them will be dealt with. Even if they have a genuine case, can they just break into places they have left for over two years like that? It is not done anywhere.

How many members or supporters of the PDP were lost to Monday’s violence?

The total number of casualties is six. The APC lost one, while PDP lost five members.  About 50 other members of our party were severely injured and currently receiving treatment at various hospitals in the state. But the investigation is still ongoing. When it is concluded and a report is submitted, the government will take the appropriate steps for the affected families.

What does this crisis mean for the 2026 governorship election?

It only shows their desperation to return to power at any cost. But the people have shown that they will not be intimidated. While the crisis poses a great danger, the people are prepared to resist the APC’s antics. I think the crisis portrays a great danger ahead, but the people are surely ready for the APC.