TKO Aluko loses bid to stop arrest, prosecution for alleged perjury

Read the press statement below...

Attempt by the embattled former secretary of the Ekiti chapter of the Peoples Democratic Party, Temitope Aluko to quash the order of an Ado-Ekiti Chief Magistrate Court for his arrest and prosecution for alleged perjury became futile today, as the court struck out his motion on notice, seeking the setting aside of the warrant of arrest issued against him on February 3, 2016.

Chief Magistrate Soji Adegboye, while striking out the motion filed by Aluko’s counsel, Mr Niran Owoseni, said it was a mere academic exercise, time wasting and abuse of court process. Chief Magistrate Adegboye, gave the order for Aluko’s arrest and prosecution for alleged perjury on February 3, 2016 based on a Motion Ex-parte number MAD/10cm/2016, filed by the Ekiti State Government against Aluko and the State Commissioner of Police. The motion on notice, which was dismissed today, had stalled the execution of the arrest warrant issued against Aluko.

According to the order, the motion was made in pursuant to Section 117 of the Criminal Code Law, Cap C16, law of Ekiti State 2012, Section 79 of the Ekiti State Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2014 and Section 23 (D) of the Magistrates’ Courts Law 2014.

The Ekiti State police commissioner was joined as second defendant and was required to execute the order against Aluko. However, Aluko had through hic counsel, filed a motion to challenge the jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrate Court to issue the warrant of arrest against him for allegedly committing the offence of perjury during an interview on Channel Television. Aluko’s counsel, Owoseni had argued that Section 7 of Magistrate Law, 2014 specified that the magistrate court cannot act outside its territorial jurisdiction, describing the court action as incompetent and abuse of court process.

The Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), Mr Gbemiga Adaramola, who opposed the motion on notice, argued that since the warrant of arrest was a substantive matter, the ruling had a force of judgment. While urging the court to strike out the motion, Mr Adaramola posited that the Chief Magistrate Court lacked jurisdiction to review its own judgement.