TKO Aluko Loses Bid To Stop Arrest, Prosecution For Alleged Perjury

By Lere Olayinka

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