Murtala Ajaka, the 2023 governorship candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in Kogi State, was attacked at the Supreme Court on Friday.
The incident followed the court’s declaration of Usman Ododo of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the duly elected governor of the state.
In a video obtained by SaharaReporters, Ajaka was seen being assaulted by suspected hoodlums shortly after the court ruling.
The attackers beat Ajaka and pelted him with water as his team desperately tried to shield him and escort him to safety.
The motive behind the attack on Ajaka remains unclear.
Neither Ajaka nor representatives from the SDP have released an official statement regarding the attack at the time of this report.
The Supreme Court had affirmed Ododo as the winner of the last governorship election held in Kogi State on November 11, 2023.
In a judgment on Friday, a five-member panel of the apex court held that the appeal by the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and candidate Yakubu Muritala Ajaka, marked: SC/CV/654/2024 was without merit and proceeded to dismiss it.
Justice Sadiq Umar, who authored and read the lead judgment resolved all the three issues identified for determination in the appeal against the appellants.
SaharaReporters had reported that the Supreme Court on Monday reserved its judgment on Ajaka’s appeal to annul Ododo’s election, and subsequently adjourned the case after all parties presented their final arguments.
The Social Democratic Party (SDP) and its candidate, Muritala Ajaka, had filed an appeal marked SC/CV/654/2024, against Governor Ododo.
Ajaka had asked the Supreme Court to overturn the tribunal and appellate court rulings that dismissed his petition against Governor Ododo.
INEC had declared Ododo the winner with 446,237 votes, defeating Ajaka’s 259,052 votes.
Ajaka sought to nullify Ododo’s Certificate of Return and demanded a new election in five LGAs. He also accused the APC candidate of submitting forged documents and alleged over-voting.
The tribunal, however, dismissed these claims, ruling that the petition lacked competence and that the evidence presented was insufficient.
