The court had on February 3, 2016 issued a warrant for the Commissioner of Police to arrest and prosecute Dr Aluko for alleged perjury, following an interview he granted television stations in which he was said to have said things contrary to what he had said on oath in law courts. His motion on notice was filed by his lawyer, Mr Niran Owoseni, and he had asked the court to set aside the warrant of arrest issued against him on February 3, 2016. The Chief Magistrate, Soji Adegboye, while striking out the motion on Wednesday, had said it was a mere academic exercise, time-wasting and abuse of court process. Chief Magistrate Adegboye, had given the order for Aluko’s arrest and prosecution for alleged perjury on February 3, 2016 following a motion ex-parte number MAD/10cm/2016, filed by the Ekiti State government against Aluko and the Commissioner of Police in the state. According to the order, the motion was made 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 his counsel, filed a motion to challenge the jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrate’s court to issue the warrant of arrest against him for allegedly committing the offence of perjury during an interview on the said television station. 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, Adaramola posited that the chief Magistrate’s court lacked jurisdiction to review its own judgement.]]>