His lawyers, Mr. Niran Owoseni and Mr. Wale Abimbola, told newsmen in Ado Ekiti on Wednesday during a press conference that the court “might have made the order based on wrong representation.” They said the order was made without jurisdiction and described the warrant as “an abuse of court process.” A warrant was issued by an Ado Ekiti chief Magistrate’s Court for the Commissioner of Police in the state to arrest and prosecute Aluko for alleged perjury. The lawyers said they had approached the same court, asking it to set aside the order, claiming that Aluko “did not commit perjury simply because of newspaper publications,” saying “a mere speculation at this stage shouldn’t have been entertained in the first place.” He said the Ekiti State’s Director of Public Prosecution “got it all wrong on the matter,” saying that what he took to the court was “mere speculation” because they had charged him with perjury because they claimed that he had gave evidence on oath having testified during the tribunal. Owoseni, who addressed journalists said: “If you are saying he has perjured, are you going to subject that perjury to what you have gleaned from the pages of newspapers? The evidence against Aluko as of today are the things they gleaned from the newspapers. They are relying on what they gleaned from newspapers. “Has that complied with what is envisaged with what is envisaged by the provisions of the law? We are saying no.” He said for a court to be competent, precedent must be satisfied and “then the court has the right to issue the warrant wherever the person is but if the condition precedent is not satisfied, then the jurisdiction of Ekiti State court is restricted to the boarders of Ekiti State.” He said “these alleged offensive statements were not made in Ekiti in the first place. They were made in Lagos and probably somewhere else.” He said even if the statements were made in Ekiti, “do they satisfy the ingredients of the law with regards to the offence of perjury?” They also said there was no charge of perjury pending before the court before the order was made and therefore said they had gone to court to seek its resolution of the matter.]]>