It is almost not far fetched to say that Adeleke’s case was dead on arrival, and just one man inability to be at the right place at the right time had rid Adeleke of a victory that could have been.





The absence of Peter Obiora at a very important hearing had been the greatest “spoiler” of all times and seemed almost like an easy way for Isiaka Gboyega Oyetola to stamp his victory on Osun. After months of uncertainty and wait in the judicial wilderness the legal tangle has finally been brought to a close and unfortunately it didn’t end well for Adeleke. Why had Adeleke not stood a chance from the very moment he was declared winner? Let us take a critical look at how everything has played out from the beginning and the exact point Adeleke began his fall to “loosedom”.


Why Adeleke Lost

The three man panel that had been set up in 2018 had declared Adeleke winner in March 2019, their bases being that the rerun election that held on September 27, 2018, was illegal and had consequently declared Adeleke the winner. In the first ballot that had been held on September 22. PDP candidate won majority votes of 254,698 votes while Mr Oyetola of the APC came a close second with 254,345 votes.


However, at the supplementary, reverse had been the case and Oyetola had won. With the cancellation of the rerun one would think that a final victory had been struck but unfortunately a loophole had been created and therein lies the beginning of the end for Adeleke.

Out of the three man panel in the tribunal, one Justice Peter Obiora had been absent on February 6, 2019 when a major discussion on the issue of none-compliance was tabled and according to the ruling which had been given by the supreme court his absence meant that he therefore could not have viewed the issue squarely.


It had been observed that Justice Obiora had not signed a record that he was present at the tribunal on February 6. They had stated that the fact that one of the judges did not sit during a tribunal and had gone ahead to deliver judgment was a very serious matter.


His lack of sitting had declared the judgment of the tribunal null and void, therefore the supplementary elections of Oyetola now stands and he is therefore the winner of the Osun 2018 Gubernatorial. What a loophole!

One begin to wonder if the supreme court was right to base its judgment on such an unfortunate technicality and not on the initial election itself that had been held on the 22nd of September. Let us take a look at some court cases that have some similarity to this present mishap that led to the Adeleke’s loss.


In the case of Ubwa vs Tiv Area Traditional Council, Justice Magaji JCA who had not participated in the initial hearing of the case wrote and delivered a judgment that had been heard by Akpabio, Umoren and Chukwuma-Eneh, JJCA. The apex court after considering sections 247(1), 294(2) ad (4) of the 1999 constitution declared the judgment a nullity and consequently ordered a retrial.


We also have Sokoto State Government Vs Kamdex Nig limited. In this case Justice Galadima who did not hear the appeal had delivered a concurring judgment that had been heard by Justices Ogebe, Aderemi and Chukwuma-Eneh, which led to the supreme court saying that it was not a complete judgment of the court of appeal because because one of the Justices who heard the appeal did not reduce his judgment or opinion in writing capable of being delivered … as required by section 294(2) of the 1999 constitution.


We also have the case of Awolola v Governor Ekiti State (2019) All FWLR, however in this case if the judgment of the judge who is not a member of the original panel is discountenanced, the judgment still stood as judgment of the majority. This is not so in the case of Oyetola v Adeleke’s where the panel was made up of three members and one of them had voted against Adeleke. The card of the judgment of the majority would not play out in this case since the Supreme Court has found the judgment of Peter Obiora invalid because he did not sit with the original panel on February 6 as shown by the records of appeal that is made up of three members.


The absence of Justice Peter Obiorah through out the hearing had given Oyetola an upper hand right from the beginning. It is almost unbelievable that Adeleke’s lawyers could not see this even while it was quite glaring.

According to what is provided within section 285(4) of the 1999 constitution the tribunal of an election shall be the chairman and two members and if that is not the case then the judgment on that hearing has no bases and is rendered null and void.

If only Peter Obiorah had been present in that very important hearing, then maybe, just maybe it would have been a different story, a different victory that would have played out.