. 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.

He can't defeat APC In court in this present Government

ejimatic:
. 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.

you have started your epistles in this platform, the whole world knew what happened OK. your crook propanganda doesn't hold any water.

All these epistle wont change the people's mind and perception. Adeleke won the election while Oyetola won the trial. The trial is a punitive measure on the litigant PDP of a judicial offense of absenteeism.

ejimatic:
. 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.

Dr Charles Omole on Twitter.

REVIEW OF OSUN VERDICT BY SUPREME COURT. Reading the
verdict of the apex court, it is clear the majority based their
decision on technical breach of procedure rather than on the
substantive merit of the case against INEC. A legal technicality
...is a small but ultimately important detail of the law. When a
case is decided based on "a technicality", it means the
defendant would have been in trouble for something but
through some small oversight or misinterpretati on of a rule,
they are found not guilty. The apex court in a split decision of
five to two members of the panel, on Friday, agreed
substantially with the Court of Appeal which ruled that a
majority judgement delivered at the tribunal was a nullity. The
court said the judge who had read the majority judgement ...at
the tribunal, Justice Peter Obiora, was “evidently absent” on
February 6th, 2019, following the documents before the court.
In this case, the Supreme court says because the Lead judge
in the Tribunal did not sign the attendance sheet on 6th
February, ...it is assumed that he was not in attendance; hence
cannot be a judge in a case he did not hear its facts and
details. Justice Bode Rhodes- Vivour who delivered the
majority judgment supported by five of the seven-justices held
that it is settled law that when ...“the rightly constituted panel
of a court does not seat the activities carried out by that panel
is a nullity.” Justice Akaahs in his minority judgment held that
INEC in an election ought to remain an unbias umpire because
even when it erred in law by relying on it’s manual ...to cancel
some aspect of the election, the applicant still met the
constitutional requirements of having the highest votes cast
and spread. But the Election umpire went ahead to cancel the
election and carried out a rerun showing that INEC had a plan
up its sleeves. In this case, the Majority based their verdict on
a Procedural breach; while the Minority based theirs on
Substantive justice, ignoring the technicality relied upon by
their majority colleagues. So WHO made the right decision?
From publicly available facts so far; ...Justice Obiora claimed
he was in court on 6th February; but that he forgot to sign the
attendance register. So APC in its appeal argued that the
judge’s failure to sign at the end of the proceedings on
February 6, 2019, was enough evidence to justify their claim
that Justice Obiora was absent on the day in question. So at
BOTH Appeal & Supreme Courts; the case was no longer about
substantive discrepancies & illegalities alleged against INEC. It
was hinged solely on legality of the Composition of the
Tribunal on 6th Feb. On one hand; I can see why procedural
justice should be promoted as an aid to substantive justice.
After all, the fruit from a poisonous tree is also equally
poisonous. But the court should have put more weight on what
is at stake in this case. Verdicts like this ...does not develop
our jurisprudence as all the substantive matters about INEC’s
conduct have not been addressed by either the Appeal or
Supreme courts. They simply focused on the procedural
irregularity and dismissed the case on that ground alone. So
we are not ...better informed on whether INEC can do what it
did in Osun in future elections or not as the courts turned
wilfully blind eyes on the substantive issues. Justice Obiora,
could have been deposed on oath to ascertain his attendance
and the courts can then focus ...on the substantive issues that
will help develop our law and polity. That is what is needed;
not simply a technical judgement; especially when the
technical irregularity was not the fault of all parties to the
case. A judicial irregularity of such pettiness, ...that could have
been remedied as suggested above should not have been
relied upon solely to vitiate a verdict such that the substantive
allegations were not explored by the justices. This is becoming
a pattern. In the case of Onnoghen; the court of appeal
dismissed ...the case because, “it has been overtaken by
event” since Onoghen had resigned. Onoghen’s resignation
should not have affected a full verdict that will help develop
our law and set justiciable precedents to grow our
jurisprudence. As a result of their reluctance ...to address the
substantive issue of whether the President has power to
suspend a CJN; we are left non the wiser. So a President can
therefore confidently suspend a CJN in future as the appeal
court did not address that question at all. Using just
technicalities to ...decide cases on certain magnitude is a
disservice to justice and in certain cases can be as a result of
judicial corruption. It is almost certain that the current
Presidential election petition could also be decided purely
based on technicalities if these precedents hold.

Everyone should check the details of the review of the SC judgement yesterday from this link: https://www.nairaland.com/5284785/review-supreme-court-verdict-osun

Johnnyessence:


Dr Charles Omole on Twitter.

REVIEW OF OSUN VERDICT BY SUPREME COURT. Reading the
verdict of the apex court, it is clear the majority based their
decision on technical breach of procedure rather than on the
substantive merit of the case against INEC. A legal technicality
...is a small but ultimately important detail of the law. When a
case is decided based on "a technicality", it means the
defendant would have been in trouble for something but
through some small oversight or misinterpretati on of a rule,
they are found not guilty. The apex court in a split decision of
five to two members of the panel, on Friday, agreed
substantially with the Court of Appeal which ruled that a
majority judgement delivered at the tribunal was a nullity. The
court said the judge who had read the majority judgement ...at
the tribunal, Justice Peter Obiora, was “evidently absent” on
February 6th, 2019, following the documents before the court.
In this case, the Supreme court says because the Lead judge
in the Tribunal did not sign the attendance sheet on 6th
February, ...it is assumed that he was not in attendance; hence
cannot be a judge in a case he did not hear its facts and
details. Justice Bode Rhodes- Vivour who delivered the
majority judgment supported by five of the seven-justices held
that it is settled law that when ...“the rightly constituted panel
of a court does not seat the activities carried out by that panel
is a nullity.” Justice Akaahs in his minority judgment held that
INEC in an election ought to remain an unbias umpire because
even when it erred in law by relying on it’s manual ...to cancel
some aspect of the election, the applicant still met the
constitutional requirements of having the highest votes cast
and spread. But the Election umpire went ahead to cancel the
election and carried out a rerun showing that INEC had a plan
up its sleeves. In this case, the Majority based their verdict on
a Procedural breach; while the Minority based theirs on
Substantive justice, ignoring the technicality relied upon by
their majority colleagues. So WHO made the right decision?
From publicly available facts so far; ...Justice Obiora claimed
he was in court on 6th February; but that he forgot to sign the
attendance register. So APC in its appeal argued that the
judge’s failure to sign at the end of the proceedings on
February 6, 2019, was enough evidence to justify their claim
that Justice Obiora was absent on the day in question. So at
BOTH Appeal & Supreme Courts; the case was no longer about
substantive discrepancies & illegalities alleged against INEC. It
was hinged solely on legality of the Composition of the
Tribunal on 6th Feb. On one hand; I can see why procedural
justice should be promoted as an aid to substantive justice.
After all, the fruit from a poisonous tree is also equally
poisonous. But the court should have put more weight on what
is at stake in this case. Verdicts like this ...does not develop
our jurisprudence as all the substantive matters about INEC’s
conduct have not been addressed by either the Appeal or
Supreme courts. They simply focused on the procedural
irregularity and dismissed the case on that ground alone. So
we are not ...better informed on whether INEC can do what it
did in Osun in future elections or not as the courts turned
wilfully blind eyes on the substantive issues. Justice Obiora,
could have been deposed on oath to ascertain his attendance
and the courts can then focus ...on the substantive issues that
will help develop our law and polity. That is what is needed;
not simply a technical judgement; especially when the
technical irregularity was not the fault of all parties to the
case. A judicial irregularity of such pettiness, ...that could have
been remedied as suggested above should not have been
relied upon solely to vitiate a verdict such that the substantive
allegations were not explored by the justices. This is becoming
a pattern. In the case of Onnoghen; the court of appeal
dismissed ...the case because, “it has been overtaken by
event” since Onoghen had resigned. Onoghen’s resignation
should not have affected a full verdict that will help develop
our law and set justiciable precedents to grow our
jurisprudence. As a result of their reluctance ...to address the
substantive issue of whether the President has power to
suspend a CJN; we are left non the wiser. So a President can
therefore confidently suspend a CJN in future as the appeal
court did not address that question at all. Using just
technicalities to ...decide cases on certain magnitude is a
disservice to justice and in certain cases can be as a result of
judicial corruption. It is almost certain that the current
Presidential election petition could also be decided purely
based on technicalities if these precedents hold.

Sound.

paiz:
He can't defeat APC In court in this present Government

Yea! But the Zamfara and Rivers judgment were in the past Government. You people have issues.

Johnnyessence:


Dr Charles Omole on Twitter.

REVIEW OF OSUN VERDICT BY SUPREME COURT. Reading the
verdict of the apex court, it is clear the majority based their
decision on technical breach of procedure rather than on the
substantive merit of the case against INEC. A legal technicality
...is a small but ultimately important detail of the law. When a
case is decided based on "a technicality", it means the
defendant would have been in trouble for something but
through some small oversight or misinterpretati on of a rule,
they are found not guilty. The apex court in a split decision of
five to two members of the panel, on Friday, agreed
substantially with the Court of Appeal which ruled that a
majority judgement delivered at the tribunal was a nullity. The
court said the judge who had read the majority judgement ...at
the tribunal, Justice Peter Obiora, was “evidently absent” on
February 6th, 2019, following the documents before the court.
In this case, the Supreme court says because the Lead judge
in the Tribunal did not sign the attendance sheet on 6th
February, ...it is assumed that he was not in attendance; hence
cannot be a judge in a case he did not hear its facts and
details. Justice Bode Rhodes- Vivour who delivered the
majority judgment supported by five of the seven-justices held
that it is settled law that when ...“the rightly constituted panel
of a court does not seat the activities carried out by that panel
is a nullity.” Justice Akaahs in his minority judgment held that
INEC in an election ought to remain an unbias umpire because
even when it erred in law by relying on it’s manual ...to cancel
some aspect of the election, the applicant still met the
constitutional requirements of having the highest votes cast
and spread. But the Election umpire went ahead to cancel the
election and carried out a rerun showing that INEC had a plan
up its sleeves. In this case, the Majority based their verdict on
a Procedural breach; while the Minority based theirs on
Substantive justice, ignoring the technicality relied upon by
their majority colleagues. So WHO made the right decision?
From publicly available facts so far; ...Justice Obiora claimed
he was in court on 6th February; but that he forgot to sign the
attendance register. So APC in its appeal argued that the
judge’s failure to sign at the end of the proceedings on
February 6, 2019, was enough evidence to justify their claim
that Justice Obiora was absent on the day in question. So at
BOTH Appeal & Supreme Courts; the case was no longer about
substantive discrepancies & illegalities alleged against INEC. It
was hinged solely on legality of the Composition of the
Tribunal on 6th Feb. On one hand; I can see why procedural
justice should be promoted as an aid to substantive justice.
After all, the fruit from a poisonous tree is also equally
poisonous. But the court should have put more weight on what
is at stake in this case. Verdicts like this ...does not develop
our jurisprudence as all the substantive matters about INEC’s
conduct have not been addressed by either the Appeal or
Supreme courts. They simply focused on the procedural
irregularity and dismissed the case on that ground alone. So
we are not ...better informed on whether INEC can do what it
did in Osun in future elections or not as the courts turned
wilfully blind eyes on the substantive issues. Justice Obiora,
could have been deposed on oath to ascertain his attendance
and the courts can then focus ...on the substantive issues that
will help develop our law and polity. That is what is needed;
not simply a technical judgement; especially when the
technical irregularity was not the fault of all parties to the
case. A judicial irregularity of such pettiness, ...that could have
been remedied as suggested above should not have been
relied upon solely to vitiate a verdict such that the substantive
allegations were not explored by the justices. This is becoming
a pattern. In the case of Onnoghen; the court of appeal
dismissed ...the case because, “it has been overtaken by
event” since Onoghen had resigned. Onoghen’s resignation
should not have affected a full verdict that will help develop
our law and set justiciable precedents to grow our
jurisprudence. As a result of their reluctance ...to address the
substantive issue of whether the President has power to
suspend a CJN; we are left non the wiser. So a President can
therefore confidently suspend a CJN in future as the appeal
court did not address that question at all. Using just
technicalities to ...decide cases on certain magnitude is a
disservice to justice and in certain cases can be as a result of
judicial corruption. It is almost certain that the current
Presidential election petition could also be decided purely
based on technicalities if these precedents hold.

well said

Dannyset:


Yea! But the Zamfara and Rivers judgment were in the past Government. You people have issues.

. Their reasoning is beyond human comprehension

ejimatic:
. Their reasoning is beyond human compression .

Zamfara and Rivers were APC undoing itself. Osun is judicial error punished on PDP.

It won't have hurt much to seekers of justice even if the verdict is still like it is but, the meat of the matter were settled for precedence purposes.

Now we are still in the clouds as to the interpretation of section 179 of the constitution, the validity of the supplementary elections, the right to cancellation of results etc.
After about a year of trial, our jurisprudence didn't add no value cos the issues are unresolved.

The Kano trial is very similar to Osun's. let the litigants avoid the booby traps of technicalities, so we can have substantial justice with clarity of issues.

The Justices were biased. That is not an excuse. If it was the other way round they would have opened a different passage of the Law.

RIGHT FROM THE TRIBUNAL TO THE SUPREME COURT what I saw from the Judges where based on Majority vs Minority.
In the eyes of the present day Nigeria PDP is seen as an Eastern party.

Nigerians never expected the supreme Court to deal with technicalities.
The Judgment that was given , was to Justify the way INEC acted.

Its was a shame on Supreme Court.

That's the truth.

WATCHOVER:
The Justices were biased. That is not an excuse. If it was the other way round they would have opened a different passage of the Law.

RIGHT FROM THE TRIBUNAL TO THE SUPREME COURT what I saw from the Judges where based on Majority vs Minority.
In the eyes of the present day Nigeria PDP is seen as an Eastern party.

Nigerians never expected the supreme Court to deal with technicalities.
The Judgment that was given , was to Justify the way INEC acted.

Its was a shame on Supreme Court.

That's the truth.

It is unfortunate cos INEC just escaped scrutiny.

tuniski:


It is unfortunate cos INEC just escaped scrutiny.

That's the truth my dear

kaffyadeakeem:
well said

you are welcome, thanks .

WATCHOVER:
The Justices were biased. That is not an excuse. If it was the other way round they would have opened a different passage of the Law.

RIGHT FROM THE TRIBUNAL TO THE SUPREME COURT what I saw from the Judges where based on Majority vs Minority.
In the eyes of the present day Nigeria PDP is seen as an Eastern party.

Nigerians never expected the supreme Court to deal with technicalities.
The Judgment that was given , was to Justify the way INEC acted.

Its was a shame on Supreme Court.

That's the truth.

that's the blunt truth you just said here.

tuniski:

Zamfara and Rivers were APC undoing itself. Osun is judicial error punished on PDP.

It won't have hurt much to seekers of justice even if the verdict is still like it is but, the meat of the matter were settled for precedence purposes.

Now we are still in the clouds as to the interpretation of section 179 of the constitution, the validity of the supplementary elections, the right to cancellation of results etc.
After about a year of trial, our jurisprudence didn't add no value cos the issues are unresolved.

The Kano trial is very similar to Osun's. let the litigants avoid the booby traps of technicalities, so we can have substantial justice with clarity of issues.

you are very right sir. God bless your wisdom sir.

tuniski:

Zamfara and Rivers were APC undoing itself. Osun is judicial error punished on PDP.

It won't have hurt much to seekers of justice even if the verdict is still like it is but, the meat of the matter were settled for precedence purposes.

Now we are still in the clouds as to the interpretation of section 179 of the constitution, the validity of the supplementary elections, the right to cancellation of results etc.
After about a year of trial, our jurisprudence didn't add no value cos the issues are unresolved.

The Kano trial is very similar to Osun's. let the litigants avoid the booby traps of technicalities, so we can have substantial justice with clarity of issues.

You're just wasting your time. He will never understand, no matter how much you try to explain.
It's better to allow some people wallow in their ignorance than to keep ditching out free tutorials that they aren't even ready to absorb.

Johnnyessence:


Dr Charles Omole on Twitter.

REVIEW OF OSUN VERDICT BY SUPREME COURT. Reading the
verdict of the apex court, it is clear the majority based their
decision on technical breach of procedure rather than on the
substantive merit of the case against INEC. A legal technicality
...is a small but ultimately important detail of the law. When a
case is decided based on "a technicality", it means the
defendant would have been in trouble for something but
through some small oversight or misinterpretati on of a rule,
they are found not guilty. The apex court in a split decision of
five to two members of the panel, on Friday, agreed
substantially with the Court of Appeal which ruled that a
majority judgement delivered at the tribunal was a nullity. The
court said the judge who had read the majority judgement ...at
the tribunal, Justice Peter Obiora, was “evidently absent” on
February 6th, 2019, following the documents before the court.
In this case, the Supreme court says because the Lead judge
in the Tribunal did not sign the attendance sheet on 6th
February, ...it is assumed that he was not in attendance; hence
cannot be a judge in a case he did not hear its facts and
details. Justice Bode Rhodes- Vivour who delivered the
majority judgment supported by five of the seven-justices held
that it is settled law that when ...“the rightly constituted panel
of a court does not seat the activities carried out by that panel
is a nullity.” Justice Akaahs in his minority judgment held that
INEC in an election ought to remain an unbias umpire because
even when it erred in law by relying on it’s manual ...to cancel
some aspect of the election, the applicant still met the
constitutional requirements of having the highest votes cast
and spread. But the Election umpire went ahead to cancel the
election and carried out a rerun showing that INEC had a plan
up its sleeves. In this case, the Majority based their verdict on
a Procedural breach; while the Minority based theirs on
Substantive justice, ignoring the technicality relied upon by
their majority colleagues. So WHO made the right decision?
From publicly available facts so far; ...Justice Obiora claimed
he was in court on 6th February; but that he forgot to sign the
attendance register. So APC in its appeal argued that the
judge’s failure to sign at the end of the proceedings on
February 6, 2019, was enough evidence to justify their claim
that Justice Obiora was absent on the day in question. So at
BOTH Appeal & Supreme Courts; the case was no longer about
substantive discrepancies & illegalities alleged against INEC. It
was hinged solely on legality of the Composition of the
Tribunal on 6th Feb. On one hand; I can see why procedural
justice should be promoted as an aid to substantive justice.
After all, the fruit from a poisonous tree is also equally
poisonous. But the court should have put more weight on what
is at stake in this case. Verdicts like this ...does not develop
our jurisprudence as all the substantive matters about INEC’s
conduct have not been addressed by either the Appeal or
Supreme courts. They simply focused on the procedural
irregularity and dismissed the case on that ground alone. So
we are not ...better informed on whether INEC can do what it
did in Osun in future elections or not as the courts turned
wilfully blind eyes on the substantive issues. Justice Obiora,
could have been deposed on oath to ascertain his attendance
and the courts can then focus ...on the substantive issues that
will help develop our law and polity. That is what is needed;
not simply a technical judgement; especially when the
technical irregularity was not the fault of all parties to the
case. A judicial irregularity of such pettiness, ...that could have
been remedied as suggested above should not have been
relied upon solely to vitiate a verdict such that the substantive
allegations were not explored by the justices. This is becoming
a pattern. In the case of Onnoghen; the court of appeal
dismissed ...the case because, “it has been overtaken by
event” since Onoghen had resigned. Onoghen’s resignation
should not have affected a full verdict that will help develop
our law and set justiciable precedents to grow our
jurisprudence. As a result of their reluctance ...to address the
substantive issue of whether the President has power to
suspend a CJN; we are left non the wiser. So a President can
therefore confidently suspend a CJN in future as the appeal
court did not address that question at all. Using just
technicalities to ...decide cases on certain magnitude is a
disservice to justice and in certain cases can be as a result of
judicial corruption. It is almost certain that the current
Presidential election petition could also be decided purely
based on technicalities if these precedents hold.

Kudos to whoever wrote this review. It's making my heart to be turningoninown.

Until Africans kill this mindset of "the end justifies the means," we'll always remain doomed as a people.

Every man has a price indeed...

respect80:


Kudos to whoever wrote this review. It's making my heart to be turningoninown.

Until Africans kill this mindset of "the end justifies the means," we'll always remain doomed as a people.

Every man has a price indeed...

yes.

One expect Supreme court to make a ruling on INEC action ok 22nd and 27th so as to set a precedence for future occurrence.

With this judgement Kano case is the only one on hand to give us the needed Ruling in this case.

I just believe that all those that involved in kano case will not allow the set-trap again

Appellant: INEC right or wrong to have cancel the vote

Supreme court: we have nothing to say

Appellant: did not go against the constitution

Supreme court: we have nothing to say

Appellant: in case of other time, what should INEC do

Supreme court: We dont know, infact your case is dismissed

So we go back to square 1 INEC can continue to cancel votes so far a rerun is needed

[quote author=ejimatic post=79989810]. 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

ejimatic:
. 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.

The judge also dismissed two other similar appeals filed by Adeleke,marked: SC/554/2019 and SC/555/2019.
Both appeals were against the Court of Appeal judgments in the appeals by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the APC against the majority judgment of the tribunal.
Justices Ibrahim Muhammad (Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria), Justices Kudirat Kekerere-Ekun, Amiru Sanusi and Uwani Abba-Aji agreed with the lead majority judgment as delivered by Justice Rhodes-Vivour.
Justice Abba-Aji read the lead majority judgment in the second appeal, marked: SC/556/2019, which challenged the legality of the supplementary election conducted in Osun after INEC declared the first election inconclusive.
Justice Abba-Aji said, in view of the court’s position in the earlier judgment, to the effect that the majority judgment of the tribunal was a nullity, it was unnecessary to consider other issues raised in the appeal.

ejimatic:
. Their reasoning is beyond human compression .

Human comprehension you mean

drskyfly007:
Human comprehension you mean

yes comprehension... I am Sorry for the wrong spelling.

Many feel Obiora, J seeming Greek Gift Judgment is the reason.

Many have heavily criticised Obiora, J for writing the majority judgment in the matter between Sen. Ademola Adeleke and Gov. Oyetola at The Osun State Governorship Elections Petition Tribunal on the ground that it made the Supreme Court rule the way it did yesterday and in favour of Gov. Oyetola. They want his head on a platter! Some say he acted as a fifth columnist who helped destroy Sen. Ademola Adeleke‘s case.

Many feel the Supreme Court went technical when they ruled against Sen. Ademola Adeleke.

What they omitted to consider is the fact that the concept of justice is not one way and that allowing the judgment of Obiora J, who did not witness the demeanour of the witness to stand wouldamount to injustice to the Respondents who are entitled to a judgment written by a competent Judge.

A judgment of a trial court is the application of the law to facts provided before a judge who was afforded the opportunity to witness the demeanour of the witness while the testimony was underway. Truth is that the finding of fact of a trial court is considered so important that appellate courts are loathe to disturb same unless it is perverse. It cannot be contested that one cannot put something on nothing therefore Obiora’s Judgment having been based on the review of a testimony he did not observe must be struck down!


As to visiting the sin of Counsel on the litigant the Counsel committed no sin in the matter. How is Counsel to know who among the Judges on The Panel will be assigned to write the majority judgment such as would afford him the opportunity to point out Obiora’s incompetency to write same. The judgment of a lower court is reviewable by a superior court and where found to be without a justifiable basis as in this instance it is simply struck down.


Also, the moral of the whole matter cannot be ignored by Their Lordships who themselves as parents and grandparents will not be proud of a truant and an ill-suited personality becoming Governor of a State. Sen. Ademola Adeleke is an example of how a child should not grow up in school. They did the needful!

In all the circumstances The Appelant may wish to write a Petition against Obiora J and his other compatriot in the trial tribunal for reviewing evidence he never listened to!

ejimatic:
. 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.

The cases cited are inapplicable because they relate to appellate hearings where the printed record and not oral testimony are used in arriving at a decision unlike courts of
first instance where the major job of the judges is to watch the demeanour or the witnesses on which basis findings of fact are made. Not having been there when the witnesses gave evidence Obiora J, could not possibly and validly have reviewed the evidence and based his judgment on the said review. Sen. Ademola Adeleke can Petition the NJC to sanction Obiora J. His Lawyers are guiltless in the matter as they could not have envisaged the decision of the majority to ask that Obiora J, be the one to write the judgment.
In any event the SC saved the voters in Osun State the calamity set to compound the mess Aregbesola left in office had Sen. Ademola Adeleke come into office. Sen. Ademola Adeleke who largely lives off his billionaire brother Deji Adeleke lacks the capacity to govern the State. Sen. Ademola Adeleke was a truant in school and one with no track record he ever did anything correctly except dance!

WATCHOVER:
The Justices were biased. That is not an excuse. If it was the other way round they would have opened a different passage of the Law.

RIGHT FROM THE TRIBUNAL TO THE SUPREME COURT what I saw from the Judges where based on Majority vs Minority.
In the eyes of the present day Nigeria PDP is seen as an Eastern party.

Nigerians never expected the supreme Court to deal with technicalities.
The Judgment that was given , was to Justify the way INEC acted.

Its was a shame on Supreme Court.

That's the truth.

not the way you put it.
two counsels put forward their arguments.
one was more stronger in law before the supreme court than the other.
look at it this way.
the court register showed that the judge for a case was absent and the same judge gave judgement.
it does not sound good in law

engineerboat:
One expect Supreme court to make a ruling on INEC action ok 22nd and 27th so as to set a precedence for future occurrence.

With this judgement Kano case is the only one on hand to give us the needed Ruling in this case.

I just believe that all those that involved in kano case will not allow the set-trap again

So the supreme court that affirmed Kogi state election rerun is not relevant enough for you??

Continue in your dreams.

baralatie:

not the way you put it.
two counsels put forward their arguments.
one was more stronger in law before the supreme court than the other.
look at it this way.
the court register showed that the judge for a case was absent and the same judge gave judgement.
it does not sound good in law

That is a judicial issue not the parties involved. In this case the Supreme Court would have ordered a retrial

WATCHOVER:
The Justices were biased. That is not an excuse. If it was the other way round they would have opened a different passage of the Law.

RIGHT FROM THE TRIBUNAL TO THE SUPREME COURT what I saw from the Judges where based on Majority vs Minority.
In the eyes of the present day Nigeria PDP is seen as an Eastern party.

Nigerians never expected the supreme Court to deal with technicalities.
The Judgment that was given , was to Justify the way INEC acted.

Its was a shame on Supreme Court.

That's the truth.

Mr lawmaker !!!! You are on Drugs .Must every judgement from supreme court favour PDP to make them unbiased ?? It is OK for you to do this bcs it will not new to us when they give you another sock from Buhari /Atikus case .