On the law applied to the facts of the Governorship Election Petition in Osun State it looks fairly clear that Adeleke is going down this Friday when judgment is expected to be delivered. The matter, in my view will turn on the issue of eligibility. Was Adeleke eligible to receive the votes? Eligibility is a very key issue in election matters and not a mere technical question as some erroneously imagine.

zoedew:
On the law applied to the facts of the Governorship Election Petition in Osun State it looks fairly clear that Adeleke is going down this Friday when judgment is expected to be delivered.

Na lies and propaganda from the clueless APC propagandist, it will never hold any as it didn’t hold any water in the past. Tribunal court of justice will dismissed Oyetola cases for lacking merit on Friday. Oyetola tun ma lule piii Lekan siii

30 Grounds Why Tribunal Should Dismiss Oyetola's Petition- INEC, PDP & Adeleke



Respondents in the peition filed by former Governor Gboyega Oyetola against the election of Governor Ademola Adeleke have canvassed 30 grounds why the election Tribunal should dismiss the petition with cost awarded against the petitioners.

In a separate final addresses, counsels to the respondents took turn to demolish the petition, positing that the petitioners have failed to substantiate its allegations of over-voting and certificate forgery.



Counsel to the 1st respondent, the electoral commission, Prof Paul Ananaba SAN who filed reply on point of law raised objection to the documents tendered by the petitioners on 30th of December 2022 and filed on the same day.



He said the petitioner failed grossly in proving the allegations raised against the return of Governor Ademola Adeleke in the July 16 governorship election, urging the court to dismiss the petition in its entirety.

He submitted that the law empowers the INEC to accept the nomination of a candidate once it is satisfied that it met requirements, citing the case of Atiku vs INEC where court pronounced that President Buhari is eminently qualified to contest elections.

"By section 318 of the Constitution, our duty is very clear. All INEC is expected to do is to be satisfy that the applicant is qualify. And Section 318 talked about what is allowed and from the form submitted by the 2nd respondent, INEC was satisfied and that was what the Constitution requires. We took notice that the Second respondent was a former Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria," he noted.

On the issue of synchronization of result as being challenged by APC and Mr Oyetola, he submitted to the Tribunal that the petitioner based its petition on an inaccurate data, and so, can not establish the case of over-voting.



He quoted Section 62 (1-3) of the Electoral Act that empowers the Commission to continuously update the result of elections housed in its database, explaining this as the basis for the synchronization of the data in its custody.

"Much more my Lord, the petitioner made a heavy weather on Exhibit BVR. My Exhibit BVR date January 27 was a report of accreditation for the entire units in Osun state, which is 3763 units. And in the Tribunal, the BVR has been presented by the petitioner by what it is not," he explained.



Anababa, SAN, said the APC hurriedly went to the INEC to demand for the result of the election while synchronization was still ongoing, adding that the APC filled their case prematurely.

He submitted to the Tribunal that the law is clear that over-voting can only be established when the number of votes in a unit is compared with the complete accreditation data, urging the court to accept Exhibit RVBR as the complete accreditation data.



"By Section 62 (3) and 74(1) gave birth to Exhibit RBVR. The petitioners came to the Tribunal prematurely," he submitted.



"Since the law as at 2022 was that this record of election is updated on a continuous basis, a petitioner will file petition when he is sure of the basis.

"I submit that the petitioners were not diligent because the petition was in disregard of Section 62 (3) therefore, I submit that there is no basis for this petition.



"RWC was a certified true copy of a physical examination of the BVAS machines used for the election, which is more reliable. And we brought the BVAS machines. BVAS machines are the raw primary evidence.



"Even when there is a conflict at the polling unit on whether accreditation, Section 64 (6a&b) specifies what needs to be done. We have presented the original data, the petitioner supposed to bring form EC8A, which are the basis for the declaration of results, not a report. Results were not declared based on BVAS report but based on collated results."



Anababa however urged the court to dismiss the case for lack of merit, maintaining that the election was conducted in full compliance of the law.

In his own submission, the counsel to Governor Ademola Adeleke, Dr. Onyebuchi Ikpeazu, SAN, prayed the court to dismiss the petition for lacking merit, noting that the 2nd respondents election as Osun State Governor was in order.



He argued that the petitioners failed to call any evidence to support its weighty allegation as required by the law, maintaining that the respondents did not forge any document as alleged.

"The petitioners did not call any documentary evidence that he didn't satisfy the requirements of Section 177(d) of the Constitution. The document and requisite evidence that they are obligated to call witnesses from the institutions to disown documents that were allegedly forged by the 2nd respondent.

"That burden and standard of proof must be beyond reasonable doubt has not been discharged by the petitioner. EW2 owned up that he didn't know anything about the institution or worked with the makers of the document presented by the 2nd respondent."



He cited a judgement of the Appeal Court on similar issue which affirmed the eligibility of the 2nd respondent, stressing that by law the judgement is still in effect as no appeal was filed to challenge it.

"Also, there is a court judgement of the Appeal Court, which means judgement in rem."



On the issue of over-voting, he said the petitioners based it claims on erroneous grounds and so should not be entertained by the Tribunal.



"My Lord, the petitioner star witness, he did not tender any BVAS report as the basis of his witness statement. In paragraph 5 of his witness statement, he wrote categorically that he obtained the BVAS report on July 17 2022. The strength of it is that not having tendered his BVAS report, which founded the purported evaluation he adduced, there is no basis whatsoever for his report. If there is no BVAS report of July 17 in his witness statement, there is no case."



"The petitioner tendered Exhibit BVR, which was purportedly certified true copy, not on the 17 but on the July 27. This mean BVR was dumped on the Tribunal. The receipt of the purportedly tendered in support has a date of July 28. The document tendered did not correspond with the date on the receipt of the documents tendered. Section 104 of Evidence Act."



He urged the Tribunal to base its judgement on the BVAS machines, which according to him is the primary source of entries for accreditation in the election.



"The question now is, what is the certified true copy of that original. The certified of the original is Exhibit RWC tendered through RW1 and forming the basis for the report of RW2. BVR is flawed by the evidence of PW1 and PW2. Extraction from the INEC database is not the same as extraction from the BVAS machines.

"None of the agents of the petitioners in the contested 749 polling units contested the results in those units. They signed the results. Those results they signed as authentic with no over-voting can only mean Section 165 of the Electoral Act. The entries in form EC8A tally with figures in RWC. Section 47(2) of the Electoral Act, mandated that accreditation should produce with a technological device and a voters register."



Counsel of the PDP, Dr. Alex Iziyon, SAN, also submitted that the Tribunal dismiss the petition of the petitioners for lacking merit, asking the panel to uphold the election of the 2nd respondent.



"The language of the law is simple on the issue of qualification for the office of the governor which is the case at hand and that is a prove that a person attended UP TO school certificate level.

"Case of allegation of qualifications according to the constitution, section 134(3) must relate to the current election in dispute on which the petitioners failed in the written addresses.



"The issue of testimonial forgery has been previously raised and decided by the court of appeal. It is a judgement that can no longer be tampered with.



"Again, on the university and Diploma certificates as raised by the petitioners, the petitioners failed to 11 call any witness to lead evidence neither from the institution where the Diploma was issued nor the university. Such failure on the part of the petitioners was fatal and irreparable. Petitioners urging the court now to go back to the 2018 is lazy and fatally lackadaisical on the part of the petitioners.



"The report of BIVAS of July 27, 2022, while the date on the receipt for issuance of the report as required by law was dated 28 July, 2022. Such discrepancy is also too fatal to be pardoned.

"The documents dumped on the court are speaking different language in dates of certification and dates of issuance. The law does not permit such error of speaking in tongues before the law court.



"Such error has rendered those documents legally inadmissible and in a situation where a document is legally inadmissible in court ab nitio, then the court is forbidden to even look at it at all.

"If the petitioners had wanted to dump their petition before the court and ask the court to give them judgement, it would have been a different case. But having elected to call witnesses, submissions of such witnesses must convincingly relate or bolster the documents before the court. In this case, the Petitioners had called a star witness who instead of acting as a star witness, instead deemed whatever star that was in the petition and slaughtered the petition without mercy.

"The PW1 called by the petitioners was to put it mildly, a display of voyage of Christopher Columbus. On one hand, the PW1 claimed to be an expert while on the other, he claimed not to be an expert, a statistician the petitioners relied upon to buttress their figures as claimed in their petition, that to us, is a professional summersault, especially when considered under section 128 of evidence act."



On the BVAS report, Dr Alex Iziyon urged the court to rely on the examination, results and reports extracted from the primary source of evidence, which is the BVAS machines, used for the conduct of the election. He also reminded the court that the report of the BVAS have not been challenged by all parties.

9jahotblog:
Na lies and propaganda from the clueless APC propagandist, it will never hold any as it didn’t hold any water in the past. Tribunal court of justice will dismissed Oyetola cases for lacking merit on Friday. Oyetola tun ma lule piii Lekan siii

Go by the law not all the illiterate sentiments of “luleism”. That is what the tribunal will rely on.
Sound education is best for our children. Illiterate do no good. The Tribunal did justice according to Law not illiterate sentiments of “luleism”! I was hoping to hear from you now that the judgment has been pronounced.

zoedew:

Go by the law not all the illiterate sentiments of “luleism”. That is what the tribunal will rely on.

Oyetola tun ma lule piii Lekan siii niiii ile ejo tribunal lojo Jimoh Oloyin. The clueless party destroyer Oyetola is a clueless goner and clueless loser in the court of justice.

9jahotblog:

30 Grounds Why Tribunal Should Dismiss Oyetola's Petition- INEC, PDP & Adeleke



Respondents in the peition filed by former Governor Gboyega Oyetola against the election of Governor Ademola Adeleke have canvassed 30 grounds why the election Tribunal should dismiss the petition with cost awarded against the petitioners.

In a separate final addresses, counsels to the respondents took turn to demolish the petition, positing that the petitioners have failed to substantiate its allegations of over-voting and certificate forgery.



Counsel to the 1st respondent, the electoral commission, Prof Paul Ananaba SAN who filed reply on point of law raised objection to the documents tendered by the petitioners on 30th of December 2022 and filed on the same day.



He said the petitioner failed grossly in proving the allegations raised against the return of Governor Ademola Adeleke in the July 16 governorship election, urging the court to dismiss the petition in its entirety.

He submitted that the law empowers the INEC to accept the nomination of a candidate once it is satisfied that it met requirements, citing the case of Atiku vs INEC where court pronounced that President Buhari is eminently qualified to contest elections.

"By section 318 of the Constitution, our duty is very clear. All INEC is expected to do is to be satisfy that the applicant is qualify. And Section 318 talked about what is allowed and from the form submitted by the 2nd respondent, INEC was satisfied and that was what the Constitution requires. We took notice that the Second respondent was a former Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria," he noted.

On the issue of synchronization of result as being challenged by APC and Mr Oyetola, he submitted to the Tribunal that the petitioner based its petition on an inaccurate data, and so, can not establish the case of over-voting.



He quoted Section 62 (1-3) of the Electoral Act that empowers the Commission to continuously update the result of elections housed in its database, explaining this as the basis for the synchronization of the data in its custody.

"Much more my Lord, the petitioner made a heavy weather on Exhibit BVR. My Exhibit BVR date January 27 was a report of accreditation for the entire units in Osun state, which is 3763 units. And in the Tribunal, the BVR has been presented by the petitioner by what it is not," he explained.



Anababa, SAN, said the APC hurriedly went to the INEC to demand for the result of the election while synchronization was still ongoing, adding that the APC filled their case prematurely.

He submitted to the Tribunal that the law is clear that over-voting can only be established when the number of votes in a unit is compared with the complete accreditation data, urging the court to accept Exhibit RVBR as the complete accreditation data.



"By Section 62 (3) and 74(1) gave birth to Exhibit RBVR. The petitioners came to the Tribunal prematurely," he submitted.



"Since the law as at 2022 was that this record of election is updated on a continuous basis, a petitioner will file petition when he is sure of the basis.

"I submit that the petitioners were not diligent because the petition was in disregard of Section 62 (3) therefore, I submit that there is no basis for this petition.



"RWC was a certified true copy of a physical examination of the BVAS machines used for the election, which is more reliable. And we brought the BVAS machines. BVAS machines are the raw primary evidence.



"Even when there is a conflict at the polling unit on whether accreditation, Section 64 (6a&b) specifies what needs to be done. We have presented the original data, the petitioner supposed to bring form EC8A, which are the basis for the declaration of results, not a report. Results were not declared based on BVAS report but based on collated results."



Anababa however urged the court to dismiss the case for lack of merit, maintaining that the election was conducted in full compliance of the law.

In his own submission, the counsel to Governor Ademola Adeleke, Dr. Onyebuchi Ikpeazu, SAN, prayed the court to dismiss the petition for lacking merit, noting that the 2nd respondents election as Osun State Governor was in order.



He argued that the petitioners failed to call any evidence to support its weighty allegation as required by the law, maintaining that the respondents did not forge any document as alleged.

"The petitioners did not call any documentary evidence that he didn't satisfy the requirements of Section 177(d) of the Constitution. The document and requisite evidence that they are obligated to call witnesses from the institutions to disown documents that were allegedly forged by the 2nd respondent.

"That burden and standard of proof must be beyond reasonable doubt has not been discharged by the petitioner. EW2 owned up that he didn't know anything about the institution or worked with the makers of the document presented by the 2nd respondent."



He cited a judgement of the Appeal Court on similar issue which affirmed the eligibility of the 2nd respondent, stressing that by law the judgement is still in effect as no appeal was filed to challenge it.

"Also, there is a court judgement of the Appeal Court, which means judgement in rem."



On the issue of over-voting, he said the petitioners based it claims on erroneous grounds and so should not be entertained by the Tribunal.



"My Lord, the petitioner star witness, he did not tender any BVAS report as the basis of his witness statement. In paragraph 5 of his witness statement, he wrote categorically that he obtained the BVAS report on July 17 2022. The strength of it is that not having tendered his BVAS report, which founded the purported evaluation he adduced, there is no basis whatsoever for his report. If there is no BVAS report of July 17 in his witness statement, there is no case."



"The petitioner tendered Exhibit BVR, which was purportedly certified true copy, not on the 17 but on the July 27. This mean BVR was dumped on the Tribunal. The receipt of the purportedly tendered in support has a date of July 28. The document tendered did not correspond with the date on the receipt of the documents tendered. Section 104 of Evidence Act."



He urged the Tribunal to base its judgement on the BVAS machines, which according to him is the primary source of entries for accreditation in the election.



"The question now is, what is the certified true copy of that original. The certified of the original is Exhibit RWC tendered through RW1 and forming the basis for the report of RW2. BVR is flawed by the evidence of PW1 and PW2. Extraction from the INEC database is not the same as extraction from the BVAS machines.

"None of the agents of the petitioners in the contested 749 polling units contested the results in those units. They signed the results. Those results they signed as authentic with no over-voting can only mean Section 165 of the Electoral Act. The entries in form EC8A tally with figures in RWC. Section 47(2) of the Electoral Act, mandated that accreditation should produce with a technological device and a voters register."



Counsel of the PDP, Dr. Alex Iziyon, SAN, also submitted that the Tribunal dismiss the petition of the petitioners for lacking merit, asking the panel to uphold the election of the 2nd respondent.



"The language of the law is simple on the issue of qualification for the office of the governor which is the case at hand and that is a prove that a person attended UP TO school certificate level.

"Case of allegation of qualifications according to the constitution, section 134(3) must relate to the current election in dispute on which the petitioners failed in the written addresses.



"The issue of testimonial forgery has been previously raised and decided by the court of appeal. It is a judgement that can no longer be tampered with.



"Again, on the university and Diploma certificates as raised by the petitioners, the petitioners failed to 11 call any witness to lead evidence neither from the institution where the Diploma was issued nor the university. Such failure on the part of the petitioners was fatal and irreparable. Petitioners urging the court now to go back to the 2018 is lazy and fatally lackadaisical on the part of the petitioners.



"The report of BIVAS of July 27, 2022, while the date on the receipt for issuance of the report as required by law was dated 28 July, 2022. Such discrepancy is also too fatal to be pardoned.

"The documents dumped on the court are speaking different language in dates of certification and dates of issuance. The law does not permit such error of speaking in tongues before the law court.



"Such error has rendered those documents legally inadmissible and in a situation where a document is legally inadmissible in court ab nitio, then the court is forbidden to even look at it at all.

"If the petitioners had wanted to dump their petition before the court and ask the court to give them judgement, it would have been a different case. But having elected to call witnesses, submissions of such witnesses must convincingly relate or bolster the documents before the court. In this case, the Petitioners had called a star witness who instead of acting as a star witness, instead deemed whatever star that was in the petition and slaughtered the petition without mercy.

"The PW1 called by the petitioners was to put it mildly, a display of voyage of Christopher Columbus. On one hand, the PW1 claimed to be an expert while on the other, he claimed not to be an expert, a statistician the petitioners relied upon to buttress their figures as claimed in their petition, that to us, is a professional summersault, especially when considered under section 128 of evidence act."



On the BVAS report, Dr Alex Iziyon urged the court to rely on the examination, results and reports extracted from the primary source of evidence, which is the BVAS machines, used for the conduct of the election. He also reminded the court that the report of the BVAS have not been challenged by all parties.

Truth is, these 30 submissions are hollow in law. Not one frontally confronted s.149(d) for instance. When was Osun State created? Was Osun State in existence when Adeleke claimed the testimonial he presented to INEC emanated from Osun State? The law will be clear on that come this Friday. I am no partisan politician. My interest lies in the position of the law on the matters raised in the petition.

zoedew:

Truth is, these 30 submissions are hollow in law. Not one frontally confronted s.149(d) for instance. When was Osun State created? Was Osun State in existence when Adeleke claimed the testimonial he presented to INEC emanated from Osun State? The law will be clear on that come this Friday. I am no partisan politician. My interest lies in the position of the law on the matters raised in the petition.

kikiki so pe oti lo. Oyetola tun ma lule piii Lekan siii 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Oyetola's suit will be thrown out for lack of merit

9jahotblog:
kikiki so pe oti lo. Oyetola tun ma lule piii Lekan siii 😂😂😂😂😂😂

We clearly are not on the same page. I want to discuss law and not these olule stuff as I’m not on the payroll of a politician here. The judgment this Friday should make an interesting read.

zoedew:

We clearly are not on the same page. I want to discuss law and not these olule stuff as I’m not on the payroll of a politician here. The judgment thus Friday should make an interesting read.

I hope U don't disappear or start making excuses after Friday

zoedew:
On the law applied to the facts of the Governorship Election Petition in Osun State it looks fairly clear that Adeleke is going down this Friday when judgment is expected to be delivered.

Are you the tribunal judge?

Nbote:


I hope U don't disappear or start making excuses after Friday

Oh, No! I have no problems with the Judges seeing differently. I’m not emotionally tied to the matter. In my trade our training is to be dispassionate about judicial decisions.

Pickmycall:
Are you the tribunal judge?

No Sir. Just looking at what interests me.

zoedew:

We clearly are not on the same page. I want to discuss law and not these olule stuff as I’m not on the payroll of a politician here. The judgment thus Friday should make an interesting read.

my response to your lies and propaganda have exposed who you are here, you are APC propagandist. So pe otilo. Tinubu is next to collect his own breakfast. We are much prepared to remove APC and Tinubu from Nigeria politics. Tinubu tun ma lule piii Lekan siii. Odi Aye Atunwa fun ijoba Oyetola ni gbogbo ipinle Osun. The time of the tribunal judgement on Friday is 9am, stay tuned. Oyetola ti lo tefetefe. Imole de Okunkun Parada ni gbogbo ipinle Osun. Governor Ademola Nurudeen Jackson Adeleke’s a goal.

zoedew:

No Sir. Just looking at what interests me.

What if the ruling doesn't go in your favour?

Nbote:


I hope U don't disappear or start making excuses after Friday

he will do that joor, he’s APC propagandist and liar. Never expect them to say the truth. Oyetola ti lule piii Lekan siii. January 27th judgement will further affirmed the victories of Governor Ademola Nurudeen Jackson Adeleke in the poll conducted last year July 16th.

Na Yorubas matter.

Na APC and PDP matter.

Nothing concern me.

APC has been rejected. Useless people

Continue wasting their time

I'll reply you on Friday.

APC let it rest....I see dancing senator turning to dancing Governor

if dem remove Adeleke this Friday.....Atiku don loose SW be that cos Makinde nor dey support Atiku.....Atiku don loose SW and SE be that and Tinubu is giving Atiku a run for his money in NE......NW will decide who will winthe presidency between Atiku and Tinubu.....

Pickmycall:
What if the ruling doesn't go in your favour?

Either way I am only interested in points of law. With the judgment now delivered it remains for all lovers of Election litigation to dissect same. The appeal should be no less interesting.

9jahotblog:
my response to your lies and propaganda have exposed who you are here, you are APC propagandist. So pe otilo. Tinubu is next to collect his own breakfast. We are much prepared to remove APC and Tinubu from Nigeria politics. Tinubu tun ma lule piii Lekan siii. Odi Aye Atunwa fun ijoba Oyetola ni gbogbo ipinle Osun. The time of the tribunal judgement on Friday is 9am, stay tuned. Oyetola ti lo tefetefe. Imole de Okunkun Parada ni gbogbo ipinle Osun. Governor Ademola Nurudeen Jackson Adeleke’s a goal.

That you did not visit my profile to read my posts and mentions before your post about
my person speaks volumes about who you are for the www to discern.

zoedew:

Truth is, these 30 submissions are hollow in law. Not one frontally confronted s.149(d) for instance. When was Osun State created? Was Osun State in existence when Adeleke claimed the testimonial he presented to INEC emanated from Osun State? The law will be clear on that come this Friday. I am no partisan politician. My interest lies in the position of the law on the matters raised in the petition.

When Adeleke collected his result? Was Osun State created at that time?

9jahotblog:
Na lies and propaganda from the clueless APC propagandist, it will never hold any as it didn’t hold any water in the past. Tribunal court of justice will dismissed Oyetola cases for lacking merit on Friday. Oyetola tun ma lule piii Lekan siii

you get time my brother..na for them eyes them go lule again🤣

I hope he does.
That fat clown is an embarrassment

I wanted to say it is just dreams but ...

Any thing is possible. The way the Supreme Court is turning justice I've fits head these days to favour APC.

zoedew:

That you did not visit my profile to read my posts and mentions before your post about
my person speaks volumes about who you are for the www to discern.

Oyetola tun ma lule piii Lekan siii. Odi Aye Atunwa fun ijoba Oyetola ni ipinle Osun

zoedew:
Oh, No! I have no problems with the Judges seeing differently. I’m not emotionally tied to the matter. In my trade our training is to be dispassionate about judicial decisions.

You were right..

Adeleke just went down on the Law! Appeal loading. Lucid Law suggests that he was bound south!!

9jahotblog ti lule pi leekan si

Nbote:


You were right..

In the unanimous wisdom of Their Lordships.