Ademola Adeleke and the Osun mandate thieves

With Abiodun Awolaja.

By: Tribune Online - February 4, 2023.


WERE Nigeria a nation of truth, the Osun State governor, Senator Ademola Adeleke, would be in his second term of office by now. Having won the 2018 governorship election in the state, Adeleke was defeated by INEC, which conducted a rerun election in the state while it had previously declared the APC candidate winner in a Kogi State by-election with the same facts as the Osun election; political thugs who harassed voters during the rerun election, and the Supreme Court which relied on a mere technicality to deny Osun people their right to choose their governor. The so-called rerun that made Gboyega Oyetola governor was universally panned by observers, including the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), and in newspaper editorials. It was a sham.
Now, before our very eyes and in luciferically brazen fashion, the same people who used their influence in the judiciary to remove Governors Olagunsoye Oyinlola and Segun Oni from office in the most blatantly criminal fashion are at their familiar game in Osun, trying to truncate the people’s will. In the Oyinlola case, the Appeal Court judges annulled polls in areas that Rauf Aregbesola never disputed to make him (Aregbesola) governor. They engaged in voodoo mathematics just replicated by Justice Tertsea Kume and his colleague. The Segun Oni verdict was even more horrendous: after INEC claimed that ACN thugs had burnt its Ido Osi office, the area where Oni comes from, the judges annulled the entire polls in the area instead of ordering a rerun there, they calculated the rest of the votes and awarded victory to Kayode Fayemi! It was a robbery at a blatant, demonic level and was one of the reasons the PDP government amended the law to allow governorship cases to get to the Supreme Court.

Now, I come to the Osun 2023 judgment where Justice Kume made a so-called BVAS-led decision that ignored the accreditation data on the BVAS machines used for the election. In other words, Mr Kume ignored the primary source of evidence to determine the true number of accredited voters and relied on a secondary, incomplete source. Folks, there is something called writing a judgment. Judges on a panel are expected to write their individual opinions. Although to save time and space, judges have been known to adopt the position of their colleagues delivering a lead judgment, I was advised during my viva at OAU, Ile-Ife, that even this isn’t ideal. In Osun, however, the judges not only exercised mental laziness, but they also breached legal convention with brazen recklessness.
I do not suppose that the framers of the law envisaged a panel of judges pronouncing themselves as “we” and using voodoo tactics to upturn the freely expressed will of a populace. When did two supposedly independent judges become an unbreakable “we”, each losing the individuality central to judicial decisions? Assuming but not conceding that the judgment was jointly written, who wrote what, and how shall the judges be referred to in future? “Kume and his appendage…as they then were?” If you couldn’t even write your opinion, even if it is two sentences agreeing with the lead judgment, how do you justify your pay as a judge? If a judge did not even have the decency to write his judgment, sheepishly appending his signature to a joint judgment, how is he fit to be called a judge? When did a panel ever become a cult? The minority judgment, which I believe the Supreme Court will affirm, had an author. It is not as voluminous as the Buga judgment, but it is astoundingly well-argued, succinct and sober.

Strangely, the Buga judges did not only pronounce Adeleke’s certificates forged in defiance of the Court of Appeal, a superior court, they went after Adeleke’s persona, informing us that he dances Buga! To cap off their buffoonery, they wrote: “See Kizz Daniel’s Buga for details.”! The key question is this: just who is Kizz Daniel, and why is his “Buga” of interest in determining the validly elected governor of Osun State? As a language student who obtained a PhD looking at Supreme Court judgments, I have never seen such a level of depravity in a court judgment. Of course, by citing an intellectually drab, vacuous and vapid, though populist, song, the judges gave ample indication of their astoundingly low mental constitution. They turned the temple of justice into farce. Sadly, because they intend to install a cocaine dealer as president, even so-called senior advocates are desperately trying to justify this gross desecration of the Court of law. Sad!

Out of fear and remembering that Governor Adeleke had similarly won at the lower level four years ago, the mandate thieves have filled the town with partisan lawyers proclaiming that it would be impossible for the higher courts to upturn the Buga judgment in Osun! They are daily publishing paid advertorials disguised as opinion essays. The tactic is familiar: to derail the judges of the higher courts. The intent is to subvert the will of the people and set Osun State on fire even while the fire kindled by the Supreme Court through its blatantly unjust judgment awarding the governorship of Imo State to Senator Hope Uzodinma is yet to subside!
Ironically, those who say Adeleke is unfit for office because he is a dancer also shout to the high heavens that a drug baron is the best candidate for president. Of course, they know that the man is mentally malnourished, morally crippled, irredeemably corrupt, and criminally self-seeking. Still, their god is money, and their mentality is mired in today’s mud. I formed my opinion of their god years ago and found no reason to change it. Ademola Adeleke is the duly elected governor of Osun State.

By the way, is Section 51(3) of the Electoral Act 2022 still part of our laws? It says: “Where the result of an election is cancelled in accordance with subsection (2), there shall be no return for the election until another poll has taken place in the affected polling unit.” So why voodoo mathematics? I have read the minority judgment delivered by Justice P.A. Ogbuli, and I am in full agreement with it that this is a case of a loser trying to railroad the court into declaring him a winner.
A prayer for 2023: may we not be judged by Buga judges or ruled by drug dealers and terror sympathizers acting in cahoots with leperous legislators.

https://tribuneonlineng.com/ademola-adeleke-and-the-osun-mandate-thieves/

Osun Gubernatorial Election Petition Tribunal:
Can a Return be made where a winning margin is less than the number of voters on the voter's Registers where election didn't hold or cancelled?
Let's assume but without conceding that there's an over-voting in 744 polling units as claimed by Tribunal Chairman.
After deduction of votes of Adeleke and Oyetola in the said 744 polling units from the total votes cast. The following questions are begging for answers in line with S.51 and subsections thereto of Electoral Act of 2022;
1. What's the winning margin after the Tribunal Chairman cancelled votes of Adeleke and Oyetola in the 744 polling units?
2. What's the total number of voters on the Registered Voters in the 744 polling units where votes were cancelled?
I think an answers to the above two questions and with respect to S.51 of the Electoral Act clearly show that Tribunal Chairman erred in Law by making a return after he purportedly cancelled votes in 744 polling units. Another error.... Kikikikiki kakakaka, mi o ni so nkankan oooo
NB: Base on evidence being presented by Oyetola/APC and controverted by INEC, Adeleke and PDP, there's no over-voting as claimed by the Petitioners and affirmed by the Majority Judgement.
That's another issue to be addressed by superior courts.

Shame on Oyetola is all I can say.

OSUN: Was Osun State Election Petition Tribunal Right to have Removed Gov. Adeleke and Returned former Gov. Oyetola as Duly Elected?

HALIMA ABIOLA FEBRUARY 2, 2023

Prior to the coming into effect of the Electoral Act, 2022, proof of Election Petition cases which hinged on allegations of substantial non-compliance with electoral laws and procedures during election, over-voting, irregularities, illegality during election, rigging, mutilation of results, among other similar allegations, was an upheaval task, if not impossible.

This was more so as election cases are, in the interest of the public, sui generis – in a class of its own – with statutory limitation periods for commencement, and a constitutional timeline of 180 days within which election Petition trials must be heard and concluded. Aside from the presumption of regularity of the election results as declared by INEC which naturally worked against the Petitioner, the Petitioner was also duty-bound to call eye-witnesses (especially Polling Unit Agents) from each of the Polling Units challenged to discharge the burden of proof on him where the petition is hinged on incidents that transpired during the elections. See Buhari v Obasanjo (2002) 3 NWLR (part 941) 1 at 253, Abubakar v. Yar’ Adua (2008) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1120) 1. Again, it was also strictly required that all documents used at the election, including the Voters’ Register, Polling Unit results, and all other relevant documents, must be tendered, demonstrated, and specifically related to each of the pleadings/claims in the Petition by Polling Unit Agents or witnesses whose positions at the election rightfully granted them access to such documents. However, times have changed given the coming into effect of the 2022 Electoral Act which commenced on the 25th day of February, 2022.

The Osun State Gubernatorial Election held in July, 2022, being the first major election after the commencement of the new Act became a litmus test for the Act. At the conclusion of the Election, Sen. Ademola Jackson Nurudeen Adeleke of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) scored 403,371 votes, while Governor Adegboyega Isiaka Oyetola of the All Progressives Congress (APC) scored 375,027 votes. Consequently, Sen. Adeleke was declared winner of the election and returned as duly elected by INEC. Aggrieved by the declaration and return, Governor Oyetola approached the Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal vide an Election Petition filed on the 5th of August, 2022, challenging the election and return of Sen. Adeleke, and urging the Tribunal to declare him, the 1st Petitioner, as validly elected, and consequently order that he be returned. Of the three grounds upon which the Petition was based, grounds 2 and 3 are pertinent given that they are the grounds upon which the decision of the Osun State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, removing Gov. Adeleke from office, was based.

The grounds are that: “2. The 2nd Respondent (Adeleke) was not duly elected by the majority of lawful votes cast at the election.” and that “3. The election of the 2nd Respondent (Adeleke) was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.”

As expected, the facts presented by the Petitioners in proof of the grounds were mainly allegations of over-voting in about 744 Polling Units across 10 LGAs of the State. In sum, it was alleged by the Petitioners that the total number of votes cast in the Polling Units (PUs) in issue were over and above the total number of the accredited voters in each of those Polling Units (PUs), and so, the Petitioners prayed the Tribunal to declare that the 1st Petitioner, and not the 1st Respondent (Sen. Adeleke), was duly elected by the majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

The Petitioners called only 2 witnesses who were neither Polling Unit Agents at the challenged Polling Units during the election, nor were they the officers of INEC that operated and handled the BVAs accreditation machines, the report of which they relied on in their oral testimony. It was through these Petitioners’ witnesses that election results and the Petitioners’ version of the BVAs Reports were tendered on behalf of the Petitioners at trial. On her part, however, INEC tendered and relied on a different BVAs accreditation Report (Exhibit R.BVR) showing and contending that no over-voting occurred in the challenged Polling Units, while also contending that INEC’s version of the Accreditation Report superseded the version tendered and relied on by the Petitioners, as the latter was, according to INEC, obtained at a time the information in the Accreditation machines were yet to be synchronized with the INEC database.

The summary and gamut of the Respondents’ (including INEC) contention against the Petition is that the Petitioners failed to prove their case, in that: i. The Petitioners failed to call sufficient oral evidence/witnesses (Polling unit agents) from each of the Polling Units where over-voting was alleged; ii. The Petitioners failed to tender all necessary documents used in the election, at the alleged Polling Units, including the Voters’ Register; iii. The Petitioners failed in their evidence to tabulate and demonstrate the number of Registered voters, the total number of votes cast, and the votes scored by each candidate in each of the Polling Units contended; iv. The Petitioners’ witnesses, after stating that their testimonies were partly from their personal knowledge and partly from information obtained from other sources, failed to delineate or particularize which part of their testimonies was from within their knowledge and what part was from other sources. See Gundiri v. Nyako (2014) 2 NWLR PT 1391; v. That Exhibit BVR, which is the version of the BVAs accreditation Report tendered by the Petitioners, is inchoate, in that it was obtained from INEC at a time when the data in the BVAs accreditation machines had not been synchronized with the INEC database, and it was, therefore, unsafe for the Tribunal to rely on same, more so, as there was a different version of Accreditation Report tendered before the Tribunal by INEC. At this point, it is important to note certain changes which have been made to the legal regime of elections and election petitions in Nigeria by virtue of the recent Electoral Act, 2022.

These enormous changes are instructive for the understanding of the case in issue, future elections and election petitions, particularly as they relate to the conduct of elections, the complexities that have, for long, attended the proof of, and defense to election petitions. Section 137 of the new Electoral Act, 2022 provides that: “It shall not be necessary for a party who alleges non-compliance with the provisions of this Act for the conduct of elections to call oral evidence if originals or certified true copies manifestly disclose the non-compliance alleged.” What is more, Paragraph 46 (4) of the First Schedule to the Act (said First Schedule provides for Rules of Procedure for Election Petitions) mandates that: “Documentary evidence shall be put in and may be read or taken as read by consent, such documentary evidence shall be deemed demonstrated in open court and the parties in the petition shall be entitled to address and urge argument on the content of the document, and the Tribunal or Court shall scrutinize or investigate the content of the documents as part of the process of ascribing probative value to the documents or otherwise.” The implication of the above provisions introduced by the new Electoral Act is that minimal oral evidence, if not none at all, is required to prove non-compliance with the procedure for an election.

For the avoidance of doubt, non-compliance includes over-voting, irregularities, illegality during election, rigging, mutilation of results, etcetera. Again, by Paragraph 46 (4) of the First Schedule to the Act, the Petitioner is at liberty to call minimal witnesses or even tender through the Bar, certified true copies of election results and accreditation reports, without going through the hurdle of calling oral evidence/witnesses, Polling Unit by Polling Unit, or strictly demonstrating or relating the documents with the pleadings – as same shall be deemed to have been demonstrated in open Court, for the Tribunal’s overall duty of proper scrutinization in arriving at a just decision.

As alluded to above, the Petitioners, in the instant case, relying on the foregoing provisions of the Electoral Act, called only two witnesses, tendered election results and BVAs accreditation Reports and insisted that over-voting occurred in 744 Polling Units in the election going by the documents they tendered, which were statutorily deemed as demonstrated, and to which the Tribunal was bound to scrutinize. By Section 47 of the Electoral Act, 2022 which makes provisions for procedure for accreditation and voting in an election, a voter is required to present his Voter’s card to the Polling Unit Presiding Officer who shall use a smart card reader or any other technological device that may be prescribed by INEC, for the accreditation of voters, to verify, confirm or authenticate the particulars of the intending voter in the manner prescribed by INEC; and where a smart card reader or any other technological device deployed for accreditation of voters fails to function in any unit and a fresh card reader or technological device is not deployed, the election in that unit shall be cancelled and another election shall be scheduled within 24 hours if INEC is satisfied that the result of the election in that polling unit will substantially affect the final result of the entire election and declaration of a winner in the constituency concerned.

On the other hand, Section 51 (1) of the Act forbids double or multiple voting by a Voter; Section 51 (2) strictly directs that where the number of votes cast at an election in any polling unit exceeds the number of accredited voters in that polling unit, the Presiding officer shall outrightly cancel the result of the election in that polling unit; while Section 51 (3) & (4) of the Act prescribes that where election is cancelled in various Polling Units on the ground of over-voting, no candidate shall be returned as elected until another poll has taken place in the affected Polling Units, where the result of the fresh election in the affected Polling Units (combined) will substantially affect the result of the entire election. The implication of the foregoing provisions is that the era of ‘Incident forms’, as alternative voter accreditation to failed Smart Card machines – which warranted multiple voting, rigging, and other loopholes – is over; and only Smart Card machine accreditation as prescribed by INEC, and no other, shall be allowed for accreditation of Voters; and where such machine fails and a replacement is unavailable, election in such Polling Unit must be cancelled by the Presiding Officer.

Again, by the foregoing provisions, where there is over-voting in a Polling Unit, the Presiding Officer of the Polling Unit is legally bound to outrightly cancel the election in the Unit concerned, and the volume of voters in the cancelled Polling Units will determine whether or not INEC will conduct fresh elections in the Polling Units concerned. For the avoidance of doubt, over-voting is a situation where the total number of votes cast in a polling unit (i.e., valid and invalid votes cast for all parties) exceeds the total number of accredited voters in that polling unit. Another important point to note, especially from the provisions of Section 137 of the new Act, and Paragraph 46 (4) of the First Schedule to the Act, is that the complexities and technicalities that have in the past held sway and worked enormous hardship on Election Petitioners in proof of their election petitions have now been whittled down, if not entirely diminished. Calling of oral testimonies, especially from all Polling Units challenged is no longer necessary, especially where there is sufficient documentary evidence which shows that the allegations in the Petition are correct.

Also, the arguments about dumping of documents without proper demonstration are now less likely to be used to dismiss Petitions, as documents tendered, even without being tied to pleadings/claims, are by the Act, deemed as demonstrated in open Court, even as the Tribunals and Courts are mandated to “scrutinize or investigate the content of the documents as part of the process of ascribing probative value to the documents or otherwise.”

In the instant case, the Tribunal, in arriving at its decision, evaluated the evidence of the Parties, including the election results recording the total number of votes cast vis-à-vis the total number of accredited voters (as captured in the BVA Reports tendered by each of the parties) in each of the Polling Units in issue, and made a finding that there was over-voting in the alleged 744 Polling Units across 10 LGAs of the State and that the total number of votes cast in the affected Polling Units was 181,540. The Tribunal, after making these findings did not stop at cancelling the elections in the affected Polling Units, but proceeded to return the 1st Petitioner, despite the volume of Registered Voters from the affected 744 Polling Units and the margin of win after the cancellations. For clarity, the Tribunal, in its decision, found and held as follows: (i) that there was over-voting in 744 Polling Units; (ii) that the total number of votes cast in the affected 744 Polling Units was 181,540; (iii) that the 1st Petitioner (Oyetola) scored 60,096 votes, while the 2nd Respondent (Adeleke) scored 112,705 votes in the affected 744 PUs; (iv) that when the votes in the affected PUs are deducted from both parties, the 1st Petitioner (Oyetola) who had earlier scored 375,027 votes now scored 314,931 votes, while the 2nd Respondent (Adeleke) who had earlier scored 403,371 votes now scored 290,666 votes. (v) the Tribunal removed the 2nd Respondent (Adeleke) and returned the 1st Petitioner (Oyetola) as the winner of the election. Undoubtedly, the findings of fact of the Tribunal as to whether or not over-voting occurred in the 744 Polling Units centers on which of the BVAs Accreditation Report amounted to best evidence, credible enough to be relied on by the Tribunal.

Strangely, the Tribunal did not only refuse to rely on, and use INEC’s version of the BVAs accreditation Report, but also refused to rely on the version report (Exhibit RWC) which was the direct outcome of the physical inspection of the BVAs machines carried out pursuant to the order of the Tribunal itself that the machines be openly demonstrated and inspected to ascertain the true position of things. In order words, Exhibit RWC which remained unchallenged and which showed that no over-voting occurred was the direct report obtained after the physical examination of the machines at instance and order of the Tribunal. One would have expected that given the position of INEC as the official body that conducted the election and in whose custody all the materials used at the election are kept, the Tribunal would have opted to use and rely on the official reports proceeding from her, or at least, the unchallenged outcome of the physical inspection carried out on the Smart machines (real evidence) at the instance and order of the Court. Instead, the Tribunal chose to rely on the version of the BVAs accreditation report tendered by the Petitioners, which was not only faulted by the Respondents on the basis of the numerous contradictions that existed with respect to the actual date and manner it was obtained, but was also heavily discredited and flawed by INEC as inchoate, risky and obtained at a time when the information in the BVAs machines had yet to be entirely transmitted and synchronized with the INEC database. It is our humble submission that the decision of the Tribunal is against the weight of the evidence adduced by Respondents when balanced against that adduced by the Petitioners, and so the judgment given in favour of the Petitioners is against the weight which should have been given to the totality of the evidence presented before the Tribunal.

We further submit that had the Tribunal done a proper evaluation of the evidence adduced before it, it most likely would have arrived at different findings and decisions.

Even more strange, is the decision of the Tribunal ordering a return of the 1st Petitioner as duly elected, despite its findings that over-voting occurred in 744 Polling Units.

It is our submission, with due respect, that that decision of the Tribunal runs contrary to the spirit and intendment of S.51 of the Electoral Act, 2022. Now, assuming, without conceding, that the findings of fact made by the Tribunal, that over-voting occurred in 744 Polling Units, was correct (we contend that it was not), it is difficult to understand how the Learned members of the Tribunal, who presented the Leading Judgment of the Tribunal, were satisfied that a whopping 181,540 votes would not substantially affect the entire results of the election should fresh elections be conducted in the affected 744 Polling Units in accordance with the law.

Put differently, if the Petitioners’ case is allegation of over-voting in 744 Polling Units (as it indeed is), and by Section 51(2) of the Act, the consequences of over-voting is cancellation of election in affected Units and subsequent fresh elections in the affected Units where the result of the elections in the affected Units will substantially affect the entire results of the election, we submit that the proper thing the Tribunal ought to have done after establishing over-voting was to order fresh elections in the affected Polling Units rather than make a return after the cancellations and deductions – having regard to the volume of Registered Voters in the affected Units. The essence of election petitions, we further submit, is for the litigant to pursue and insist on compliance with the electoral laws and procedure where the Petitioner believes or has reasons to believe that laws and procedures have not been complied with or followed.

In that case, it would therefore be the duty of the Election Tribunal to ensure that the provisions of the law are followed where the Petitioner proves the alleged non-compliance. There is an important reason the draftsman inserted Section 51 (3) & (4) of the Electoral Act, 2022, which insists that where election is cancelled in various Polling Units on grounds of over-voting, no candidate shall be returned as elected until another poll has taken place in the affected Polling Units, where INEC is satisfied that the result of the fresh election in the affected Polling Units (combined) will substantially affect the result of the entire election. In determining whether the results of fresh elections in the cancelled Polling Units will substantially affect/disturb/displace the entire result of the election, the Tribunal, we submit, must ascertain, not just the total number of votes cast in the affected Polling Units, but rather the total number of Registered Voters in the affected Units; and should the total number of Registered Voters in the affected units surpass the margin of win after the cancellation and deductions from the affected units, then, the Tribunal ought to, as a matter of course, hold that fresh elections in the cancelled Units would most likely substantially affect the result of the entire election and consequently order fresh elections in the affected Units. We also contend that even going alone by the 181,540 total number of votes cast in the affected Units, in the instant case, it is only reasonable that if fresh elections are conducted in the affected areas, the result of the election would still have been substantially affected.

The overall implication of the decision of the Tribunal, in returning the 1st Petitioner as duly elected even after the cancellation and deductions were made, is the ultimate disenfranchisement of the entire Registered voters in the 744 Polling Units across the 10 LGAs of Osun State, and we do not believe that such action was the intendment of the law. In the final analysis, it is our opinion that the Tribunal’s finding of over-voting in 744 Polling Units despite overwhelming, credible best evidence to the contrary, and the Tribunal’s decision outrightly removing the 2nd Respondent (Adeleke) as Governor, and in turn, returning the 1st Petitioner as duly elected winner of the election, are erroneous. We however commend Hon. Justice B.A. Ogbuli (the Member 1 of the Panel) who boldly rendered a dissenting Judgment in the matter, while we await the Appellate Courts’ review of the decision of the Tribunal in the coming days.

Chikodi Okeorji, lawyer and political commentator, writes from Abuja.

{SPECIAL REPORT} Contentious Or Landmark? Issues In Osun Tribunal Judgement


* Dissenting Views And Grounds Of Appeal 
* Matters Arising
Ismaeel Uthman
THE election petition tribunal on the July 16, 2022 governorship election in the State of Osun, on Friday, January 27, 2023 ruled in favour of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and former governor Adegboyega Oyetola. 
APC and Oyetola had approached the tribunal with two major complaints; that Sen. Ademola Adeleke who was declared winner of the election was not qualified to contest and that the number of votes recorded for him were inflated in 749 polling units across 10 local governments. 
The affected local governments are: Ede North (101 polling units); Ede South (19 polling units); Egbedore (55 polling units); Ejigbo (58 polling units); lla (56 polling units): llesa West (67 polling units); Irepodun (48 polling units); Obokun (36 polling units); Olorunda (103 polling units); and Osogbo (147 polling units).
According to APC, there was over voting even at Unit 9, Ward 2, Abogunde Sagba, Ede North Local Government, where Governor Adeleke voted on the election day. 
But the PDP and Adeleke raised objections to the petitions, asking the court to dismiss it for lack of merit. Adeleke insisted that he was qualified to contest the election and also scored the majority of valid votes cast on the election day. 
However, a Statistician and Forensic Examiner, Mr. Samuel Oduntan, who testified on behalf of Governor Adeleke admitted before the tribunal that over voting took place only in six polling units as against the 749 disputed polling units.
Oduntan said over voting took place at Obokun (two polling units), Egbedore (two polling units), Osogbo (one polling unit) and Olorunda (one polling unit).
After the final addressed of all the parties, two of the tribunal judges, Justice T.A Kume and Justice Rabi Bashir, upheld the claim of the petitioners that there was over voting in 744 polling units based on the evidence before the court. 
According to reports, the total number of votes cast at the polling units were more than the accredited voters with 10,154.
 “In other words, the defences of the Respondents are plagued with fundamental mortal flaws highly irreconcilable and unreliable, incapable of defeating the credible evidence tendered by the Petitioners in respect of the 744 Polling Units were over-voting has been established. 
“The inference, we hereby draw from the facts established by the evidence on record is that, the election conducted on the 16th day of July, 2022 was done in substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act (Supra), and the extant regulations made thereunder,” said the judges.
Subsequently the tribunal deducted the “invalid votes” which amounted to 112,705 from 403,371 as declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for Adeleke.
The deduction reduced Adeleke’s votes to 290,666.
Also, a total of 60,096 “invalid votes” were removed from 375,027 recorded for Oyetola by INEC. 
As a result, Oyetola votes reduced to 314,931, leading Adeleke with 24,265. 
The tribunal thereafter declared Oyetola as the validly elected governor having won majority of valid votes in the July 16 governorship election. 
This is just as the tribunal submitted that Adeleke was qualified to contest the election. 
Contrary to the claim that Bashir did not sign the majority judgment, OSUN DEFENDER noted that the judge appended her signature to the 107-page verdict.  
However, a dissenting judgement delivered by Justice B. A Ogbuli, upheld Adeleke’s victory based on the ground that the APC and Oyetola did not satisfactorily prove their case of over-voting against Adeleke’s victory. 
According to Justice Ogbuli, the petitioners failed to attach the voters register of each of the polling units to the evidence supplied in arguing their case, a development he said made their petition very weak. 
The total number of registered voters at the 744 polling units where over voting allegedly occurred was put at 172,801. 
Justice Ogbuli held that: “I hold that Register of voters is still relevant even though more prominence has been given to BVAS. The petitioners ought to have brought in the voters register to prove their case. The failure to call the voters register in support of their case makes it very weak.
“I hold that the petitioners have failed to prove issue of over voting by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act. They also have not proved that the second respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful voters cast at the election.”
The split-judgement have been generating controversies, arguments and counter-arguments among politicians, lawyers, social analysts and other interested parties within and outside the state.
Issues that dominated the argument in favour of and against the judgments centred on the report of the Bi-modal Voters Accreditation System (BVAS), provisions of the electoral act as regards usage of the voters register, over voting and the power of the tribunal to cancel an election and declare winner. 
The Lead Judgment And Sec. 51 of the Electoral Act
Speaking with OSUN DEFENDER in a telephone interview, a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Ibadan, Dr. Olusegun Onakoya, described the majority judgement as a watertight verdict that requires extra effort to upturn. 
Onakoya said: “The majority judgement is more comprehensive, elaborate and one can see through evaluation of the evidence before the court, particularly the documentary evidence, the exhibits tendered by all the parties. 
“The minority judgement brought out some technical issues particularly; the emphasis was that you cannot rely on the weakness of the respondent on a case to prove your own matter. 
“However, when you look at the Electoral Act, it is very clear that where there is over voting, results from those affected polling units must be cancelled. Looking at the majority judgement, it was established through documentary evidence that there was over voting in about 744 polling units and in such situation, the invalid votes were to be cancelled. 
“I think the judges were able to do justice to that and they rely heavily on Section 51, sub Section 2 of the Electoral Act. It is so clear, except in a situation where a larger number of voters in Osun state were disenfranchised, then, the tribunal can be talking of re-run.
“Be that as it may, the judgment, when tested at Appeal Court, we will be able to know whether it will stand or not.”
Speaking on the non usage of the BVAS report presented by INEC and Adeleke, Onakoya said: “When there are noticeable inconsistencies in the exhibits tendered, it is at the discretion of the court to rely or admit the one that it considered valid.
“There was a process by which those documents the respondents tendered were compared with what the other brought. The inconsistencies, self-contradictions from the exhibits tendered by the respondents actually informed the decision of the majority members of the tribunal. It is not about not evaluating.
“The tribunal said they have evaluated the exhibits but found certain inconsistencies in the data and the figures posted and it was not in doubt that there was over voting. Even the documents tendered as exhibits by the respondents reflected that there was over voting.”
Sec. 39, 41 of the Constitution And The Cancellation of Votes By The Tribunal 
However, a Lagos based lawyer, Akin Bajepade, questioned the nullification of votes in the 744 polling units, saying it amounted to disenfranchisement of the electorate in the area.
According to Bajepade, the tribunal was wrong to disenfranchise about 172,801 electorates because of 10,154 purported over voting.
Speaking with OSUN DEFENDER in a telephone interview on Tuesday, Bajepade said: “Assuming without conceding that the findings of the tribunal was right and correct that there was over voting, was the tribunal right in its interpretation and application of Section 51(2) of the Electoral Act and therefore right and correct to cancel the entire votes in 744 polling units under contention and consequently declare Oyetola the winner of the election?
“In my humble view, I think the tribunal was wrong to disenfranchise about 172,801 electorates because of 10,154 purported over voting.
“It is clear from the lead judgment that the tribunal relied on Section 51(2) of the Electoral Act for the cancellation. It is also settled on the face of the judgment that the tribunal applied the literal rule of interpretation to section 51(2) of the Electoral Act to come to the conclusion in the judgment. 
“The most important question to ask therefore is, “will it be right and correct for the tribunal to apply literal interpretation rule to the aforementioned section?” In my humble view, I think the tribunal erred in law.
“It is a settled principle of law and elementary law that where the application of literal rule of interpretation will create ambiguity, the courts are enjoined to use other interpretation. It is also the law that statute must be interpreted largely to accommodate the purpose of the statute.
“I have no doubt that the application of the literal rule will disenfranchise 172, 801 voters in Osun governorship election.
“It is our humble view that such application will be inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution which is the grundnorm. I will specifically refer to Sections 39 and 41 under fundamental rights. I will also look at Chapter VI, Part II of the Constitution. Chapter VI Part II (State Executive) states that “For the purpose of an election under this section, a state shall be regarded as one constituency.” 
“In other words, for the purpose of election to the office of the governor of a state in Nigeria, the entire state shall be regarded as one constituency. Therefore, it can be concluded that election into the office of a governor of a state is not conclusive if a section of the state is cut off for whatever reason. 
“I have no doubt that the constitution certainly provides that all eligible voters must be allowed to vote. Hence, in applying the said Section, the tribunal should have been more circumspect in interpreting and applying the said section. 
“I am of the humble view that the best the tribunal should have done is to cancel the purported excess votes and determine the winner or otherwise order re-run in those polling units.
“I also have the strong feeling that the provision of the said Section 51(2) relied upon by the tribunal does not permit the Tribunal to cancel the entire voters, only the returning and presiding officers who are staffers of INEC can do that.”
Does The Tribunal Cherry Pick Evidence? 
Analysing the majority judgement, a legal practitioner, Naheem Adekilekun, pointed out what he regarded as flaws in the verdict, stating that it could not stand the test of time. 
According to Adekilekun, the judgement was based on evidence which was not supported with facts before the court. 
He said: “If you want your judgement to be grounded in law, the evidence must support the fact in any particular judgement. If your evidence does not support the fact before the court, such a judgement cannot be grounded in law and that is the reason why we have levels of courts. 
“The tribunal judgement will be tested in Appeal Court and whoever is not satisfied with the decision of the appeal has the right to take it to the Supreme Court. But I want to tell you, the majority judgement of the tribunal cannot stand the test of law. 
“The major reason why the tribunal gave judgement to Oyetola was based on the BVAS report presented by the petitioners and that shouldn’t have been the basis for the judgement because Oyetola brought a BVAS to court, Adeleke and INEC also brought BVAS before the Tribunal.
“The law is that when there are two contradictory evidences before the court, the court cannot cherry pick which to believe.  Though, one may be supported with fact than the other but in this case, the petitioners and respondents reports have their primary source from the BVAS machines and the machines were tendered in evidence in the court. 
“In this instance, the court cannot believe Oyetola’s BVAS report over that of Adeleke. What the court was expected to do was to go to the primary source of those two reports and compare. It is the BVAS machine that will tell the actual number of accreditation in a polling unit. It is not the report from the backend server of INEC.”
Adekilekun stated further: “I also noticed that the tribunal only talked about the weakness of INEC witness under cross examination where she admitted over voting by saying there were seemingly over voting. A court of law should not treat the evidence of a witness before her in isolation. 
“The INEC witness admitted under cross examination that there were seemingly over voting. The witness was re-examined as to explain what she meant by seemingly over voting to the tribunal and at that point, the witness said that over voting could not be determined by comparing BVAS report with form EC8A and that to know over voting, you go back to the primary source of the BVAS report which is the BVAS machine.
“But the tribunal did not allude to that fact in its judgement; it only believed the fact that the witness admitted that there was seemingly over voting. You don’t cherry pick evidence. That is the law. The judgement is against the weight of evidence, because you have to take as a whole, the testimony of a witness before you in concluding whether the witness has admitted the fact or not. 
“There are so many flaws in the judgement and there are so many loopholes that can be explore in Appeal Court. 
“Unlike the minority judgement which is so concise, the majority judgement said that the voters register has been deficient. 
“In the election guidelines, there are specific mentions of when the voters register will be used, the tribunal closed her eyes to the fact that the voters register is still much more relevant in our elections. 
“How come the tribunal will now say the voters register is not relevant? These are the primary sources for what is on the INEC server and you cannot close your eyes against these primary sources of evidence and say you want to rely on secondary source. Let us keep our fingers crossed and see what the court of appeal will do.”
Section 51 of the Electoral Act
However, OSUN DEFENDER noted that Section 51 of the Electoral Act, 2022 states: “(1) No voter shall vote for more than one candidate or record more than one vote in favour of any candidate at any one election. (2) Where the number of votes cast at an election in any polling unit exceeds the number of accredited voters in that polling unit, the Presiding officer shall cancel the result of the election in that polling unit. (3) Where the result of an election is cancelled in accordance with subsection (2), there shall be no return for the election until another poll has taken place in the affected polling unit. Accreditation of voters and voting.
“Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) the Commission may, if satisfied that the result of the election will not substantially be affected by voting in the area where the election is cancelled, direct that a rerun of the election be made.”
Inconsistencies In the Respondents’ Evidences
Reviewing the majority judgement, a former Chairman of Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Osogbo branch, Mr. Rahman Okunade, said the tribunal was right by basing its judgment on the evidence provided by the petitioners. 
According to Okunade, both INEC and Adeleke failed to provide credible evidence to convince the tribunal that the BVAS report submitted by the APC and Oyetola as regard over voting was not correct. 
Okunade said: “There were inconsistences in the defence and evidences of the respondents in that case. The law is this, if I am alleging something and you want to debunk it, you have to debunk it with credible piece of evidence. The Piece of evidence they (respondents) brought to court to debunk the one given to the tribunal by the petitioners were not believable. 
“The tribunal was right to have jettisoned the BVAS report from INEC and PDP because of the inconsistencies in them.”
Speaking on the refusal of the second judge in the majority judgement to read as separate judgment, Okunade said: “Section 294(2) of the constitution mention that where Court of Appeal or Supreme Court give judgement, all the judges must have their opinion in writing read to the hearing of the court and the law. The constitution has specifically mentioned Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. It means that the constitution does not intend that the provision should apply to courts, including the tribunal. 
“There are arguments that Supreme Court had directed that each member of a tribunal should read separate judgement; I have not come across. When the case gets to appeal, we will know what is right from what is wrong.  
Okunade also supported the tribunal on the cancellation of votes in the 744 polling units were there was said to be over voting. 
“On the application of Section 51 of the Electoral Act, if the court finds out that there are over voting, it is empowered by that section to cancel the votes in the affected area. The section gives power of cancellation to INEC officer and I agreed that, that is what the court should follow because what ought to be done at the collation centre that was not done was brought to court for redress. 
“Section 136 of the Electoral Act also gives power to the tribunal to nullify an election and declare candidate with majority valid votes winner after plus and minus.
“Importantly, the total amount of cancelled votes was not substantial to affect the total amount of general votes. So, the argument that a section of voters was disenfranchised did not come to play here.” 
OSUN DEFENDER noted that both the PDP and Adeleke are preparing ground to approach the Court of Appeal with a request to cancel the lead judgment of the tribunal. 
Also, sources in Oyetola’s camp told OSUN DEFENDER that the legal team of the former governor would also challenge Adeleke’s eligibility to contest the July 16, 2022 governorship election at the appellate court.
 



https://www.osundefender.com/special-report-contentious-or-landmark-issues-in-osun-tribunal-judgement/

Cc mynd44 cc Seun cc OAM4j cc nlfpmod cc lalasticlala FP

If I say Tinubu and you shout thief, omo na you Sabi.

Getting things right in this country will require us voting for Peter Obi....


Else, we will have Tinubu who will be deciding who leads you in your state, down to your LGA chairmen to your village heads and councillors....

He decides based on loyalty and base on who makes the best remittance.....


Abeg oh ...


We need a leader that will not interfere in state's decision making....


Our Civil service will be filled with people who pay homage to him alone....


You will not become a director if you do not dubuleh for Tinubu.

OXYMORON is when a supposed neutral judge carry kiss daniel's buga song for head enter court,..

Phoen1X:
OXYMORON is when a supposed neutral judge carry kiss daniel's buga song for head enter court,..

seriously you are very right

JASONjnr:
Getting things right in this country will require us voting for Peter Obi....


Else, we will have Tinubu who will be deciding who leads you in your state, down to your LGA chairmen to your village heads and councillors....

He decides based on loyalty and base on who makes the best remittance.....


Abeg oh ...


We need a leader that will not interfere in state's decision making....


Our Civil service will be filled with people who pay homage to him alone....


You will not become a director if you do not dubuleh for Tinubu.

yes soo. You are much right here. Really the good people Osun State have separate themselves from Tinubu dominance in Osun State politics. February 25th presidential poll is around the corner and they will decide who they want. Atiku Abubakar is the people’s choice in Osun State. Atiku Abubakar wins February 25th presidential poll.

Another propaganda and lies which they are now peddling around is that, Gov. Ademola and PDP lack locus to appeal against the Majority Judgement of EPT or INEC won't Appeal the Judgement. Imagine, Gov. Adeleke and PDP that majority decision of Election Petition Tribunal personally affect lack locus to appeal against the Judgement? Oh my God! why is it that Osun APC is populated with Nincompoops or Nonetities with this kind of their reasoning? Did Oyetola and APC not Appeal against the Majority Judgement of Election Petition Tribunal in 2018/2019 ?
INEC, Adeleke and PDP are appealing against the Majority Judgement of EPT. So, Dotun Babayemi's scenario where his Lawyers filed an appeal out of time at the supreme court can never happen in this instance Appeal. The NOTICE OF APPEAL had since been filed by the Appeallants.
Such lies and propaganda can only be found on Facebook Pages of Confused Osun APC Social Media Bandits who know nothing about procedures in Law Courts other than fiction of their imagination.
If I may ask, who are the people afraid of subjecting the Judgement of Tribunal Chairman for scrutiny at the Appellate Courts? Kikikikiki kakakaka 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

My people
Don't listen to APC online Bandits as regards the ongoing Court case between PDP (Adeleke) and APC (Gboyega Oyetola). There was never a Time the INEC Said They are not going to Appeal or They Will not Appeal because the case is not appealable. What the INEC Representative Said was that there is no need for them to Appeal that Once Gov Ademola Adeleke Appeal The judgement, it will definitely/automatically involve them.
So the Inec said They are ready to do everything in their capacity to defend the election that produces Adeleke. Don't listen to anyone of them if truly you want the true copy of the ongoing Court case.
THANKS 🙏

WERE Nigeria a nation of truth, the Osun State governor, Senator Ademola Adeleke, would be in his second term of office by now.


Blame INEC & judges

Adeleke was defeated by INEC, and the Supreme Court which relied on a mere technicality to deny Osun people their right to choose their governor.