Indispensable85:



Okay!

The Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal has said that PDP/Adeleke proved non-compliance to the Electoral Act in 17 polling units. It says it will deduct 2,029 votes from APC ‘s scores and 1,246 votes from PDP’s in the 17 polling units.

yusuff4u2c:

Please I look forward to your update of the findings bro... God bless you

The Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal has said that
PDP/Adeleke proved non-compliance to the Electoral Act in
17 polling units. It says it will deduct 2,029 votes from APC ‘s
scores and 1,246 votes from PDP’s in the 17 polling units.

sapoyoro:
The Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal has said that
PDP/Adeleke proved non-compliance to the Electoral Act in
17 polling units. It says it will deduct 2,029 votes from APC ‘s
scores and 1,246 votes from PDP’s in the 17 polling units.

The question to be asked is what constitutes non compliance? What were the evidences

garfield1:

Provide a source where presiding officers are empowered to cancel polling units.even during inec adhoc training,we were never told that presiding officers cancel polling unit elections.if there is any violence or anything hindrrimg the conduct of polls,presiding officers are advised to call the supervisory presiding officers who will in turn call superior officials and report to them.in case of ballot box snatching,presiding officers are advised to write a report stating what happened but they cant take final decisions on cancellations.

So who have the right to cancel polling unit result?

garfield1:

The question to be asked is what constitutes non compliance? What were the evidences

oga shut up and sleep jobless noisemaker. Adeleke is the Governor goan commit suicide

garfield1:

The question to be asked is what constitutes non compliance? What were the evidences

I guess the PDP were granted this prayer because they proved their case beyond reasonable doubt..
I'm still wondering what noncompliance means too..

Binikingdowm:
oga shut up and sleep jobless noisemaker. Adeleke is the Governor goan commit suicide

calm down ooo..we are all learning.

sapoyoro:

I guess the PDP were granted this prayer because they proved their case beyond reasonable doubt..
I'm still wondering what noncompliance means too..

Thats where it becomes subjective.what may be termed non compluance to the tribunal may not be so to the higher courts.again,out of the 7 polling units that rerun held,they were no elections in 3 and the remaining ones had cases of violence and overvoting which the law prescribes cancelation.too many loopholes.

Binikingdowm:
oga shut up and sleep jobless noisemaker. Adeleke is the Governor goan commit suicide

Childish rants

obonujoker:
This is unbelievable..... PDP osun

This is good for democracy. The tribunal appear to have been diligent. We APC deserved to lose my state. Aregbesola was seriously really bad and we needed to be taught a lesson.

I commend my Sai Bubu for creating a nation where justice has prevailed.

TyrantInAsoRock:

So who have the right to cancel polling unit result?

That is why i said we need to look at the electoral law and guidelines.but from the inec training,it is not presiding officers.infact,some collation centres reject results of some polling units to show you the limited powers of presiding officers.

garfield1:

Thats where it becomes subjective.what may be termed non compluance to the tribunal may not be so to the higher courts.again,out of the 7 polling units that rerun held,they were no elections in 3 and the remaining ones had cases of violence and overvoting which the law prescribes cancelation.too many loopholes.

so does that signify the higher court could order a rerun?

garfield1:

That is why i said we need to look at the electoral law and guidelines.but from the inec training,it is not presiding officers.infact,some collation centres reject results of some polling units to show you the limited powers of presiding officers.

and SRJ our former AG actually said on twitter on his live updtes then that the PDP proved that the polling units were cancelled by the returning officer...a wrongful act that render the rerun void...maybe he acted arbitrarily? or why didn't inec prove their case on this...

then there was also the issue on discrepancies on a particular form or something like that..

garfield1:

That is why i said we need to look at the electoral law and guidelines.but from the inec training,it is not presiding officers.infact,some collation centres reject results of some polling units to show you the limited powers of presiding officers.

As far as I know presiding officers are the ones allow to cancel a polling unit result maybe with permission of their bosses that I don't know but RO CAN'T cancel PUs result

This is exactly why the tribunal decides the re-run is illegal

INEC didn't tie that end

sapoyoro:

so does that signify the higher court could order a rerun?

Well,when you cancel a ward or polling units based on infractions,the next step is to order a rerun there not to add and subtract.the dissenting judge noted this and even quoted relevant laws to back it up.i have never seen the supreme court collate election figures,they simply pass a general ruling.

TyrantInAsoRock:


As far as I know presiding officers are the ones allow to cancel a polling unit result maybe with permission of their bosses that I don't know but RO CAN'T cancel PUs result

This is exactly why the tribunal decides the re-run is illegal

INEC didn't tie that end

How do you know? Which source? Anyway,you said with the permission of their bosses which is a clause.let someone with good knowledge of this help us resolve the logjam.i think this is secondary.the primary problem is cancelling the results of 17 units without ordering a rerun there

sapoyoro:

and SRJ our former AG actually said on twitter on his live updtes then that the PDP proved that the polling units were cancelled by the returning officer...a wrongful act that render the rerun void...maybe he acted arbitrarily? or why didn't inec prove their case on this...

then there was also the issue on discrepancies on a particular form or something like that..

That cancelling of 7 units will take a back seat but the court should have looked at the results from those 7 units if it met the provisions of the law or was in compliance with the electoral act.the main issue is why cancel results from 17 units without ordering a return,secondly the results of those units that were said to be altered,what was the final decision on them ?

MY TAKE ON OYETOLA DECISION TO APPROACH THE APPEAL COURT
I have this to say, we need to get things right, does anybody know the procedure of Appeal Court.
With my own little knowledge on the field legal, i believe Appeal is to cross the proceeding of the lower court, and fix out the wrong process done by the Tribunal.
Now, Oyetola and APC should remember that the INEC been the 1st defendant in the petition failed to defend the petition against them and they failed to file a no case submission as well, and while the 2nd and 3rd defendant (APC and Oyetola) also gave evidence contradiction in their defence and their evidence is not that tally with the evidence been presented by the petitioner.
During the proceeding of the tribunal, i make it known to my people that the outcome of the tribunal will be of two things, and in which the tribunal even make use of the two. I said it that, is either the tribunal illegalize the rerun and make use of the real election or ask the INEC to return the deducted votes of Adeleke/PDP, and at the end today, Tribunal said the rerun is illegal and ask INEC to return the votes.
Now, that APC/OYETOLA are step to challenge the Tribunal at the Appeal Court, they ask them it will be on what stand, claim or instant.
Let me ask again, what has been the INEC reaction/respond to the judgement given today, Don't be surprise if INEC fail to join the suit in Appeal Court.
I want to say this again, on what will the Appeal cross check the Tribunal proceeding.
It will be only result to suit after death.
In respond to the news going on now after the delivery of the judgement by the APC supporters that Wike loss in Tribunal, Appeal but receive his mandate in Supreme , i have this to say, let it be clear that Wike claims are different from Adeleke claims, the case are not of the same, and also does INEC failed to make case during Wike case like that of Adeleke.
I wish i post the full judgement of the then River State Election Tribunal so as for you to see the differences.
But you can do as well, check on google, by searching: *Judgement on River State Election Tribunal.*
Don't deceive people with that kind of hope.
Adeleke is here to dance to the seat.

Johnnyessence:
MY TAKE ON OYETOLA DECISION TO APPROACH THE APPEAL COURT
I have this to say, we need to get things right, does anybody know the procedure of Appeal Court.
With my own little knowledge on the field legal, i believe Appeal is to cross the proceeding of the lower court, and fix out the wrong process done by the Tribunal.
Now, Oyetola and APC should remember that the INEC been the 1st defendant in the petition failed to defend the petition against them and they failed to file a no case submission as well, and while the 2nd and 3rd defendant (APC and Oyetola) also gave evidence contradiction in their defence and their evidence is not that tally with the evidence been presented by the petitioner.
During the proceeding of the tribunal, i make it known to my people that the outcome of the tribunal will be of two things, and in which the tribunal even make use of the two. I said it that, is either the tribunal illegalize the rerun and make use of the real election or ask the INEC to return the deducted votes of Adeleke/PDP, and at the end today, Tribunal said the rerun is illegal and ask INEC to return the votes.
Now, that APC/OYETOLA are step to challenge the Tribunal at the Appeal Court, they ask them it will be on what stand, claim or instant.
Let me ask again, what has been the INEC reaction/respond to the judgement given today, Don't be surprise if INEC fail to join the suit in Appeal Court.
I want to say this again, on what will the Appeal cross check the Tribunal proceeding.
It will be only result to suit after death.
In respond to the news going on now after the delivery of the judgement by the APC supporters that Wike loss in Tribunal, Appeal but receive his mandate in Supreme , i have this to say, let it be clear that Wike claims are different from Adeleke claims, the case are not of the same, and also does INEC failed to make case during Wike case like that of Adeleke.
I wish i post the full judgement of the then River State Election Tribunal so as for you to see the differences.
But you can do as well, check on google, by searching: *Judgement on River State Election Tribunal.*
Don't deceive people with that kind of hope.
Adeleke is here to dance to the seat.

Section 140 subsection 2 prevents a court from deducting votes or declaring a winner

Lobatan!
If APC claim section...refers them to this...

ABUJA-A Federal High Court in Abuja, yesterday, ordered election petition tribunals sitting across the federation to ignore provisions of section 140(2) and 141 of Electoral Act 2010, saying it was vague, unconstitutional and a deliberate attempt by the legislative arm of government to usurp powers of the judiciary. Nullifying the two sections, the high court equally gave election tribunals nod to declare a candidate winner of any disputed election process brought before it, stressing that provisions of the aforementioned sections were inconsistent with both section 239 and 285 of the 1999 Constitution as amended. It would be recalled that the National Assembly, in amending the Electoral Act, divested from courts the power to declare any candidate the bonafide winner of a disputed poll, stipulating that appropriate action the court or tribunal could take in such situation was to nullify the election and order a fresh one. Dissatisfied with the decision, Labour Party, LP, went to court to challenge its constitutionality. The plaintiff joined Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, and Attorney General of the Federation, Mohammed Bello Adoke, SAN, as defendants in the suit. However, the two defendants, who were represented in court by Mrs. Patience Osagiede Ofeyi and Ms Olufunke Aboyade, respectively, joined the plaintiff in asking the court to void those portions of the Electoral Act, contending that it ousted the jurisdiction of tribunals with respect to reliefs that could be granted in an election petition. Delivering judgment on the matter, Presiding Justice Gabriel Kolawole, maintained that the National Assembly was bereft of legislative competence to dictate to the court decision it should take over a suit filed before it, just as he described section 140(2) and 141 of the Electoral Act, 2010, as an affront on the concept of separation of powers. He held that the sections smacked off legislative tyranny, in the sense that it removed the constitutionally guaranteed powers of the court to declare a candidate winner of an election, stressing that section 134 and 179 of the same constitution imbued the judiciary with powers to declare the person with majority votes winner of an election process. He noted that the National Assembly deliberately interfered with judicial affairs, saying the two sections were nothing but legislative judgment. According to the judge, “Sections 140 (2) and 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 delimits power of the court to adjudicate dispute between parties in Election Petition. It, therefore, derogates powers enshrined in Sections 4 ( and 6 (1) of the Constitution. “The decision a court can arrive at in any dispute is based on the peculiar facts and evidences presented before it, it is not what any parliament can technically determine. Once a tribunal is seized with a matter in line with provisions of section 239 and 385 of the constitution, it can no longer reside with the legislature to curtail or abridge the powers of that court. “I, therefore, find Sections 140 (2) and 141 needless and an unnecessary intrusion, it is my view that election tribunals can operate effectively without these two provisions. “Consequently, it is hereby declared inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 constitution and, therefore, null and void. The various election tribunals shall not be bound by the provisions of Sections 140 (2) and 141, it is thus accordingly struck-down, same being unconstitutional.” The plaintiff had in an originating summon it filed through its counsel, Chief Chuwkuma Ekomaru, SAN, prayed the high court to invoke its jurisdiction and declare that the provisions of the said portions of the Electoral Act were inconsistent with the provisions of sections 6(6a), 134, 179, 285 of the 1999 Constitution as amended.

garfield1:

Section 140 subsection 2 prevents a court from deducting votes or declaring a winner

Lobatan!
If APC claim section...refers them to this...

ABUJA-A Federal High Court in Abuja, yesterday, ordered election petition tribunals sitting across the federation to ignore provisions of section 140(2) and 141 of Electoral Act 2010, saying it was vague, unconstitutional and a deliberate attempt by the legislative arm of government to usurp powers of the judiciary. Nullifying the two sections, the high court equally gave election tribunals nod to declare a candidate winner of any disputed election process brought before it, stressing that provisions of the aforementioned sections were inconsistent with both section 239 and 285 of the 1999 Constitution as amended. It would be recalled that the National Assembly, in amending the Electoral Act, divested from courts the power to declare any candidate the bonafide winner of a disputed poll, stipulating that appropriate action the court or tribunal could take in such situation was to nullify the election and order a fresh one. Dissatisfied with the decision, Labour Party, LP, went to court to challenge its constitutionality. The plaintiff joined Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, and Attorney General of the Federation, Mohammed Bello Adoke, SAN, as defendants in the suit. However, the two defendants, who were represented in court by Mrs. Patience Osagiede Ofeyi and Ms Olufunke Aboyade, respectively, joined the plaintiff in asking the court to void those portions of the Electoral Act, contending that it ousted the jurisdiction of tribunals with respect to reliefs that could be granted in an election petition. Delivering judgment on the matter, Presiding Justice Gabriel Kolawole, maintained that the National Assembly was bereft of legislative competence to dictate to the court decision it should take over a suit filed before it, just as he described section 140(2) and 141 of the Electoral Act, 2010, as an affront on the concept of separation of powers. He held that the sections smacked off legislative tyranny, in the sense that it removed the constitutionally guaranteed powers of the court to declare a candidate winner of an election, stressing that section 134 and 179 of the same constitution imbued the judiciary with powers to declare the person with majority votes winner of an election process. He noted that the National Assembly deliberately interfered with judicial affairs, saying the two sections were nothing but legislative judgment. According to the judge, “Sections 140 (2) and 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 delimits power of the court to adjudicate dispute between parties in Election Petition. It, therefore, derogates powers enshrined in Sections 4 ( and 6 (1) of the Constitution. “The decision a court can arrive at in any dispute is based on the peculiar facts and evidences presented before it, it is not what any parliament can technically determine. Once a tribunal is seized with a matter in line with provisions of section 239 and 385 of the constitution, it can no longer reside with the legislature to curtail or abridge the powers of that court. “I, therefore, find Sections 140 (2) and 141 needless and an unnecessary intrusion, it is my view that election tribunals can operate effectively without these two provisions. “Consequently, it is hereby declared inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 constitution and, therefore, null and void. The various election tribunals shall not be bound by the provisions of Sections 140 (2) and 141, it is thus accordingly struck-down, same being unconstitutional.” The plaintiff had in an originating summon it filed through its counsel, Chief Chuwkuma Ekomaru, SAN, prayed the high court to invoke its jurisdiction and declare that the provisions of the said portions of the Electoral Act were inconsistent with the provisions of sections 6(6a), 134, 179, 285 of the 1999 Constitution as amended.

Johnnyessence:
Lobatan!
If APC claim section...refers them to this...

ABUJA-A Federal High Court in Abuja, yesterday, ordered election petition tribunals sitting across the federation to ignore provisions of section 140(2) and 141 of Electoral Act 2010, saying it was vague, unconstitutional and a deliberate attempt by the legislative arm of government to usurp powers of the judiciary. Nullifying the two sections, the high court equally gave election tribunals nod to declare a candidate winner of any disputed election process brought before it, stressing that provisions of the aforementioned sections were inconsistent with both section 239 and 285 of the 1999 Constitution as amended. It would be recalled that the National Assembly, in amending the Electoral Act, divested from courts the power to declare any candidate the bonafide winner of a disputed poll, stipulating that appropriate action the court or tribunal could take in such situation was to nullify the election and order a fresh one. Dissatisfied with the decision, Labour Party, LP, went to court to challenge its constitutionality. The plaintiff joined Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, and Attorney General of the Federation, Mohammed Bello Adoke, SAN, as defendants in the suit. However, the two defendants, who were represented in court by Mrs. Patience Osagiede Ofeyi and Ms Olufunke Aboyade, respectively, joined the plaintiff in asking the court to void those portions of the Electoral Act, contending that it ousted the jurisdiction of tribunals with respect to reliefs that could be granted in an election petition. Delivering judgment on the matter, Presiding Justice Gabriel Kolawole, maintained that the National Assembly was bereft of legislative competence to dictate to the court decision it should take over a suit filed before it, just as he described section 140(2) and 141 of the Electoral Act, 2010, as an affront on the concept of separation of powers. He held that the sections smacked off legislative tyranny, in the sense that it removed the constitutionally guaranteed powers of the court to declare a candidate winner of an election, stressing that section 134 and 179 of the same constitution imbued the judiciary with powers to declare the person with majority votes winner of an election process. He noted that the National Assembly deliberately interfered with judicial affairs, saying the two sections were nothing but legislative judgment. According to the judge, “Sections 140 (2) and 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 delimits power of the court to adjudicate dispute between parties in Election Petition. It, therefore, derogates powers enshrined in Sections 4 ( and 6 (1) of the Constitution. “The decision a court can arrive at in any dispute is based on the peculiar facts and evidences presented before it, it is not what any parliament can technically determine. Once a tribunal is seized with a matter in line with provisions of section 239 and 385 of the constitution, it can no longer reside with the legislature to curtail or abridge the powers of that court. “I, therefore, find Sections 140 (2) and 141 needless and an unnecessary intrusion, it is my view that election tribunals can operate effectively without these two provisions. “Consequently, it is hereby declared inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 constitution and, therefore, null and void. The various election tribunals shall not be bound by the provisions of Sections 140 (2) and 141, it is thus accordingly struck-down, same being unconstitutional.” The plaintiff had in an originating summon it filed through its counsel, Chief Chuwkuma Ekomaru, SAN, prayed the high court to invoke its jurisdiction and declare that the provisions of the said portions of the Electoral Act were inconsistent with the provisions of sections 6(6a), 134, 179, 285 of the 1999 Constitution as amended.

Well,it is not binding on the appeal and supreme courts.am not even sure that rascal decision holds water.the majority judgment wasn't even backed by any relevant law.

Indispensable85:


It appears to be a very strong ground for appeal. It's like the tribunal declared the rerun illegal and deducted the results gotten from the 17 polling units where the rerun held from the both parties.if the supreme court can just acknowledge the powers of INEC to order a rerun then,there will be serious trouble for Adeleke. I want him to be favoured, because he actually won that election.

The tribunal ascertained alteration in 17 PUs, ordered subtraction of votes. And declared the supplementary election as null and void. Even if the supplementary is allowed, the alteration and deduction still give victory to Adeleke/pdp.

garfield1:

Well,it is not binding on the appeal and supreme courts.am not even sure that rascal decision holds water.the majority judgment wasn't even backed by any relevant law.

Adeleke/pdp's victory will withstand any appeal. It is a clean clear victory in substance and form. The minority dissenting judgment was too watery.

The Osun State Governor, Adegboyega Oyetola, has reacted to tribunal ruling sacking him as governor of the state.


An Osun governorship tribunal had on Friday sacked him and declared Ademola Adeleke of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, winner of the last governorship election in the state.

Reacting, Oyetola vowed to challenge the ruling of tribunal at the Appeal Court.

http://dailynaijamode.com/osun-guber-updateoyetola-finally-talk-about-tribunal-judgement/

tuniski:


Adeleke/pdp's victory will withstand any appeal. It is a clean clear victory in substance and form. The minority dissenting judgment was too watery.

Your comment is as watery as the majority judgment.which law did the majority judges quote to support their claim

garfield1:

Your comment is as watery as the majority judgment.which law did the majority judges quote to support their claim

Las lass you will be alright. Omo calabar

tuniski:

Las lass you will be alright. Omo calabar

Thunder release

tuniski:



The tribunal ascertained alteration in 17 PUs, ordered subtraction of votes. And declared the supplementary election as null and void. Even if the supplementary is allowed, the alteration and deduction still give victory to Adeleke/pdp.

Okay