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.

Okay

see the reason candidates should always work extra to win with a very distinctive margin.
if this was the case of Osun state election there won't be need for all this.

well, I believe if the tribunal judgement is valid and correct to the uttermost let the appeal court confirm.

well, I see this court cases lasting for a while..lol
at least, the current Governor would be in office for at least a year before it gets resolved

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..

Things like overvoting,tampering with result sheets.......
For example,if total number of votes recorded in a unit exceeds number of accredited voters,that constitutes non compliance and ground for cancelation of that unit.
It doesn't matter if the votes did not exceed number of registered voters in that unit
Before you ask,I've worked for INEC and I'm also conversant with the law

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.

This judgement appears to me to be against INEC and it's processes and not against APC/OYETOLA though they are the one's who lose.

I wonder if APC/OYETOLA could sue INEC for incompetence?

garfield1:

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 ?

The units with altered results were the ones cancelled by the Tribunal.
BTW,all your rants,S.140 (2) and (3) of the Electoral Act,plus the Constitution gives the Tribunal power to tabulate,add and subtract figures from electoral returns.
That should have been your first port of call before coming here to disturb.
And no,the tribunal wouldn't call for re-run in units they canceled cos elections are over.The duty of tribunals is not to order elections,but either to uphold one already held,cancel it or make sure nobody enjoys proceeds of infractions during the process

garfield1:

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

Liar.
Go back and check S.140(2) and (3) again

Dhugal:

Things like overvoting,tampering with result sheets.......
For example,if total number of votes recorded in a unit exceeds number of accredited voters,that constitutes non compliance and ground for cancelation of that unit.
It doesn't matter if the votes did not exceed number of registered voters in that unit
Before you ask,I've worked for INEC and I'm also conversant with the law

thanks much..appreciated..

Dhugal:

The units with altered results were the ones cancelled by the Tribunal.
BTW,all your rants,S.140 (2) and (3) of the Electoral Act,plus the Constitution gives the Tribunal power to tabulate,add and subtract figures from electoral returns.
That should have been your first port of call before coming here to disturb.
And no,the tribunal wouldn't call for re-run in units they canceled cos elections are over.The duty of tribunals is not to order elections,but either to uphold one already held,cancel it or make sure nobody enjoys proceeds of infractions during the process

Your answer exposes your dumbness.that section you quoted stopped tribunals from collating and declaring winners.i can post it to burst you more.
How can you say tribunals duty is not to order elections? What if the whole election was canceled,what would happen? Would the state remain ungoverned? Think before typing

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.

My dear, do APPEAL and SUPREME COURTS use any constitution other than 199 constitution?

garfield1:

Your answer exposes your dumbness.that section you quoted stopped tribunals from collating and declaring winners.i can post it to burst you more.
How can you say tribunals duty is not to order elections? What if the whole election was canceled,what would happen? Would the state remain ungoverned? Think before typing

*sigh*

Your ignorance reeks to high heavens,or you're just being conscientiously stupid?
I asked that you do a community reading of S.140(2) and (3) to cure your ignorance,yet like a dumb mule,you persist in your foolishness.
For those of you who don't know,S.140(2) talked about a situation where the actual winner is found not qualified for one reason or the other to stand for election.The NASS ousted the powers of the Tribunal to then confer victory on the runner up,a move declared null and void by the FHC,Abuja as it goes against Chapter 7 III of the Constitution.
S.140(3),however,deals with where the Tribunal finds that the declared winner turn out not to be the actual winner,as is the case with the Osun election here.It mandated the Tribunal to nullify that declaration and return the actual winner as elected.
I've taken time out to explain this,and also attached screenshot of those particular subsections.Let no one be deceived or misinformed here,as this paid hack has been trying to do.
In any event,the appellate courts won't re litigate this case,they will only check if the Tribunal's decision has basis in law,which it most assuredly does.

*CRITICAL SNIPPET FROM THE OSUN ELECTION TRIBUNAL JUDGEMENT THAT SHOULD BE OF GRAVE CONCERN TO THE APC, GOVERNOR OYETOLA & THEIR ATTORNEYS IN THE APPEAL & ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT*

"The tribunal took a swipe at INEC after it confirmed that there were alterations in the Certified True Copies of result sheets (Form EC8) which were issued to the petitioners and tendered in evidence.

The tribunal noted that FIGURES in the said CTC's were DIFFERENT from what were contained in the signed pink/duplicate copies that were handed to party agents at the end of the governorship election.

It held that evidence adduced before it revealed that INEC issued result sheets from same polling units and serial number that contained different information.

Tribunal : ' we have no doubt that the alterations were made after the election had been concluded at the polling units and after agents had gone with clean copies'.

The Tribunal further held that neither INEC nor APC which had agents in all the polling units, was able to give any reason behind alterations that were observed on the result sheets.

Tribunal : 'it is important to note that the 2nd and 3rd respondents (APC and Oyetola) had agents in all the polling units, yet they failed to call any evidence or agent to say that he/she was present when the alteration was made'.

The Tribunal said it was convinced that the alterations were a function of a DELIBERATE CONSPIRACY 'to achieve a desired result in all the affected areas'.

Consequently, the panel upheld the results contained in the clean copies that were tendered by the petitioners (PDP and Adeleke) as genuine and regular.

More so, it noted that whereas 8 mandatory columns that ought to have been filled by the INEC, including details of number of registered / accredited voters in each of the disputed areas, were left vacant in pink copies of the result sheets, they were filled in the CTC of the result sheet that was subsequently ALTERED by INEC".

Comments :

*can any discerning mind reading this see what i have seen, your legal knowledge, regardless ?

*looks like the respondents had a bad case and INEC didn't help with matters at all

*this may well be a very strong basis for PDP/Adeleke to triumph all the way to the supreme court. You wanna ask me why? The Tribunal subsequently voided results of the affected areas and deducted from the total number of votes garnered by Oyetola and Adeleke the number of votes recorded for each of the candidates in the affected areas. Oyetola recorded more votes than Adeleke in the contested areas hence, he suffered more calamity. The re-run poll was ruled out by the Tribunal as an act of illegality and after the subtraction, the petitioners, PDP/ Adeleke were deemed to have legally won the election by some 301 votes.

In conclusion, I wouldn't be unduly worried if I were Oyetola, mindless of what my array of SAN's may have taken from the judgement. The aforementioned is strong enough a basis to assume that Oyetola may be living in the Osun government house on borrowed times!

"Nam Omnia Vera Justitia".

11 Takeaways from Osun Tribunal Ruling

1.A key outcome is that Senator Ademola Adeleke is fully qualified to contest and occupy the office of governorship or any other offices.The tribunal holds that the respondents did not prove their allegations that Senator Adeleke is not qualified to run for office. This validated two other previous court judgements which affirm that educationally ,Senator Adeleke is qualified to be Governor.

2.The Tribunal confirmed that results of September 22 was manipulated against the PDP candidate even though the PDP still won the election.The Tribunal established mutilations of CTC of EC8AS by INEC and expressed surprise that INEC offered no defence for the alleged tampering with results.INEC had failed to call any witness to defend its alteration of results from many polling units. A clear admission of guilt.

3. The Tribunal further affirmed that the State Returning Officer has no power to cancel results of election from the seven polling units or any other one which was the basis for the Sept 27th rerun election. It held that only the presiding officers from polling units has the power to cancel votes.The cancellation of votes from those seven polling units were therefore declared null and void and of no effect.

4. As a consequence of 3 above, the Tribunal held that the rerun of September 27th was illegal as it was built on illegality.Since the cancellation of the seven PU was illegal ,anything built on it us therefore illegal and null and void.

5. The participation of the petitioner in the re-run was affirmed as legal and in compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act.The law is that you cannot question the legality of an election in which you did not participate.Hence ,participation of Senator Adeleke in the rerun cannot stop him from questioning the legality of the entire exercise.

6.The Tribunal further held that an election is a continuous process which ends with declaration of the winner.Senator Adeleke was adjudged right and within the bound of law to have waited till Oyetola's declaration to finally challenge the outcome in court.The Tribunal held that treating the two elections together in an election petition as the petitioner did was lawful.

7. The Tribunal posited that the declaration of Oyetola as Governor based on the outcome of the rerun combined with the main election was illegal and therefore null and void.As the rerun is illegal,any declaration made on its foundation is equally illegal and of no effect.The return of Oyetola as governor was therefore nullified and INEC was ordered to withdraw the certificate of Return issued to him.

8.The Tribunal then focussed on the September 22 election.The Tribunal cancelled the result of 17 polling units thereby deducting 2,029 from APC votes and 1,246 from PDP votes with 783 votes in favour of Adeleke and PDP

Summary

Making a total of margin of win in favour of PDP/Adeleke at 1,138 votes

9.The tribunal then held that Ademola Adeleke of the PDP having scored majority of lawful votes is hereby declared winner of the election and is returned as the elected governor of Osun state.

10.On the issue of certificate of returns ,the Tribunal held that the INEC should issue a Certificate of Returns to Ademola Adeleke as the duly elected governor of the state.The Commission is to withdraw the Certificate of Returns earlier issued to Gboyega Oyetola.

11.Lies about Section 140(2) of Electoral Act

The reality of Section 140 (2 ) of the Electoral Act was that it was suspended as unconstitutional by a court of law because it conflicts with the constitution of the republic.The constitution prescribes that if an office seeker is rigged into an office, the judiciary has the powers to remove and pronounce the rightful winner.Section 140(2) seeks to take away that power granted by the constitution to the judiciary by stipulating that no court can declare somebody winner of an election except it orders a rerun.That section was nullified by the judgement.Up till today ,nobody has appealed against the ruling.

The ruling subsists in law and was rightly applied by the Tribunal to declare Ademola Adeleke winner of that election.

Team Imole

Dhugal:


*sigh*

Your ignorance reeks to high heavens,or you're just being conscientiously stupid?
I asked that you do a community reading of S.140(2) and (3) to cure your ignorance,yet like a dumb mule,you persist in your foolishness.
For those of you who don't know,S.140(2) talked about a situation where the actual winner is found not qualified for one reason or the other to stand for election.The NASS ousted the powers of the Tribunal to then confer victory on the runner up,a move declared null and void by the FHC,Abuja as it goes against Chapter 7 III of the Constitution.
S.140(3),however,deals with where the Tribunal finds that the declared winner turn out not to be the actual winner,as is the case with the Pain election here.It mandated the Tribunal to nullify that declaration and return the actual winner as elected.
I've taken time out to explain this,and also attached screenshot of those particular subsections.Let no one be deceived or misinformed here,as this paid hack has been trying to do.
In any event,the appellate courts won't re litigate this case,they will only check if the Tribunal's decision has basis in law,which it most assuredly does.

Your first statement were actually for your father.
Am aware of the fhc ruling by Gabriel kolawole,it applies only to coordinate courts and not higher courts.as far as am concerned,it has no basis in law.if you are cancelling results in an area that can determine a winner,the nnext step is to call for a rerun not subtract or add,i have never seen the supreme court do that.it is outdated,only happened during the times of justice salami.recent supreme court rulings ended that.
Again,declaring the supplementary illegal on the basis of the state returning officer not having the powers to cancel polling unit results is absurd.when violence happens at polling units and p.os are on the run,how then will they cancel it? What if they are held hostage? Do you realize that when overvoting happens with the active connivance of p.o sthose results are invalid and are usually canceled at the collation centers?
Now the court said the returning officer did not have the power to cancel polling results.the tribunal has that power.why didnt it look at the complaints from those units to see whether it complete with the law or not? If it complied with the electoral act,why not add the votes of the 7 units back to the main results? Too many loopholes,the supreme court i know wont tolerate such.please,dont reply me until you look at the 2015 abia tribunal ruling,also in taraba,akwa ibom appeal court guber ruling similar to that of osun and then check the supreme court rulings which have all been consistent