https://www.newsindicator.com.ng/2023/01/13/osun-election-tribunal-parties-adopt-final-addresses/

Osun Election Tribunal: Parties adopt final addresses

...as Tribunal reserve judgement date

... Adeleke forged certificate, Oyetola's counsel insist

...Asks Tribunal to declare Oyetola winner after canceling votes of disputed polling units

... There are infractions in 1,750 polling units -- INEC counsel

... As Adeleke disowns INEC's BVAS report

The Osun Election Tribunal sitting in Osogbo, led by Justice Tetsea Kume, on Friday admitted the written addresses of the parties involved in the litigation, after the counsel for All Progressives Congress, APC, Adegboyega Oyetola, and those of Senator Ademola Adeleke, the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, argued and adopted their final written addresses before the Tribunal.

This is even as Counsel for Oyetola insisted that Senator Adeleke submitted forged certificates, having submitted a Testimonial purported to have been issued by Ede Muslim Grammar School, bearing Osun State at a time Osun had not been created and another letter of Attestation from Ede Muslim High School, to indicate he attended a secondary school.

The petitioners insisted that if the governor had indeed attended Ede Muslim Grammar School, he could not have presented an Attestation Letter from Ede Muslim High School to show he attended a secondary school.

Making their submissions before the Tribunal, Counsel for Oyetola and APC, led by Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, noted that the mere fact that INEC did not at any stage indicate that the CTC BVAS report issued to the petitioners was a temporary one or an unsynchronised one, the Tribunal should accept it as the best evidence in the circumstances, adding that the second CTC BVAS report issued to the PDP and Senator Adeleke by INEC was an afterthought, especially because it was sought after the petitioners had filed their petition before the Tribunal.

Prince Fagbemi went further to submit that even in the CTC BVAS report issued to the PDP and Senator Adeleke, there were infractions in over 100 polling units. He therefore urged the Tribunal to declare Oyetola as the winner of the election, after canceling votes from the disputed polling units.

In his own argument, Counsel for INEC, Prof. Paul Ananaba, submitted that there were discrepancies in 1,750 polling units, saying that results of elections are updated on a continuous basis.

He said as at the time the first CTC BVAS report was issued to the petitioners, some "data were still hanging" and that it was the second CTC BVAS report which was synchronised that should be relied upon by the Tribunal.

This is even as Counsel for Adeleke Onyeachi Ikpeazu disowned INEC's second CTC BVAS report, a document relied upon by INEC at the Tribunal to defend its declaration of Senator Adeleke as the winner of the July 16 governorship election.

Arguing his submission before the Tribunal, Fagbemi said: "I state that it is only Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) that is given statutory responsibility to conduct election. I submit that where there is allegation on conduct of election, it is only INEC that has the responsibility to show otherwise.

" The grouse of the petitioners with respect to these grounds, are on the conduct of the election. I submit further that the attempt by 2nd Respondent to discredit Exhibit R.BVR should be discountenance as stated by the 2nd respondent (Adeleke.)

"I submit that we are in a completely new electoral dispensation, unless we know this, we will just be wallowing. I started with concept of over-voting, is different in the present legal regime from the previous legal regime.

"Section 51(2) of Electrical Act, defines over-voting and this clearly is different from the position of Section 33 of the 2011 Electoral Act. Section 47 (2) of the 2022 Electoral Act read together with Clause 20 of the regulation of conduct of election (Exhibit 1) makes the use of BVAS and not Voters' Register mandatory in order to determine Accredited Voters.

"I submit that Exhibit 2R.RW2 in paragraph 1.2, did not mention any Voter's Register as part of the documents he used and I submit that witness did not consider it necessary hence his refusal to state that he used same.

"Section 64 (4) of Electoral Act 2022 is the provision of the law that requires the collation by the presiding officer to be satisfied by the number of accredited voters. I submit that the concept of synchronisation is unknown to the Electoral Laws. What it recognises is that where a voter not recognised by the BVAS machine, such a voter will not be allowed to vote. The only occasion where merger of data occurs on two BVAS machines is when two BVAS machines were used at a polling unit and they must be used or done at polling unit level - see paragraph of Exhibits.

"I submit that there was no report of any merger of any BVAS machine data used at polling unit at the election contest. I submit that INEC did not state any date in their pleadings that they used more than one BVAS machine in any polling. The intention of the law i.e Section 64 (4)(a) of the 2022 Electoral Act is that the number of accredited voters must have been ascertained before the declaration of results.

"I submit that under the 2022 Electoral Act, no time was stated for INEC to declare results. I submit that all the parties were unanimous on the date of election that took place on 16th of July, 2022 and declaration of results on 17th July, 2022 and issuance of Certificate of Return to the 2nd Respondent on 20th of July, 2022.

"The question therefore is on what details of accredited voters did INEC did all above? I further submit that RW1 stated in evidence that she issued and certified Exhibit R.BVR and as such, presumption of regularity endures in favour of the Exhibit. The 1st Respondent did not notify the petitioners of any irregularities as same was not recalled by the 1st Respondent.

"I submit that it was after service of the petition on the Respondent that they now resort to an afterthought concept of synchronisation. I submit that if the tribunal allows the concept of synchronisation, it will act to a point that it is INEC and not the electorate that determine the outcome of an election - see paragraph 7.33 to 7.39 of our Final Written Address," Fagbemi added.

On the issue of Certificate Forgery, the Petitioners' Counsel argued that "the testimonial shows on its face that or was issued in Osun State in 1988 a whole 3 years before Osun State came into existence. They should have pleaded that they made an error or mistake but that was never done.

"The Judgment of Court of Appeal that I said, they did not prove their case, there is nothing from the Respondent to contradict our evidence. So, the documents tendered in this regards by the witness of the 2nd Respondent (Adeleke) are mere hearsay. When you have no connection to a certificate, you are not the one that issued it, that he was given, the law says 'No' to such documents.

"It has no probative value. Any document showing that Osun State is in existence since 1988 is clearly false. Supreme Court says 'where only document shows it is false, it is clearly false."

On his part, Counsel for Adeleke, Ikpeazu SAN noted that a clear distinction ought to be maintained between back-end server and the Certified Copy of the extraction from the BVAS machines.

"Contrary to the submission of the Petitioners, RWl confirmed a physical inspection of the BVAS based on the Order of Court for same to be extracted. It is on this pedestal that the case of the 2nd Respondent (Adeleke) was mounted.

"2nd Respondent (Adeleke) is not bound by the case of the 1st Respondent (INEC) which was found as the second BVAS report which was labelled synchronised but which was not a comprehensive one from the BVAS machines themselves.

"The 2nd Respondent (Adeleke) is not bound by evidence led by the 1st Respondent (INEC) which is an independent body. The second Respondent presented a unique case which is founded based on Evidence Rule by relying on the physical and primary source of all capture of accreditations that were made on the day of the election itself."

After listening to all the arguments, the Tribunal rose at exactly 7. 30pm and adjourned for judgement on a date it said would be communicated to all parties.

Oletola should go and rest.
Dancing Governor don win this one.

The issue of synchronisation is a big problem especially when election will be conducted in 774 Local Government councils. It can be manipulated

Oyetola go and wait for 2026,

As Osun Election Petition Tribunal Winds Down: 30 Grounds Why Tribunal Should Dismiss Oyetola's Petition- INEC, PDP & Adeleke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oyetola tun ma lule piii Lekan siii niiii ile ejo tribunal. Oyetola’s case will be dismissed for lacking merit in the court of justice.

Oyetola is on wild goose chase

Johnnyessence:
As Osun Election Petition Tribunal Winds Down: 30 Grounds Why Tribunal Should Dismiss Oyetola's Petition- INEC, PDP & Adeleke

Respondents in the peition filed by former Governor Gboyega Oyetola against the election of Governor Ademola Adeleke have canvassed 30 grounds why the election Tribunal should dismiss the petition with cost awarded against the petitioners. Additionally bases on section 242 of the constitution the onus lies on the responsdent to prove innocence in a case of forgery not the litiigant. APC vrs Obaseki 2019 supra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Since the law as at 2022 was that this record of election is updated on a continuous basis, a petitioner will file petition when he is sure of the basis.". Continuous basis here refers to as the resukts are submitrec not referring to update after results have been declared .

From the above,it is clear that adeleke presented forged testimonial in 2018.the testimonial was purportedly issued in 1988 meanwhile osun was created 1991.it should have been bearing Oyo state.this is very crucial.
Two, there is nothing like synchronization in the electoral act.both the bvas machines and report indicates over voting.the report presented by apc was certified by inec and issued by them while their own report was never from inec and has no probative value.again,pdp agreed that there was overvoting. Adeleke is a goner

Only God can safe PDP. The evidences are cleared. Two critical issues, left for the judge to decide. A good lawyer will win this case for APC.

After declaring results you're still updating BVAS? If INEC is not ready let them tell us. I hope this won't become a problem in the presidential election?

ejimatic:
"Since the law as at 2022 was that this record of election is updated on a continuous basis, a petitioner will file petition when he is sure of the basis.". Continuous basis here refers to as the resukts are submitrec not referring to update after results have been declared .

wetin this one dey talk here. Na lies and propaganda I dey read here ooo. Oyetola ti lule piii Lekan siii.

Adeleke’s victory sealed already

ican2020:
Adeleke’s victory sealed already

keep deceiving ur self