RHYTHM OF DESPERATION FROM THE OPPOSITION:
NO CAUSE FOR ALARM, Sen. ADEMOLA ADELEKE REMAINS GOVERNOR OF OSUN STATE.

The Osun Tribunal today 27th January, 2023 gave 2 rulings.
The undeniable truth establishing the fact that His Excellency, Sen Ademola Adeleke is eligible and qualified to contest for the July 16 governorship election was the first, and the second that Oyetola won the election while claiming the documents APC tendered to prove over-voting were incomplete due to non-inclusion of registers of voters used at the challenged units.

Isn’t this some sort of malicious ruling?

Well, let’s consider this judgment as a tool to distract good governance in the state, which the Executive Governor will not fall for.

Leveraging on the Boast of confidence to be back in power by July 2023, as said by the outgoing speaker of the Osun House of Assembly, it is evident that the opposition are desperate to continue amassing the common wealth of the citizens of Osun.

To the interest of the general public, kindly consider the judgement of the tribunal as a means to wet the appetite of opposition, and to boost their moral to vote Tinubu as the next president such that when he wins, they can boycott and by over the Appeal and Supreme Court ruling against Sen Ademola Adeleke which must never happen.
The paradigm shift of a true Democracy has begun in Osun State and Nigeria at large, and no court of law presided over by any bias judge or judicial panel will clamp down the gong of a new democracy.

This publication will also serve as note of reminder to all citizens of Osun that everyone should be determined to vote the candidate of their choice and as such a candidate that can transform the economy of the nation at the presidential polls, for the good of the state and the nation at large.

Meanwhile, Sen Ademola Adeleke remains the Executive Governor of Osun State and the people’s mandate this time will not be taken.

We await a positive Appeal court ruling.

Godwin ADEDAYO
Broadcast Journalists and Corporate Communications Executive.
Osun State.

rolams:


You are asking for the judges again. Who pronounced the judgement?

Bvas and bvas reports are the same

Very well

AngelicBeing:
Wow, Gbamsulotely, it means this case is likely winnable by Adeleke at the Appeals court

From whose votes should the cancellation comes from?

Sammy07:


I made a mistake In my mathematics I'll correct it.

Since we don't know who did the over voting.
That's why the law says it should be cancelled and all deducted

Who is disturbing you... Then stop misleading the public in an effort to truncate the will of the people.

buhariguy:
abioye should go to appeal and defend adeleke fraud,
Stop disturbing us

Please to the front page

Johnnyessence:
Why Ademola Nurudeen Jackson Adeleke will win the Appeal court and Supreme Court of justice in the next 4 months


HIGHLIGHTING THE ERRORS IN THE OSUN TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN'S VERDICT BY HASHIM ABIOYE ESQ.





1. NOTHING WAS WRONG WITH THE BVAS MACHINES BUT WITH THE INEC SERVER AS AGAINST THE ERRONEOUS HOLDING OF THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN.



2. ACCREDITATION WAS BY BVAS MACHINES CONCURRENTLY WITH THE VOTERS' REGISTERS. BVAS MACHINES, VOTERS REGISTER AND THE FORMS WERE WHAT WERE USED TO CONDUCT AND DECLARE ELECTION RESULTS, NOT THE SERVER WHICH THE APC RELIED UPON AND UPON WHICH THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN PREMISED HIS VERDICT.



3. INTRODUCTION OF BVAS HAS NOT REMOVED VOTERS REGISTER AS AGAINST THE HOLDING OF THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN.



4. DIRECT INFORMATION FROM BVAS MACHINES CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH THE INFORMATION FROM THE SERVER WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY NETWORK.



5. OYETOLA'S PETITION WAS DETERMINED UPON THE BVAS REPORT FROM SERVER NOT UPON THE PHYSICAL INFORMATION ON THE BVAS MACHINES WHICH HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE THE DAY AND TIME OF THE ELECTION.



6. BVAS MACHINE IS DIFFERENT FROM SERVER REPORT. BVAS IS THE DIRECT PRIMARY SOURCE, WHILE SERVER IS NOT, AS AGAINST THE VERDICT OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TRIBUNAL.



7. BVAS MACHINES USED FOR OSUN ELECTION WERE IN EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE INFORMATION ON THEM TALLIES WITH THE FORMS EC8A, THEREFORE NO DISCREPANCIES AS AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL.



8. SERVER CREATED DISCREPANCIES BY PRODUCING TWO DIFFERENT BVAS REPORTS, BUT THE BVAS MACHINES THEMSELVES PRODUCED ONLY ONE WHICH THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN JETTISONED.



9. THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN PICKED THE SERVER REPORT WHICH THE PETITIONERS SERVED AS THE PILLAR OF THEIR CASE, ABANDONED THE LATER SERVER REPORT. THE TRIBUNAL EQUALLY CLOSED ITS EYES AGAINST THE BVAS MACHINES AND THE FORMS EC8As THAT WERE PHYSICALLY BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL.



10. THE TRIBUNAL WAGED A WAR AGAINST THE BVAS MACHINES THEMSELVES AND THE DIRECT DATA EXTRACTED FROM THEM, WHEN INDEED THE WAR SHOULD BE AGAINST THE CONTROVERSIAL BVAS REPORTS.



11. THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN GRANTED AN ORDER FOR PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF THE BVAS MACHINES, YET CLOSED ITS EYES AGAINST THE REPORT OF THE SAID PHYSICAL INSPECTION INCLUDING THE BVAS MACHINES THEMSELVES.



12. THE BVAS MACHINES THEMSELVES, AND THE REPORT OF PHYSICAL INSPECTION DID NOT ESTABLISH OVER-VOTING AT ALL, BUT THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN WENT ON TO HOLD OVER-VOTING ON THE BASIS OF THE SERVER REPORT.



13. NIGERIANS AND THE WORLD SHOULD KNOW THAT THE DOCUMENT WHICH THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN HELD TO BE FORGERY WAS THE SAME DOCUMENT IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE SUPERIOR COURT OF APPEAL HAS VINDICATED ADELEKE, SINCE THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT HE ATTENDED EDE MUSLIM GRAMMAR SCHOOL AND SAT FOR WAEC. THE TRIBUNAL FAILED TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE SAID JUDGMENT WHICH CLEARED ADELEKE OF FORGERY.



14. NO NECO RESULT WAS CONTAINED IN ALL THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS FALSELY BEING PEDDLED BY THE APC AND THEIR PROPAGANDISTS.



15. THE WHOLE WORLD SHOULD RISE TO DEFEND THE BVAS MACHINES AS AGAINST THE CONTROVERSIAL SERVER REPORTS UPON WHICH THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN BASED HIS JUDGMENT.



16. THE APC PROPAGANDISTS AND MERCINARIES ARE HOLDING ON TO BIG LIES, A BASELESS REPORT TO TOPPLE A VALIDLY ELECTED GOVERNOR.



17. THE WORLD SHOULD BE TOLD THAT BVAS MACHINES USED FOR OSUN 2022 GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION HAD NO PROBLEM, NO OVER-VOTING, BUT A SERVER REPORT WHICH THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN ERRONEOUSLY RELIED UPON.



18. THE TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN LACKED JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 51(1),(2),(3) & (4) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT, 2022, TO DECLARE OYETOLA THE WINNER AFTER CANCELLING VOTES OF THE PARTIES ON THE BASIS OF THE SERVER REPORT, EVEN THOUGH THE BVAS MACHINES THEMSELVES AND THE FORMS EC8As TENDERED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ESTABLISH SUCH.



- Compiled by Hashim Abioye Esq.



https://www.facebook.com/100028527937018/posts/pfbid02MqVzVaWGp2TAvYJdz2dhGKiLGL8JiwuZ81Lkn5a59wfHxBarqy5RajkH4MVye8DYl/?app=fbl

Jnkay:
It is so funny how Urchins are jubilating while the judiciary is messing the whole system up! Same happened in Imo state, now in Osun state but if care is not taking to curb this injustice Nigeria will turn to Banana Island where anything goes. I trust that APC will fail in this Adeleke case. I told you that by January APC will have problem. Now today is 29th January, 2023 and time is 4:15pm. Adeleke will retain his seat as the governor of Osun state. Those Judges has scammed Tinubu and shop his dollar. Supreme court will deliver in the favour of Adeleke. Mark my words and you can as well screen shot this

Adeleke will win both in Appeal court and Supreme Court of justice. Oyetola case defence will be trash in the Appeal court of justice and Supreme Court of justice too. Senator Ademola Nurudeen Jackson Adeleke’s a goal

I read with interest items 1 to 18 as attributed to one Hashim Abioye Esq. I am immensely grateful to the legal luminary for the worthwhile compilation. In view of the law of evidence and the law of interpretation (of statutes), I'll be open to and request a live session with him to go over each of the #18 items as relating to the Osun Election Tribunal ruling. Perhaps a live Zoom or Channels TV might work.
I am of the considerate view that he owes a legal duty to defend his assertions and position. He is however welcome to reconsider his compilation where he sees legal lapses therein and welcome to also do so Ad Seratim to the Tribunal ruling.
#IpadeDiIgbana #Ireeo

semmyk:
I read with interest items 1 to 18 as attributed to one Hashim Abioye Esq. I am immensely grateful to the legal luminary for the worthwhile compilation. In view of the law of evidence and the law of interpretation (of statutes), I'll be open to and request a live session with him to go over each of the #18 items as relating to the Osun Election Tribunal ruling. Perhaps a live Zoom or Channels TV might work.
I am of the considerate view that he owes a legal duty to defend his assertions and position. He is however welcome to reconsider his compilation where he sees legal lapses therein.
#IpadeDiIgbana #Ireeo

check channels tv and arisetv today or this week, they are interviewing him on the black market tribunal judgement already. Congratulations once to Adeleke in advance.

seunmsg:


The first report was issued by INEC as “certified true copy”. APC did not manufacture it. APC applied for it after the election and INEC issued it to the party as the certified true copy of the BVAS report.

Now, APC upon getting it the report reviewed it and observed over voting in some polling units. They filed their case at the tribunal and served INEC, PDP and Adeleke. When INEC and PDP saw the petition, they realized they didn’t cover their ground well. So, they came up with a new BVAS report a month after APC had filed its petition based on the first report. In law, parties to a case cannot manufacture evidence after the case had commenced. That exactly was what INEC did when they issued another BVAS report to PDP. The new report is a nullity.
So you see, the only valid BVAS report is the one issued to APC. The tribunal is correct to have relied on it as it showed serious over voting in over 700 Units.

Did the second BVAS show over voting? Just to

duro4chang:
Did the second BVAS show over voting? Just to

In about 6 units.

seunmsg:


In about 6 units.

that is the Pdp response and Inec after the full scale synchronisation of the Bvas machines affirmed it also that there were only 6 polling units that were affected with over voting

seunmsg:


In about 6 units.

It means INEC did a shoddy job even with their doctored BVAS.

chukel:
you wanted to play the unbiased game initially but exposed yourself at the end. Adeleke will lose this case everywhere. He goofed. Big time he goofed. Maybe he would have even won without that overvoting. But man has no sense.

There is nothing to expose or cover here, I am clearly against Oyetola and his party maybe you haven't noticed me on this forum.
I was only trying to say a rerun was the right thing to do, which to me is still in favour of Adeleke. Let Oyetola go and prove his popularity again.
I expect you to say something about the facts of the judgement as I stated, don't just be telling us who goofed and who didn't. Tell us how they goofed and didn't goof. It is called intellectual discuss.

garfield1:


Yes.all the three reports analysis proved overvoting.even respondents conceded that there was overvoting

one vote more is not overvoting to de franchise the rest

Pierocash:
Don't really know where he is standing. His statement is not clear.

Which one is minority,and which one is majority. How are the judges and not voters picking winners

If a jury will decide a case, they must be in odd numbers (3, 5, 7, etc).

Let's say 5 judges heard a case, they will vote and pass different judgements.

If 3 say YES and 2 say No, the 3 judges have won. This means that the position of other two justices doesn't matter because they are the minority while the 3 justices are the majority.

In Osun State, the tribal had 3 judges. Two (majority) voted that APC won while one justice (minority) went the other way. That's why the tribunal sacked Adeleke.

I hope this helps...

rolams:
This one no know watin him dey talk. How can a judgement which rejected the primary evidence to accept the secondary evidence that was not on the polling unit stand?

What is the primary evidence?

blamingthedevil:
Osun Appeal by Respondents will Fail - Sam Amadi



https://twitter.com/SamAmadi/status/1619250207669260289

. I agree with you.Gir the avoidance of doubt I hereby represent some part of the judgement for our perusal as culled from the Premium Tmes:.


Eneke the bird made a rare apprarance in court on Friday as the Osun State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal cited the proverbial bird in its judgement.

Eneke is a proverbial bird to which an unforgettable line on survival was attributed in Mr Achebe’s classic novel, Things Fall Apart.

In the majority judgement, read by its chairman, Terste Kume, the tribunal said former Governor Gboyega Oyetola of the All Progressives Congress (APC) won the election and not Governor Ademola Adeleke of the PDP, who was returned by INEC.

Mr Kume accused INEC officials of tampering with the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines to compromise the election in favour of Mr Adeleke.

“The said conduct of the officials of the 1st Respondent, as shown in this judgement, makes the proactive decision of Eneke, the bird in the Novel, Things Fall Apart, 1958 by Chinua Achebe very instructive. In the said novel appears these words; “Men have learnt to shoot without missing, she has learnt to fly without perching.”

Mr Achebe used the quote by the proverbial bird to illustrate how people were adapting to changes in the society in colonial time Igbo land in now South-east Nigeria.


The tribunal chairman said electoral officials manipulated the BVAS machines but did not cover their tracks.

Manipulation
Mr Kume faulted the synchronisation of the BVAS machines after the election, which INEC had cited as explanation for producing two contradictory sets of data on accredited voters.



The INEC counsel, Paul Ananaba, had during cross-examination argued that the election results in possession of the petitioners were incomplete because it was issued to them before the BVAS machines were synchronised.

The INEC counsel said the petitioners had therefore challenged the outcome of the election with incomplete data.


But the tribunal chairman insisted that the results of the election were still not accurate after the said synchronisation of the BVAS machines.

“We have looked, and evaluated the evidence of the parties as shown in the exhibits before this Tribunal. The contents of the exhibits are clear as day. The said evidence is not from the fertile and creative imagination of learned counsel for the Petitioners, as erroneously submitted by learned counsel for the Respondents in their respective reply addresses on points of law to the issues under consideration,” he said.



“The ‘synchronisation’ of the documents made by the 1st Respondent, and the physical inspection of same done by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, as shown in the table herein before reproduced, run riot to the defences raised by each of the Respondents to this petition in respect of issues 2 and 3 under consideration,” he added.

“The said ‘synchronisation’, rather than rhyme with each other are inconsistent and contradictory. The said exhibits tendered by the Respondents have not rebutted the presumption of regularity in favour of exhibit BVR and the other documents tendered by the Petitioners in this petition,

“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 Tribunal chairman maintained that evidence before the panel showed that the governorship election was not conducted in compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act.

“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,” he noted.


“Moreover, exhibit BVR has not been withdrawn by the 1st Respondent who made and issued it. The Petitioners relied on exhibit BVR in maintaining this petition. The Respondents are hereby stopped from acting inconsistent with the import and tenor of exhibit BVR. See Section 169 of the Evidence Act (Supra). See also Thaddeus v. Atule (2022) LPELR-57539 (CA) 1 at 57-59, paras, F-A; Agboguuleri v. Depo & Ors (2008) LPELR-243 (SC) 1 at 17-18, paras, C-C; AG. Rivers State v. A.G Akwa Ibom State & Anor (2011) LPELR-633 (SC) 1 at 21-22 paras F-A and Mabamije v. Otto (2016) LPELR-26058 (SC) 1 at 15-16 paras C-B,” he cited.

“Similarly, the exhibits tendered by the Respondents after exhibit BVR, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioners were thought of after the declaration of result on the 17th day of July, 2022. See Agbonifo v. Aiwereoba (Supra); Lawal v. State (2010) LPELR-46221 (CA) 1 at 23 paras B-C; PDP & Anor v. Aminu & Anor (2019) LPELR-47330 (CA) 1 at 34-35 paras C-D and Agbo v. State (2006) LPELR-242 (SC) 1 at 43-44 paras G-B,”

“The said conduct of the Respondents, especially, the 1st Respondent amounts to tampering with official records. See Agbonifo v. Aiwereoba (Supra) at 20 – 21 paras F-A, per Nnaemeka-Agu (JSC) of blessed memory,”

“The conduct of the 1st Respondent in the said election under consideration has produced multiple accreditation reports contrary to its avowed declaration to conduct free, fair and credible elections on the basis of one man or woman with one vote.”

|

|
Tribunal chairman mocks Adeleke for dancing “Buga”
"The 2nd Respondent cannot "go lo lo lo lo" and "Buga won" as the duly elected Governor of Osun State in the election conducted on 16h day of July 2022

bejamina:
Does the electoral act say that in the event of over voting , the votes in that locality should be cancelled and the votes deducted? Where does the court derive that power? What if the votes were for a party like AA?

The new Electoral Law 2022 says that where over voting is established in any polling unit, such polling unit or units should be cancelled. So when cancelled, definitely you deduct the scores of all the contestants in that unit or units from their cumulative results. That's the position of the Law and unfortunately the over voting in question were mainly from the strongholds of Gov Adeleke.

Sam Amadi, this is very disappointing, you have read the judgement and it has been appealed, how and where acquire to comment on an going litigation, did anyone seek your opinion or just pure busy body because you think you know so much.

They used VAR for the guy.
They willingly avoid verification in his stronghold. They allowed his people to vote without verifying them.
Oyetola people were fully verified before they allowed them to vote.
Game of African politics no be ur mate.

ejimatic:
What is the primary evidence?

BVAS machines used at the said polling units, Result sheet and voters register.

garfield1:


Bvas and bvas reports are the same

No my brother. BVAS report can be written and compromised easily.

rolams:


BVAS machines used at the said polling units, Result sheet and voters register.

What is the secondary evidence used as the basis of the judgment?

seunmsg:


The first report was issued by INEC as “certified true copy”. APC did not manufacture it. APC applied for it after the election and INEC issued it to the party as the certified true copy of the BVAS report.

Now, APC upon getting it the report reviewed it and observed over voting in some polling units. They filed their case at the tribunal and served INEC, PDP and Adeleke. When INEC and PDP saw the petition, they realized they didn’t cover their ground well. So, they came up with a new BVAS report a month after APC had filed its petition based on the first report. In law, parties to a case cannot manufacture evidence after the case had commenced. That exactly was what INEC did when they issued another BVAS report to PDP. The new report is a nullity.

So you see, the only valid BVAS report is the one issued to APC. The tribunal is correct to have relied on it as it showed serious over voting in over 700 Units.

Certified true copy doesn't mean it has been fully synchronized. I didn't say APC manufactured it. It was your statement that me used that word.

BVAS report is different from BVAS machine. Voters register was not consider in the judgement too.

rolams:


No my brother. BVAS report can be written and compromised easily.

Not true.bvas reports are the data sent directly from bvas after accreditation and election except you mean even the results declared can be written and compromised.

rolams:


BVAS machines used at the said polling units, Result sheet and voters register.

Section 64 has made voters register irrelevant in proving overvoting.check section 64(2-7)

seunmsg:


How you guys have convinced yourself that the report from BVAS is secondary evidence that should be rejected while the same BVAS machine is primary evidence that must be accepted is beyond common sense. If you rubbish the report generated by BVAS, you cannot turn around and accept anything on BVAS as credible. If BVAS cannot generate accurate report of data captured during accreditation, whatever figure is on it also can’t be relied upon.

Again, there is nothing wrong with the first BVAS report as it was used by INEC to announce a winner. The second report that was generated during the pendency of the case cannot be accepted by any court as credible evidence. It was simply manufactured by INEC and PDP to cover the gaps exposed by the first report after APC had filed its petition.

Like I said yesterday, Adeleke’s lawyer must look for a technical point to base their appeal on. If it is still this same argument of secondary and primary evidence that failed at the tribunal that they intend to base their appeal on, they will fail again. If Wole Olanipekun is available, they should engage him no matter the cost. He’s the king of legal technicalities in Nigeria.

See enough brisket bones for my guy to chew on this weekend.

adesola89:
Who is disturbing you... Then stop misleading the public in an effort to truncate the will of the people.

This judgment has revealed that PDP is the master riggers of elections in Nigeria. Their cup is full now. The party and their supporters should stop grandstanding and admit their fraud. Nothing to buga about.

press9jatv:
in the section 51 of the Amendment electoral that was been signed by Buhari in February 2022, the court must not cancel the votes, what the justice in the tribunal should do is to declare rerun in the alleged over voting polling units. Pdp said there are 6 polling units where over voting took place in the last year July 16th governorship Election 🗳

This Section deals more with what happens during the election day not post election.. Section 136 sub-section 3 deals more with happens post election . This section you quoted talks about the power of the Presiding Officer on election day & not that of the Tribunals post election.

Who issued the conflicting reports?

rolams:


I read the judgement. BVAS should have been examined not the report because there are two conflicting reports.

Scalphunter:
Sam Amadi, this is very disappointing, you have read the judgement and it has been appealed, how and where acquire to comment on an going litigation, did anyone seek your opinion or just pure busy body because you think you know so much.

Why venting your anger on Amadi. Blame INEC and their collaborators. INEC has been manipulating election results since 1999. The verdict exposed PDP rigging capacity.