Sacking of Adeleke:

Only INEC can appeal osun tribunal judgement.

Reason: the case was against INEC not Adeleke. Yes, adeleke may sue INEC freshly, but he is ineligible to appeal the tribunal judgement.

That is why the tribunal ordered INEC to withdraw certificate of return issued to adeleke and issue fresh one to Oyetola.

Lawyers in the house, please shed more light 👆, because inec has made it clear that it won't appeal any judgement, Baba onifila gogoro is running frm pillars to post now""" So Pe O Ti lo oo*****😄🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️

ALMUSTAQIM:
Sacking of Adeleke:

Only INEC can appeal osun tribunal judgement.

Reason: the case was against INEC not Adeleke. Yes, adeleke may sue INEC freshly, but he is ineligible to appeal the tribunal judgement.

That is why the tribunal ordered INEC to withdraw certificate of return issued to adeleke and issue fresh one to Oyetola.

Lawyers in the house, please shed more light 👆, because inec has made it clear that it won't appeal any judgement, Baba onifila gogoro is running frm pillars to post now""" So Pe O Ti lo oo*****😄🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️

nairaland sef

Eni kobo kobo

Yoruba Muslims again.......

Set awon MURIC Mumus......

Adeleke can appeal and win. After all we have a judgement amongst the judges.

Just relax....go and grab ya mats and tesbi while slamming your forehead for more downloads of Evil

Osun na our cradle and SOURCE. It belongs to all of South.

Adeleke was the 2nd Respondent at the tribunal and the rule is that anybody who participates as a necessary party in a court proceeding and who is affected by the judgment of the Court or Tribunal is entitled to appeal as of right.

ALMUSTAQIM:
Sacking of Adeleke:

Only INEC can appeal osun tribunal judgement.

Reason: the case was against INEC not Adeleke. Yes, adeleke may sue INEC freshly, but he is ineligible to appeal the tribunal judgement.

That is why the tribunal ordered INEC to withdraw certificate of return issued to adeleke and issue fresh one to Oyetola.

Lawyers in the house, please shed more light 👆, because inec has made it clear that it won't appeal any judgement, Baba onifila gogoro is running frm pillars to post now""" So Pe O Ti lo oo*****😄🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️

Ademola Adeleke is the second Respondent in that case. He can appeal the judgment as it concerns him

Every tom, dick and Harry wants to create a thread on nairaland

He can appeal or not, he should just hand over immediately without wasting tax payers money in any appeal court or dancing competition

Stupid thread

ALMUSTAQIM:
Sacking of Adeleke:

Only INEC can appeal osun tribunal judgement.

Reason: the case was against INEC not Adeleke. Yes, adeleke may sue INEC freshly, but he is ineligible to appeal the tribunal judgement.

That is why the tribunal ordered INEC to withdraw certificate of return issued to adeleke and issue fresh one to Oyetola.

Lawyers in the house, please shed more light 👆, because inec has made it clear that it won't appeal any judgement, Baba onifila gogoro is running frm pillars to post now""" So Pe O Ti lo oo*****😄🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️

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

Why the Osun Election Tribunal Judgement will not pass the test of time at the Appeal Court and Supreme Court ..

BVAS is a device to collect and store primary data. BVAS is like any other customer premises equipment like computer, smartphones etc. it can stand alone and it can be connected to the server. As it is it, 1 BVAS can only take 500 voters info so for polling units where you have over 500 voters say 1,200 voters, 3 BVAS was used. All votes go into one box during voting and they are counted together. but only one BVAS will transmit results to the Server. The server in the immediate sees one BVAS as limited to 500 voters so until you reconfigure and synchronize the server, it sees each BVAS as one polling unit and of course as over voted. So the Oletola presented first print out from the server and his judge took it as over voting. The print out when all the units that have more than 1 BVAS were reconfigured was rejected by this judge, even when all the BVAS (the primary data sources) were presented before the judge.

The BVAS does not remove the legal role of the EC8A forms which were completed and signed by all the party agents. The forms were presented at the court and yet the judge will not consider them as primary data source and supports to the second printout, printed by INEC after synchronization.

Third, there was no role giving to voters register as mandated by the law to establish, if there were actual over voting.

If BAT is waiting for this strategy to win at federal, then he would need to replicate same fraud in at least 24 states. Good luck to Nigeria, from the aftermath effect of osun judgement.

Oyetola will lose both in Appeal court and Supreme Court of justice

Few points on this judgement:
1. The first report given to APC actually showed over-voting in more than 700 polling units. It is actually around 1500 polling units or thereabout including units APC won. Therefore, the alleged over-voting is widespread although APC based their petition on units they lost (700). This was alluded to in the minority judgement. Therefore, it is not restricted to where PDP won.
2. The second report given to PDP was better but was also showing over-voting in some units as well. The majority ruling of the tribunal claimed that INEC colluded with PDP in the pendency of the petition by APC to produce the second reports. However, this argument is puerile at best by two reasons (a) PDP is entitled to ask for the same forms/reports given to APC to defend the petition and can only ask for it in the pendency of the petition. Why would the winner of election ask for BVAS report? PDP won the election. They asked for the report after studying the petition of APC.
(b) The second BVAS report cannot be said to be tampered with because it still showed over-voting as claimed by APC although in less polling units across the state.
3. The two reports are contradictory leaving the PDP to then ask for physical inspection of the BVAS machines. At least the reports are generated by BVAS machines. The BVAS machines were brought to the open court and inspected and the data there correspond with the election results. Now, there were three evidences. 2 BVAS reports (printed from server, mind you) and one physical reports of the BVAS machines in the open court. In fact the two BVAS reports are not in tandem with the results of the physical inspection of the BVAS machines. The majority ruling decided to go with first BVAS report, neglecting 2nd BVAS validly given to PDP and the data on the BVAS itself.
4. In the majority judgement, the judge harped heavily and compared the veracity of the two BVAS reports. He said the 2nd BVAS report is doctored. Okay, but what of the BVAS machines itself? Is it also doctored? The tribunal gave permission to inspect the machines by the two parties and everyone in court saw there was no over-voting in BVAS machines but the tribunal didn't even take a position on the results of BVAS inspection in their ruling.
5. The tribunal didn't dabble into whether the results of BVAS machines inspection are accurate or tampered with as well. The question is, are BVAS machines tampered with as well? I will answer in negative by two reasons:
(a) we learned that only the chairman of INEC and director of ICT can have access to data stored on the BVAS machines. Even one of them cannot access the machines data without the cooperation of other. We all know that immediately after election and after tribunal started sitting, the BVAS machines were housed in the tribunal and not with INEC in Osogbo.
(b) The second reason why I believe that the machines were not tampered with was because the inspection of the machines showed over-voting in 6 units. If INEC had tampered with it, no polling units will report over-voting.
5. There were 3 members of the tribunal. The chairman wrote the leading judgment and other member wrote minority judgement. The third member of the panel did not agree with either the majority or minority judgements in the open court. After reading of the judgment by the chairman, the third member only greeted people and say goodbye. No concurrence or otherwise. I dare to say there is no judgement of that tribunal.
In conclusion, I believe the fight is actually against BVAS machines to erode the confidence of people on the machines or INEC and bring apathy in the forthcoming general election. Everybody should endeavour to get their PVC and vote wisely. Your vote will count.

kcnwaigbo:
Every tom, dick and Harry wants to create a thread on nairaland

For what he doesn't know, he is entitled to request knowledge!

Johnnyessence:
Oyetola will lose both in Appeal court and Supreme Court of justice

Few points on this judgement:
1. The first report given to APC actually showed over-voting in more than 700 polling units. It is actually around 1500 polling units or thereabout including units APC won. Therefore, the alleged over-voting is widespread although APC based their petition on units they lost (700). This was alluded to in the minority judgement. Therefore, it is not restricted to where PDP won.
2. The second report given to PDP was better but was also showing over-voting in some units as well. The majority ruling of the tribunal claimed that INEC colluded with PDP in the pendency of the petition by APC to produce the second reports. However, this argument is puerile at best by two reasons (a) PDP is entitled to ask for the same forms/reports given to APC to defend the petition and can only ask for it in the pendency of the petition. Why would the winner of election ask for BVAS report? PDP won the election. They asked for the report after studying the petition of APC.
(b) The second BVAS report cannot be said to be tampered with because it still showed over-voting as claimed by APC although in less polling units across the state.
3. The two reports are contradictory leaving the PDP to then ask for physical inspection of the BVAS machines. At least the reports are generated by BVAS machines. The BVAS machines were brought to the open court and inspected and the data there correspond with the election results. Now, there were three evidences. 2 BVAS reports (printed from server, mind you) and one physical reports of the BVAS machines in the open court. In fact the two BVAS reports are not in tandem with the results of the physical inspection of the BVAS machines. The majority ruling decided to go with first BVAS report, neglecting 2nd BVAS validly given to PDP and the data on the BVAS itself.
4. In the majority judgement, the judge harped heavily and compared the veracity of the two BVAS reports. He said the 2nd BVAS report is doctored. Okay, but what of the BVAS machines itself? Is it also doctored? The tribunal gave permission to inspect the machines by the two parties and everyone in court saw there was no over-voting in BVAS machines but the tribunal didn't even take a position on the results of BVAS inspection in their ruling.
5. The tribunal didn't dabble into whether the results of BVAS machines inspection are accurate or tampered with as well. The question is, are BVAS machines tampered with as well? I will answer in negative by two reasons:
(a) we learned that only the chairman of INEC and director of ICT can have access to data stored on the BVAS machines. Even one of them cannot access the machines data without the cooperation of other. We all know that immediately after election and after tribunal started sitting, the BVAS machines were housed in the tribunal and not with INEC in Osogbo.
(b) The second reason why I believe that the machines were not tampered with was because the inspection of the machines showed over-voting in 6 units. If INEC had tampered with it, no polling units will report over-voting.
5. There were 3 members of the tribunal. The chairman wrote the leading judgment and other member wrote minority judgement. The third member of the panel did not agree with either the majority or minority judgements in the open court. After reading of the judgment by the chairman, the third member only greeted people and say goodbye. No concurrence or otherwise. I dare to say there is no judgement of that tribunal.
In conclusion, I believe the fight is actually against BVAS machines to erode the confidence of people on the machines or INEC and bring apathy in the forthcoming general election. Everybody should endeavour to get their PVC and vote wisely. Your vote will count.

Stop spamming everywhere with this junk,you've created thread for it already and I don't see reason you should be spamming everywhere with it?

Who are the tribunal? I thought tribunal is a newspaper brand

haffaze777:


Stop spamming everywhere with this junk,you've created thread for it already and I don't see reason you should be spamming everywhere with it?

accept the fact here joor, stop displaying your ignorance here ok

Johnnyessence:
accept the fact here joor, stop displaying your ignorance here ok

Okay keep spamming everywhere

Lamanii22:
Who are the tribunal? I thought tribunal is a newspaper brand

Tribune is a newspaper brand while the thread talks about Election tribunal

hope I tried
😁😁😁😁😁

haffaze777:


Okay keep spamming everywhere

accept the fact here joor. Stop 🛑 mentioning my name here. I’m bursting the clueless lies APC and their propagandists are dishing out in the social media. Tinubu ma lule piii Lekan siii

Johnnyessence:
accept the fact here joor. Stop 🛑 mentioning my name here. I’m bursting the clueless lies APC and their propagandists are dishing out in the social media. Tinubu ma lule piii Lekan siii

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣