ejimatic:
The judgement of AC is sacrosanct. As their lordship pleases.Let await the final pronouncement on this matter at the SC in May.. Then all the extant judgements will be be reevaluated!

This judgement is sound and I do not think it will be overturned.

famology:



Meaning BVAS no get level? Primary source is server. Anyways the most popular candidate won. Adeleke will win the election a million times. Let's see what the supreme court has to say on this.

Not the server, Primary source is the BVAS machine itself.

vicdom:

Exactly what I have been saying! How can you neglect the primary source and focus on the secondary source?

I said it oooo!

fergie001:

This judgement is sound and I do not think it will be overturned.

. My concern iin the judgement are:. 1 Emphasis is placed on the voters' register at the expense of BVAS acredutation even when it is stated in the electoral laws that BVAS is sacrosanct. That is the Appeal Court interpretation. Supreme Court will decide.2. The Appeal Court is of the opinion that primary data from the BVAS is better than the secondary data..The questions are: 1 Among the four BVAS reports given to all parties in the case which was primary data? 2 On what basis was Adeleke declared as winner?Primary data or secondary data? Was there any demonstration of primary data at the TB apart from opening one or two there and that was all? That is the interpretation of the AC. The SC will evaluate it soundness.3 . While people talk about uploading of results at the poling units, are the results uploaded primary source or secondary source? Must there be differences in the results and accreditation generated from BVAS, primary source or secondary ? The AC judgement is respected but I hope strongly that the sanctity of BVAS will be restored at the SC and a better interpretation of thorny issues will be given.

esosuo2:

Get small sense you want him doesn't speak for others , people voted and where votes are more than supposed voters that's regarded as rigging , use your sense sometimes don't act smart with childish talks

Now that the Appeal court has thrown your baseless case into the bin, Shey you can rest or you probably still want to wait till Supreme Court clear your "adult" doubt. Nonsense!!!

fergie001:
Not the server, Primary source is the BVAS machine itself.

Noted! Thanks

ejimatic:
. My concern iin the judgement are:. 1 Emphasis is placed on the voters' register at the expense of BVAS acredutation even when it is stated in the electoral laws that BVAS is sacrosanct. That is the Appeal Court interpretation. Supreme Court will decide.2. The Appeal Court is of the opinion that primary data from the BVAS is better than the secondary data..The questions are: 1 Among the four BVAS reports given to all parties in the case which was primary data? 2 On what basis was Adeleke declared as winner?Primary data or secondary data? Was there any demonstration of primary data at the TB apart from opening one or two there and that was all? That is the interpretation of the AC. The SC will evaluate it soundness.3 . While people talk about uploading of results at the poling units, are the results uploaded primary source or secondary source? Must there be differences in the results and accreditation generated from BVAS, primary source or secondary ? The AC judgement is respected but I hope strongly that the sanctity of BVAS will be restored at the SC and a better interpretation of thorny issues will be given.

Well I have not read the full judgement but the court didn't invalidate BVAS. The court said that evidence from the Bvas machine itself is primary evidence. This is quite different from reports produced from inec back end server which is secondary evidence.

The thing is in a tribunal, the petitioner must prove his case and the judges can't use the weakness of the respondent as bases for their Judgement.

So this is it, you can't prove over voting with a secondary evidence while neglecting Bvas Machine which is the primary source of evidence.

Moreover the voters register is also a primary source of evidence, so to prove overvoting you should have relied on the Bvas machine itself and the voters register. Not the report from Inec server which is usually updated or synchronised

Frankiss44:


Who are these people?

them dey read am upside-down

Samdolly:


Well I have not read the full judgement but the court didn't invalidate BVAS. The court said that evidence from the Bvas machine itself is primary evidence. This is quite different from reports produced from inec back end server which is secondary evidence.

The thing is in a tribunal, the petitioner must prove his case and the judges can't use the weakness of the respondent as bases for their Judgement.

So this is it, you can't prove over voting with a secondary evidence while neglecting Bvas Machine which is the primary source of evidence.

Moreover the voters register is also a primary source of evidence, so to prove overvoting you should have relied on the Bvas machine itself and the voters register. Not the report from Inec server which is usually updated or synchronised

. Thank you.But did the INEC produce any primary source from the BVAS machines to any of the parties involved in the case? Did INEC lawyer Anababa have a copy of primary data? How do you access the priamry data? PDP only opened one or two machines before the Tribunal ? Is that the primary data? The postion of electoral laws is clear on accreditation through BVAS. There can be manipulation of voters register as witnessed in the past but BVAS will show the real accreditation inputs .No wonder the marriage between BVAS and accreditation is lifelong as described in the Electoral law In my opinion AC has cooked a food it cannot finish. Adeleke was declared winner based on the inputs put into the BVAS. Oyetola accessed the input to prove overrvoting as accessed and produced by INEC ..Which data can we get from just opening the machines twice before the TB as demonstrated by PDP? SC will look into the anomaly.

ejimatic:
. Thank you.But did the INEC produce any primary source from the BVAS machines to any of the parties involved in the case? Did INEC lawyer Anababa have a copy of primary data? How do you access the priamry data? PDP only opened one or two machines before the Tribunal ? Is that the primary data? The postion of electoral laws is clear on accreditation through BVAS. There can be manipulation of voters register as witnessed in the past but BVAS will show the real accreditation inputs .No wonder the marriage between BVAS and accreditation is lifelong as described in the Electoral law In my opinion AC has cooked a food it cannot finish. Adeleke was declared winner based on the inputs put into the BVAS. Oyetola accessed the input to prove overrvoting as accessed and produced by INEC ..Which data can we get from just opening the machines twice before the TB as demonstrated by PDP? SC will look into the anomaly.

Lol... Bros, it's evident you didn't even follow the case from the scratch. If you must know, INEC actually in defence, brought the extracted data from the BVAS machines and it was established that from the report of the BVAS, only 5 polling units recorded over-voting. But ofcourse, the tribunal decided to go with the data fram the server which recorded over-voting in 749 polling units. Remember that Adeleke and PDP accepted that there was over-voting in 5 polliing units earlier, accordingly to BVAS report, but APC was insisting that it happened in 749 units.


So to answer your case, INEC actually provided the report from the BVAS, but it was not accepted by the court.

ejimatic:
. My concern iin the judgement are:. 1 Emphasis is placed on the voters' register at the expense of BVAS acredutation even when it is stated in the electoral laws that BVAS is sacrosanct.
That is the Appeal Court interpretation. Supreme Court will decide.

The Appeal Court did not place Voters Register above the BVAS, the Court only said it is essential. As long the accreditation process follows both and they are both in our different laws, it is only okay that both go through same process.

2. The Appeal Court is of the opinion that primary data from the BVAS is better than the secondary data..The questions are: 1 Among the four BVAS reports given to all parties in the case which was primary data?

It is not just the Court of Appeal saying, it is in our laws in the Evidence Act 2011.

In law, the Primary evidence is of supreme value (it is the best evidence).
1st report - server report given to Oyetola in July (unsynchronised)
2nd report - server report given to Adeleke (unsynchronised)
3rd report - BVAS Machines physically tendered before the Court with all the data in it (PRIMARY DATA)
4th report - Final Synchronisation gotten from (3) above.

The SC will not say otherwise, like I said in the morning as long as server reports are subject to human and network issue, it's a problem... See SC in Wike v Peterside

Again, on what premise did the tribunal ignore the other three reports.

2 On what basis was Adeleke declared as winner?Primary data or secondary data?

Primary Data.

Was there any demonstration of primary data at the TB apart from opening one or two there and that was all?
That is the interpretation of the AC. The SC will evaluate it soundness.

The BVAS machines were physically tendered before the tribunal and reports accurately submitted by INEC (i.e. 4th report). Oyetola's lawyers didn't challenge it in their final written address.

3 . While people talk about uploading of results at the poling units, are the results uploaded primary source or secondary source?

Whatever data is on the BVAS machine is the primary data, anything that comes out of it, backend server or so is secondary.

Must there be differences in the results and accreditation generated from BVAS, primary source or secondary?

There ordinarily shouldn't be, this is what the EC8A (Statement), Voters Register & BVAs is expected to fish out.

Hear Oyetola's expert witness:

Isiaka Olanrewaju testified that he is an expert, who had operated several electronic devices, including BVAS, before, and was aware that an electoral officer might fail to submit the data imputed into the machine or that if the network was bad, the data submitted would not be successful.

Has he not supported the INEC staff's position? Did this witness bolster Oyetola's case?

An expert should be able to furnish the court with scientific analysis that will allow the Court to form its independent judgement otherwise it is valueless and worthless. (SC in Ogiale v. SPDC, 1997)

The AC judgement is respected but I hope strongly that the sanctity of BVAS will be restored at the SC and a better interpretation of thorny issues will be given.

The Court of Appeal restored the supremacy of the BVAS that's why it based its judgement on a completed and synchronised Report.

SC in Okereke v Umahi (2016) by Justice Chima C Nweze JSC
[u]Furthermore, PW8 an official of INEC who testified on subpoena on the application of the appellant admitted that Exhibit GP45 (the Card Reader Report) was an incomplete document, as data from some polling units had not been uploaded to the INEC data base as at the time the report was made. The document was therefore unreliable and lacking in any evidential value. Again the Tribunal rightly rejected the report and the Court below was right to have affirmed the rejection. On these findings alone, the petition was bound to fail.

It was for these and the more elaborate reasons well marshalled in the lead judgment that I dismissed this appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court below. (This was in 2016)

In this case, the INEC still testified that it was an incomplete document that was handed over to Oyetola, any difference?
The same Justice Nweze will be on the panel, so do you think it will make any difference?

It is improper for a court of law to enter judgment for a party on incomplete and inconclusive facts or evidence. A party ought to place all relevant facts before the court to assist it to arrive at a fair and reasonable conclusion (Justice Okoro in Adim v NBC)

fergie001:
The Appeal Court did not place Voters Register above the BVAS, the Court only said it is essential. As long the accreditation process follows both and they are both in our different laws, it is only okay that both go through same process.

It is not just the Court of Appeal saying, it is in our laws in the Evidence Act 2011.

In law, the Primary evidence is of supreme value (it is the best evidence).
1st report - server report given to Oyetola in July (unsynchronised)
2nd report - server report given to Adeleke (unsynchronised)
3rd report - BVAS Machines physically tendered before the Court with all the data in it (PRIMARY DATA)
4th report - Final Synchronisation gotten from (3) above.

The SC will not say otherwise, like I said in the morning as long as server reports are subject to human and network issue, it's a problem... See SC in Wike v Peterside

Again, on what premise did the tribunal ignore the other three reports.

Primary Data.


The BVAS machines were physically tendered before the tribunal and reports accurately submitted by INEC (i.e. 4th report). Oyetola's lawyers didn't challenge it in their final written address.

Whatever data is on the BVAS machine is the primary data, anything that comes out of it, backend server or so is secondary.


There ordinarily shouldn't be, this is what the EC8A (Statement), Voters Register & BVAs is expected to fish out.

Hear Oyetola's expert witness:

Isiaka Olanrewaju testified that he is an expert, who had operated several electronic devices, including BVAS, before, and was aware that an electoral officer might fail to submit the data imputed into the machine or that if the network was bad, the data submitted would not be successful.

Has he not supported the INEC staff's position? Did this witness bolster Oyetola's case?

An expert should be able to furnish the court with scientific analysis that will allow the Court to form its independent judgement otherwise it is valueless and worthless. (SC in Ogiale v. SPDC, 1997)


The Court of Appeal restored the supremacy of the BVAS that's why it based its judgement on a completed and synchronised Report.

SC in Okereke v Umahi (2016) by Justice Chima C Nweze JSC
[u]Furthermore, PW8 an official of INEC who testified on subpoena on the application of the appellant admitted that Exhibit GP45 (the Card Reader Report) was an incomplete document, as data from some polling units had not been uploaded to the INEC data base as at the time the report was made. The document was therefore unreliable and lacking in any evidential value. Again the Tribunal rightly rejected the report and the Court below was right to have affirmed the rejection. On these findings alone, the petition was bound to fail.

It was for these and the more elaborate reasons well marshalled in the lead judgment that I dismissed this appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court below. (This was in 2016)

In this case, the INEC still testified that it was an incomplete document that was handed over to Oyetola, any difference?
The same Justice Nweze will be on the panel, so do you think it will make any difference?

It is improper for a court of law to enter judgment for a party on incomplete and inconclusive facts or evidence. A party ought to place all relevant facts before the court to assist it to arrive at a fair and reasonable conclusion (Justice Okoro in Adim v NBC)

Guy, you sabi! Tualeh! Thanks bunch, You have it all.

fergie001:
The Appeal Court did not place Voters Register above the BVAS, the Court only said it is essential. As long the accreditation process follows both and they are both in our different laws, it is only okay that both go through same process.

It is not just the Court of Appeal saying, it is in our laws in the Evidence Act 2011.

In law, the Primary evidence is of supreme value (it is the best evidence).
1st report - server report given to Oyetola in July (unsynchronised)
2nd report - server report given to Adeleke (unsynchronised)
3rd report - BVAS Machines physically tendered before the Court with all the data in it (PRIMARY DATA)
4th report - Final Synchronisation gotten from (3) above.

The SC will not say otherwise, like I said in the morning as long as server reports are subject to human and network issue, it's a problem... See SC in Wike v Peterside

Again, on what premise did the tribunal ignore the other three reports.

Primary Data.


The BVAS machines were physically tendered before the tribunal and reports accurately submitted by INEC (i.e. 4th report). Oyetola's lawyers didn't challenge it in their final written address.

Whatever data is on the BVAS machine is the primary data, anything that comes out of it, backend server or so is secondary.


There ordinarily shouldn't be, this is what the EC8A (Statement), Voters Register & BVAs is expected to fish out.

Hear Oyetola's expert witness:

Isiaka Olanrewaju testified that he is an expert, who had operated several electronic devices, including BVAS, before, and was aware that an electoral officer might fail to submit the data imputed into the machine or that if the network was bad, the data submitted would not be successful.

Has he not supported the INEC staff's position? Did this witness bolster Oyetola's case?

An expert should be able to furnish the court with scientific analysis that will allow the Court to form its independent judgement otherwise it is valueless and worthless. (SC in Ogiale v. SPDC, 1997)


The Court of Appeal restored the supremacy of the BVAS that's why it based its judgement on a completed and synchronised Report.

SC in Okereke v Umahi (2016) by Justice Chima C Nweze JSC
[u]Furthermore, PW8 an official of INEC who testified on subpoena on the application of the appellant admitted that Exhibit GP45 (the Card Reader Report) was an incomplete document, as data from some polling units had not been uploaded to the INEC data base as at the time the report was made. The document was therefore unreliable and lacking in any evidential value. Again the Tribunal rightly rejected the report and the Court below was right to have affirmed the rejection. On these findings alone, the petition was bound to fail.

It was for these and the more elaborate reasons well marshalled in the lead judgment that I dismissed this appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court below. (This was in 2016)

In this case, the INEC still testified that it was an incomplete document that was handed over to Oyetola, any difference?
The same Justice Nweze will be on the panel, so do you think it will make any difference?

It is improper for a court of law to enter judgment for a party on incomplete and inconclusive facts or evidence. A party ought to place all relevant facts before the court to assist it to arrive at a fair and reasonable conclusion (Justice Okoro in Adim v NBC)

. Good and appreciated . 1st report - server report given to Oyetola in July (unsynchronised)
2nd report - server report given to Adeleke (unsynchronised)
3rd report - BVAS Machines physically tendered before the Court with all the data in it (PRIMARY DATA)
4th report - Final Synchronisation gotten from (3) above. Who used the priamry data in his defence? Adeleke or Anababa? In the presentation of Anababa ,he himself agreed that there are errors in the report he had .In fact he claimed it was 1000. As for Adeleke statistician he agreed that what he had had errors.Under cross examination it was oroved that it contained many errors supporting overvoting. What is the reconciliation? Unschhronised report was used to declare Adeleke .Same was used to challenge and prove overrvoting. Even the so call synchronised reports generated after had discrepancies. Additionally.reports from BVAS sent to INEC server were first generated and sent
to the Server through the BVAS. So another ones computed by INEC generated from the results sent online will replace the first ones. Finally I still believe there are irregularities in the judgemen and the SC will determine the way forward. However it must be stated that BVAS is designed for accreditation and to check the excesses that accompany manual one., Results sent online with accreditation reports are weighty too since it formed the basis of the Adeleke's declaration.

swarley75:
Till Supreme Court jare, I think this judgment will be overturned by SC

Appeal judgement will be sustained by the Supreme Court of justice.

fergie001:
The Appeal Court did not place Voters Register above the BVAS, the Court only said it is essential. As long the accreditation process follows both and they are both in our different laws, it is only okay that both go through same process.

It is not just the Court of Appeal saying, it is in our laws in the Evidence Act 2011.

In law, the Primary evidence is of supreme value (it is the best evidence).
1st report - server report given to Oyetola in July (unsynchronised)
2nd report - server report given to Adeleke (unsynchronised)
3rd report - BVAS Machines physically tendered before the Court with all the data in it (PRIMARY DATA)
4th report - Final Synchronisation gotten from (3) above.

The SC will not say otherwise, like I said in the morning as long as server reports are subject to human and network issue, it's a problem... See SC in Wike v Peterside

Again, on what premise did the tribunal ignore the other three reports.

Primary Data.


The BVAS machines were physically tendered before the tribunal and reports accurately submitted by INEC (i.e. 4th report). Oyetola's lawyers didn't challenge it in their final written address.

Whatever data is on the BVAS machine is the primary data, anything that comes out of it, backend server or so is secondary.


There ordinarily shouldn't be, this is what the EC8A (Statement), Voters Register & BVAs is expected to fish out.

Hear Oyetola's expert witness:

Isiaka Olanrewaju testified that he is an expert, who had operated several electronic devices, including BVAS, before, and was aware that an electoral officer might fail to submit the data imputed into the machine or that if the network was bad, the data submitted would not be successful.

Has he not supported the INEC staff's position? Did this witness bolster Oyetola's case?

An expert should be able to furnish the court with scientific analysis that will allow the Court to form its independent judgement otherwise it is valueless and worthless. (SC in Ogiale v. SPDC, 1997)


The Court of Appeal restored the supremacy of the BVAS that's why it based its judgement on a completed and synchronised Report.

SC in Okereke v Umahi (2016) by Justice Chima C Nweze JSC
[u]Furthermore, PW8 an official of INEC who testified on subpoena on the application of the appellant admitted that Exhibit GP45 (the Card Reader Report) was an incomplete document, as data from some polling units had not been uploaded to the INEC data base as at the time the report was made. The document was therefore unreliable and lacking in any evidential value. Again the Tribunal rightly rejected the report and the Court below was right to have affirmed the rejection. On these findings alone, the petition was bound to fail.

It was for these and the more elaborate reasons well marshalled in the lead judgment that I dismissed this appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court below. (This was in 2016)

In this case, the INEC still testified that it was an incomplete document that was handed over to Oyetola, any difference?
The same Justice Nweze will be on the panel, so do you think it will make any difference?

It is improper for a court of law to enter judgment for a party on incomplete and inconclusive facts or evidence. A party ought to place all relevant facts before the court to assist it to arrive at a fair and reasonable conclusion (Justice Okoro in Adim v NBC)

thanks for your huge explanation here Barrister fergie001. You really tell us more about the details of the judgement. Really Supreme Court of justice will affirmed the victories of Adeleke in the July 16th governorship election. Not only that the Supreme Court of justice will affirmed the judgement of the court of appeal too . By the end of April, the Supreme Court of justice will decide on that. Thanks for your full explanation here.

fergie001:

This judgement is sound and I do not think it will be overturned.

yes Barrister fergie001. The Supreme Court of justice will sustained the judgement of the Appeal court of justice too. It’s a sound judgement with much explanations to the legal system of Nigeria.

Alezy:
them dey read am upside-down

E clear

Honlucas:
I don't think Adeleke will win

You say?

IgOga:
This is how you win...no noise on TV just arrange your case gather your evidence strike your opponent with facts not emotional vitrol on TV.

Obi and Atiku should learn from Oyetola. Congratulations to the true winner of the election. Say no to rigging

CutieKing:

It's obvious oyetola appeal succeeds on that.
Two major issues resolved against adeleke..
Over voting and forgery, can't see him surviving this at the Supreme Court either.

He is gone for good.
His lawyers did him dirty.

Nairaland lawyers.. Very funny set of people

swarley75:
He shouldn't waste his money to appeal this judgement, he should just spend his last days in office peacefully

LOL.. Ona too funny to this site

ejimatic:
. Thank you.But did the INEC produce any primary source from the BVAS machines to any of the parties involved in the case? Did INEC lawyer Anababa have a copy of primary data? How do you access the priamry data? PDP only opened one or two machines before the Tribunal ? Is that the primary data? The postion of electoral laws is clear on accreditation through BVAS. There can be manipulation of voters register as witnessed in the past but BVAS will show the real accreditation inputs .No wonder the marriage between BVAS and accreditation is lifelong as described in the Electoral law In my opinion AC has cooked a food it cannot finish. Adeleke was declared winner based on the inputs put into the BVAS. Oyetola accessed the input to prove overrvoting as accessed and produced by INEC ..Which data can we get from just opening the machines twice before the TB as demonstrated by PDP? SC will look into the anomaly.

This is it, let me use this analogy. If you are yo prove overvoting reliance should be more on the voters register and the bvas machine that was used for accreditation, the server report though useful is a secondary source.

So if you can't prove your case to the satisfaction of the court, it doesn't matter if the respondents are negligent or weak or what they present or not in as much you can't prove your case with the necessary evidence stipulated by law. The onus to prove is on the petitioner I.e Oyetola in this case

Samdolly:


This is it, let me use this analogy. If you are yo prove overvoting reliance should be more on the voters register and the bvas machine that was used for accreditation, the server report though useful is a secondary source.

So if you can't prove your case to the satisfaction of the court, it doesn't matter if the respondents are negligent or weak or what they present or not in as much you can't prove your case with the necessary evidence stipulated by law. The onus to prove is on the petitioner I.e Oyetola in this case

. Ok appreciated! I appreciate your opinion and analysis too. The next stage is SC now! Let await their conclusion on it too. You enduring patience in analysis is remarkable. Kudos to you!

ejimatic:
. Ok appreciated! I appreciate your opinion and analysis too. The next stage is SC now! Let await their conclusion on it too. You enduring patience in analysis is remarkable. Kudos to you!

Thanks for your kind words

I am not a Lawyer but I have a sound mind in my own little right. The public needed to know that the Appeal Court yesterday agreed with Oyetola that the non rendering of judgement of the member 3 on the tribunal panel will still have been order since she appended her signature on Justice Buga Teresa Kume's judgement. The same Appeal Court agreed that notwithstanding the haphazard nature of the receipt obtained by Oyetola which has no date conformity with the CTC of his server report, the post dated receipt still did not take away the existence of APC tendered server report. The Appeal Court indeed also spoke on the bias allegation against the man that gave Oyetola majority judgement at the Tribunal. It is therefore going to be extremely difficult and I believe impossible too for Oyetola or APC to impeach the other legs in the judgement that dealt with the substance of the Appeal. A day old child understands that the lower tribunal could not have rightfully impeach the judgement of the Appeal Court since 2019 which cleared and exonerated Governor Ademola Adeleke of any question of forgery or non disqualification in the manner that the Kume headed tribunal did. Again it is fundamental in law that overvoting is not in the vacuum without recourse to the voters register and the ec8a form series. The unanimous judgement of the Appeal Court under my Lord Justice Shaibu was such a sound judgement which no credible Lawyer have been able to come out since yesterday to fault base on point of law or judicial appropriateness other than the sheer beer parlour attempt of condemnation by political urchins which opinion is very fade and unpopular. Everybody saw content in that Appeal Court judgement and it was embedded with wisdom. History is appearing to be ripe to repeat itself just as it was the case in 2018 when the supreme court affirmed the judgement of the Appeal Court on the Osun State governorship tussle. My counsel to Former Governor Oyetola is that he should endeavour to consider the necessity to allow the olive branch extended by his Successor in office to be if only he has any love for Osun State. As he has been penalized to pay some fines to the prior Appellant over his bad case before the Appeal Court, now that he is a likely Appellant again in case he goes to the Supreme Court, there is a likelihood that the Apex Court will not entertain shenanigans because the Supreme Court is a court that is facts based, it will most probably not jettison the primary source of information which are the BIVAS machines and the unchallenged BIVAS independent report as ordered by the Tribunal which was later discountenance by the same tribunal which ordered it, to rely on an unsubstantiated back end server information which is suspectible to human errors and hacking, in this case which the INEC has described as an incomplete report.

The fragmented Osun APC instead of washing its dirty linens outside further and wasting precious time and scarce of its resources on the futile journey to the supreme court should do good to return to drawing board and prepare for the next election in 4 years time maybe it could be lucky to get forgiven for her sins against the electorates in Osun State. This one is completely gone by the grace of God. Governor Ademola Adeleke will spend his two terms of allowable 8 years uninterrupted in office. This is my prophecy Insha Allah.

Akintunde Bello Sheriff ABS writes in from Abuja, Nigeria but based in Osun State. ✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️