The osun state election Appeal seating in Abuja has fixed tommorrow Thursday to deliver judgement in The appeal filed by Oyetola against the tribunal ruling which nullify his election.
Ratello, Tuniski, as rightly predicted the judgement day is here.
My expectations tomorrow... 1....Section 240 of the electoral law states that no tribunal should deduct or add votes.. when votes are debated. rerun must be ordered.........In the case of the debated 17 polling units, I expect a rerun there tomorrow.2 Constitution gives INEC and any of its agent right to cancell votes if they cannot be reconciled .The results in the debated 17 polling units may be retained by the appeal court....justifying rerun that made Oyetola win......Oyetola may be declared winner.....3. majority decision and minority decision declared that no case of non compliance and irregularity in Osun election. so why deducting votes?Appeal court may uphold minority decision....
My expectations tomorrow... 1....Section 240 of the electoral law states that no tribunal should deduct or add votes.. when votes are debated. rerun must be ordered.........In the case of the debated 17 polling units, I expect a rerun there tomorrow.2 Constitution gives INEC and any of its agent right to cancell votes if they cannot be reconciled .The results in the debated 17 polling units may be retained by the appeal court....justifying rerun that made Oyetola win......Oyetola may be declared winner.....3. majority decision and minority decision declared that no case of non compliance and irregularity in Osun election. so why deducting votes?Appeal court may uphold minority decision....
. My expectations tomorrow... 1....Section 240 of the electoral law states that no tribunal should deduct or add votes.. when votes are debated. rerun must be ordered.........In the case of the debated 17 polling units, I expect a rerun there tomorrow.2 Constitution gives INEC and any of its agent right to cancell votes if they cannot be reconciled .The results in the debated 17 polling units may be retained by the appeal court....justifying rerun that made Oyetola win......Oyetola may be declared winner.....3. majority decision and minority decision declared that no case of non compliance and irregularity in Osun election. so why deducting votes?Appeal court may uphold minority decision....
MyVILLAGEpeople: I am the leader of all Obas in Yorubaland – Oba Akinruntan
• Aare Gani Adams opens fire: Those who betray Yoruba don’t end well •Ooni’s palace: No comment for now •What happened is aberration — Yoruba Obas Forum
THE Olugbo of Ugbo Kingdom in Ondo State, Oba Fredrick Obateru Akinruntan, is a controversial personality.
While the dust of his disagreement with the Ooni of Ife, Oba Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi, on the origin of Igbo people from Ile-Ife was yet to settle, his installation of “Yoruba Obas in Diaspora” has ignited another fire.
The three men crowned by Akinruntan are the Oriade of Georgia, Oba Bernard Shola Akinrimisi; the traditional ruler of Yoruba in Liberia, Oba Omobolaji Ogunkoya, Oodua Gbadewolu I, and the traditional ruler of Yoruba in the Republic of Ireland, Oba Saheed Ibrahim Adufe.
At the installation held at his palace in Ugboland, Akinruntan said, “I am ready to crown more kings from the Diaspora as long as I remain the number one king in Yorubaland. I am the custodian of the Yoruba culture.
“I am going to give more Obas in the Diaspora crowns. Many of them will get crowns and staff of office from me and nobody can query me. They know that I’m a special Oba in Yorubaland. My father, Oba Makin Osangangan, is the owner of Ife.
“I am the leader of all Obas in Yorubaland. I speak with thunder in my mouth and I make bold to say so. No one is above me in Yorubaland in as much as it has been accepted that we are from Ife. I am the one that Oduduwa met at Ife.
“I’m going to celebrate 10 years on the throne; people should go and prepare. I don’t want people to wear suit to my coronation anniversary because I’m a Yoruba Oba. The coronation will be a special celebration because I’m preparing for it and people will come from all over the country to celebrate with me”.
Responding on behalf of those installed as monarchs at the occasion, Ogunkoya appealed to the Federal Government to include Diaspora traditional rulers in the scheme of things so as to give them the financial wherewithal and moral rectitude to help their people.
Ogunkoya said, “The challenges in the Diaspora are many, but with our little resources, we will do our best. Meanwhile, one of the things we need to do in the Diaspora is to unite our people and give them a sense of belonging”.
History
While fellow Yoruba Obas chose to ignore Akinruntan on his action and outburst, the Aare Ona Kakanfo of Yorubaland, Aare Gani Adams, in a strongly worded statement, questioned Akinruntan’s claim as the number one king in Yorubaland and said, “What arrogance! What impudence! What uncultured remark! On what authority is he crowning Yoruba Obas in the Diaspora? Who told him that nobody can query him?
“He said he remained the number one king in Yorubaland. Which Yoruba history is backing this arrogance?
“What is Akinruntan’s position in Yoruba history? Does he think by parading himself as a rich man, Yoruba will respect him for trying to desecrate the land? Who does he think he is, embarrassing the Yoruba nation at every opportunity?
“Which Northern Emir abuses the Sultan of Sokoto, Emir of Kano, Shehu of Borno or Emir of Zazzau? Which Northern Emir distorts the history of the Emirate the way Akinruntan is trying to distort Yoruba history? What exactly is the matter with this featherweight who classifies himself as the best thing to have happened to Yorubaland?
“Does he learn from history at all? What exactly is responsible for this arrogance coming from an Oba who is, traditionally, constitutionally and spiritually, mandated to protect Yorubaland? Does he think this arrogance will take him anywhere?”
The Aare urged South-West governors and other traditional rulers to call the Olugbo to order
He submitted that the monarch is a danger that can destroy “our tradition if something is not done urgently”.
Adams went on, “Oba Akinruntan, installed some characters as Yoruba Obas in the Diaspora in his palace in Ugboland. Such desecration of Yoruba culture and tradition was brought to my attention by one of the persons who called me, who likened the conduct of this monarch to ‘Sigidi’ in Yoruba culture, who, out of nothing to do or sheer pride, said it should be taken to the stream or river.
“Millions of Yoruba were shocked when they heard that Akinruntan, installed so-called Yoruba Obas in the Diaspora in his palace in Ugboland.
“As the Aare Ona Kakanfo of Yorubaland, I swore, during my installation in January 2018, to always protect the name and project the image of Yorubaland.
“That is exactly the purpose of my intervention at this moment.
“This impudence is fraudulent; a clear and present danger that can destroy our tradition if something urgent is not done immediately.
“What the Olugbo did, he did it single-handedly, against the wishes of all the Yoruba Obas in Nigeria as a whole.
“If Akinruntan is a student of history, he will know that those who tried to betray the Yoruba race never ended well. Against all known laws and customs of our land, Akinruntan ‘crowned’ three characters living abroad who are not even known by Yoruba living at home and abroad, as traditional rulers. The three ‘chiefs’ have no royalty in their blood.
“As the Aare Ona Kakanfo of Yorubaland, I want to tell Akinruntan that he only crowned these characters as chiefs in his domain, not as Yoruba Obas in the Diaspora, because he doesn’t have the power.
“It is fraudulent, it is an affront on our history and we will not allow anybody to distort our history.
“In the same vein, I think all the socio-cultural groups in Yorubaland, including Afenifere, Yoruba Council of Elders, Yoruba Unity Forum and other notable groups in the South-West should raise their voices against such fraud. It is our responsibilities to protect our history, and put our records straight.
“He refers to himself as Chairman, Yoruba Obas Conflict Resolution Committee. Is it not funny that he is the one creating tension in the land with his attention-grabbing publicity stunt?
“I want to tell Akinruntan that nobody can buy the Yoruba, at home and abroad. You cannot gain respect by attacking other Obas, especially those senior to you.
“One of those characters he ‘installed’ as Yoruba Oba in Diaspora, Saheed, hails from Ila-Orangun”.
Warning
Adams issued a warning to scholars encouraging Akinruntan when he said, “More importantly, I will like to tell some of the professors Olugbo is using to desecrate the traditional institutions to desist from such acts as that can later haunt them in the future”.
He added, “Akinruntan, you are climbing the tree higher than the leaves”.
No comment – Ife palace
Contacted to react to the installation of the Obas in Diaspora by the Olugbo, the Chief Press Secretary to the Ooni of lfe, Moses Olaifa, said, “We don’t have any comment on that for now. I don’t have the mandate of Ooni Adeyeye Ogunwusi to speak on any Oba installing Yoruba traditional rulers outside the country.
“When the appropriate time comes, the palace will react accordingly”.
Aberration
However, the Yoruba Obas Forum (YOF), in its reaction, frowned at the installation.
“This singular act is an aberration and Oba Akinruntan needs to be called to order”, the forum said.
“The attention of the Yoruba Obas Forum, being the umbrella body of over 200 Obas in the South West and North Central regions of Nigeria (comprising of OSUN, OGUN, OYO, EKITI, ONDO, LAGOS KOGI, KWARA STATES of Nigeria), has been drawn to the recent illegal, unwarranted and unprecedented endorsement and installation of certain persons as Oba Yoruba of Liberia, Oba Yoruba of Republic of Ireland and Oba Yoruba of Atlanta, Oba Akile of Dallas by Obama Akinruntan.
“It is apposite to state, categorically, that the Yoruba Obas Forum strongly and vehemently rejects this sacrilegious endorsement and purported installation which is not only illegal but also alien to the Yoruba custom and tradition.
“We state, unequivocally and without fear of contradiction, that the purported installation is an affront to the Yoruba tradition and a desecration of Yoruba custom and tradition.
“It must be made crystal clear that Oba Akinruntan does not possess such power, under any guise, to endorse, install, or crown anyone as Yoruba Oba outside his domain.
“Consequently the purported installation and coronation is declared ultra vires, illegal, void and of no effect whatsoever and cannot stand the test of time.
“We as a body hereby disassociate ourselves from this illegal and caricature installation and we consider it as abominable and highly condemnable act.
“We hereby call on His Excellency, Mr. Rotimi Akeredolu, SAN, to cause a discreet and holistic investigation meted with decisive action against him and to call the Olugbo of Ugbo to order and compel him to rescind his illegal action, so as to prevent future occurrence.
“Consequently, we hereby call on Oba Akinruntan to immediately reverse the purported installation with a public apology
“All authentic Yoruba Obas are hereby requested to ensure that none of these illegally crowned Obas is permitted to dress, talk, assume or act like Obas anywhere on Nigeria soil and, if they do not retrace their illegal steps, should be considered outcast in all parts of Yoruba land and by all Yoruba indigenes worldwide.
“We equally like the concerned embassies as well as the general public to take notice of our stand”.
Meanwhile, Akinruntan, in a response to Gani Adams’ attack, said he has “the capacity to endorse and authenticate the Obas in Diaspora.
Speaking through his Director of Media, Otunba Adeyemi, the Olugbo said, “Oba Akinruntan has not set a precedent by endorsing the Obas in Diaspora. As a paramount ruler and prescribed authority, the Olugbo has the capacity to endorse and authenticate the Obas in Diaspora.
“The endorsed Obas who are Oba Saheed Olamilekan Adufe (Oba Yoruba of Ireland), Oba Shola Akinrimisi (Oriade of Georgia) and Oba Omobolaji Ogunkoya (Oba Yoruba of Liberia) are Yoruba royal ambassadors who should be encouraged.
“Otunba Gani Adams is a chief in Yorubaland who lacks the traditional competence to challenge any monarch in Yorubaland in the absence of the Alaafin, talk less of a paramount ruler in the person of Oba Akinruntan.
“Aare Ona Kakanfo has jumped the gun and he is largely advertising a lot of ignorance. He cannot address the Olugbo in the manner he did. As a chief, he has indeed overrated himself by addressing governors and monarchs too.
“Nevertheless, kabiyesi is absent and that will necessitate that an appropriate response be issued at a later time, shortly”.
‘We stand with Ooni, Alaafin, Awujale’
On the controversy, Oba Segun Ogunye Ojotumoro of Abigi Ijebu Waterside, Ogun State said, “It is a terrible action by the Olugbo. It is an act of trespass, in law and in tradition. Every Oba has a gazette. Olugbo has a gazette that only allows him to operate within his domain. And the highest he could do is to work in Ondo State and his subjects do not call him Imperial or anything rather than an Oba. Our attitude to it as members of Yoruba Obas Forum is that he does not have that power to confirm Obaship on anybody in Disapora. You don’t give what you don’t have. It is unfortunate that he is acting that way and we see it as an absurd to Yoruba kingship institution.
“On the issue of hierarchy, my reaction is that all of them should stop the battle for supremacy. We already have three of them that history supports: the Ooni of Ife, the Alaafin of Oyo and the Awujale of Ijebuland. We have never had it that Olugbo came up with his own history of Yorubaland. Whichever way you look at it, we are all Yoruba. We will keep working for peace in the land and should stop the unnecessary war of supremacy and distortion of history. I don’t think it is right”.
Oba Adedayo Shyllon-Sogbulu, Alagbado of Agbado, on his part, said, “In Yoruba land we have only one Ife king who is the Ooni overseeing the cradle of the entire Yoruba race. Olugbo is a king in Ugbo and not the Ooni of Ife. His kingdom migrated from Ife on his own accord and cannot claim to be the number one king in Yoruba land. On endorsement of certain people as kings, he has no power to do that. “Every Oba has regulations that guide him. He is restricted to his domain. He is Olugbo of Ugbo in Ilaje Kingdom. The Ilaje Kingdom has superiors. He is not even the paramount ruler of Ilaje as a kingdom. Secondly, the people he installed as Oba are not of royal blood, not from Ilaje Kingdom and also not living in his domain. No Oba has the power to install anyone outside his authority. His action is illegal and condemnable. We have made our opinion known and also will have a conference to that effect”.
Oba Adeoya Gbenga Oyinlola II, Aare Ofikiland of Oyo State, said, “As Nigerians, we follow our customs, traditions and the rule of law. We have our territories and everyone follows rules. In Yorubaland, we have three imperial kings, the Ooni of Ife, the Alaafin of Oyo and the Awujale, and they are those that are traditionally invested with such powers to recognise and install any Oba to that effect. And, again, we condemn, in totality, the action of the Olugbo. It is an affront on the tradition and values of Yorubaland.
In our conference, held sometime, last year, we agreed that no Oba outside the Yorubaland should be installed without the consent of the Ooni and Alaafin. Traditionally, before you can become an Oba in Yorubaland, you must conquer a territory or come from a royal lineage and pass through the kingmakers’ protocol. You can be a Yoruba leader outside the land but not an Oba. Olugbo’s action is Illegal because his office is gazetted and does not have the power outside his domain to do that. We have called on the Ondo State government to look into the matter and call him to order because he holds the tradition and value of the Yoruba race at a stake”.
Oba Idris Oladele Friday Kosoko, the Oniworo of Iworo land, Lagos State, said, “As a custodian of tradition and values, I am totally against the installation of any Oba in a foreign country. It is a wrong pattern of leadership and we, as Yoruba Obas, condemned this particular action, last year, during the Heritage Convention of Yoruba Obas held in Osun State. We resolved in writing to foreign embassies not to accord any person parading himself as a Yoruba Oba without a domain in Yorubaland. Besides, we have ambassadors and diplomats representing our interests in any foreign country. A person of influence can be a Yoruba leader but not an Oba. Olugbo did not do it right”.
. When a man is about to fall God will make him to be arrogant.Every Oba should know his limitation.Ugbo a settlement in Ondo State is silent in Ondo State let alone in the history of Yoruba race. The Oba Akinruntan and those supporting him need medical evaluation.
. That is what they do across the country.At their office they will collect money from him and release him....On the highway they will ask him to transfer into a special account which they will share later.Is this how cyber crime will end? The yahoo boys are now hot cakes for the Nigerian police and nobody in the government cares about that.
Yekini was the highest goal scorer in the African qualification series for the 1994 World Cup in the USA. He scored 8 goals in the series.
The first leg of this game was nerve racking. Nigeria and the Ivory Coast were neck and neck in the second group stage of the qualifiers (both teams ended the qualifiers on the same points, but Nigeria had a better goals difference). Then we played Ivory Coast in Abidjan. We needed just a draw to go above them on the table. 4 jets left Nigeria for Abidjan for the match: the presidential jet carrying the government delegation, the chartered plane carrying the Eagles, Chief MKO Abiola's private jet and another chartered plane carrying the supporters club.
Yekini scored for Nigeria in the 5th minute. Nigeria had an opportunity to extend the lead. Samson Siasia had the ball, but he was in a bad angle. Yekini was absolutely free and would have scored if Siasia passed to him, but Siasia chose to shoot at goal and he missed. Westerhof was furious.
The Ivorians scored 2 goals in the 70th and 75th minute to win the game 2-1.
The video below shows the second leg in Lagos. Thompson Oliha opened scoring for the Eagles and Daniel Amokachi doubled the lead. The Ivorians scored and then Yekini scored via a penalty and then he scored a classic Yekini goal. There was a cross from the left wing, Yekini had outrun the defender and he slotted the ball in the goal.
naptu2: Yekini's goal scoring record for Nigeria at the African Nations Cup
1988 Rashidi Yekini was the joint second highest goal scorer at the 1988 African Nations Cup with 1 goal.
He also provided the assist for Samuel Okwaraji's rocket goal.
1990
He was the joint second highest goal scorer at the 1990 African Nations Cup in Algeria with 3 goals. In fact, his goals powered Nigeria into the final.
Back then European clubs were not obliged to release their players for the Nations Cup and Nigeria's Europe based players were unable to attend the competition.
Stephen Keshi had offered to hire a private jet to fly him from his club, Anderlecht, to Algeria for Nations Cup games and back to his club, but Clemens Westerhof rejected this offer and so Nigeria went to the Nations Cup with only African based players.
Nigeria lost the first game 5-1 to hosts Algeria (Nigeria's only goal was scored by Emmanuel Okocha, Jay Jay Okocha's elder brother).
Then Nigeria defeated Egypt via a goal by Yekini. We also defeated Ivory Coast via a goal by Yekini.
In the semi-final we defeated Zambia via goals by Yekini and Uche Okechukwu.
Unfortunately, Nigeria lost the final to hosts Algeria by a lone goal.
1992 Yekini was the highest goal scorer at the 1992 African Nations Cup with 4 goals.
Nigeria defeated hosts Senegal 1-2 in the first match and then Yekini scored 2 goals to help Nigeria defeat Kenya 2-1 in the second game. The second goal was wonderful. It was a fantastic assist by Friday Elahor and great control and shot by Yekini.
Nigeria lost to Ghana in the semi final and then defeated Cameroon 2-1 in the 3rd place match via goals by Yekini and Friday Ekpo.
1994 Yekini was also the highest goal scorer at the 1994 African Nations Cup with 5 goals.
Nigeria defeated Gabon 3-0 in the first match.
We drew 0-0 with Egypt in the second game.
We defeated Zaire 2-0 via a brace by Yekini
Then came the cracker of a semi final.
Nigeria defeated Zambia in the final with 2 goals by Emmanuel Amunike.
How Yekini missed the chance to become highest goal scorer in Nations Cup history
Ivorian legend, Laurent Pokou, was the highest goal scorer in Nations Cup history with 14 goals over all (scored at the 1968 and 1972 Nations Cups), while Rashidi Yekini was the second highest goal scorer with 13 goals. I was confident that Yekini would overtake Pokou at the 1996 Nations Cup in South Africa, but certain events prevented that from happening.
Toyin Raji won the Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria pageant in 1995. This meant that she would represent Nigeria at the Miss World pageant in Sun City, South Africa in November that year. She had won the Miss Congeniality award at the Miss Universe Pageant in May and contestants at the Miss World pageant also voted her as the most personable contestant and so she received the Miss Personality award.
However, on November 10th (while Toyin Raji was in South Africa) the Nigerian Government executed Ken Saro-Wiwa and 8 other Ogoni activists.
Following the executions, protesters stalked Toyin Raji where ever she went in South Africa and there were allegations that she was jostled by protesters. The protesters were at virtually every event that was asssociated with the Miss World pageant and there were fears that they would disrupt the pageant. The South African authorities stated that they could not gaurantee her security and the Miss World organisers were forced to ask her to withdraw and consequently she had to withdraw from the pageant.
Nelson Mandela met with Toyin Raji before she left South Africa, to assure her that the anger of the protesters and the people of South Africa was not directed at her, rather it was directed at the Abacha Government and that he was proud of her.
Weeks later, the Super Eagles were in camp, preparing for the Nations Cup in South Africa which was scheduled to begin on January 13, 1996 when it was announced that they had been called to Abuja to meet with General Abacha at the Aso Rock Villa.
After the meeting, the government announced that Nigeria was withdrawing from the 1996 African Nations Cup. It said that the South Africans were not able to guarantee the security of Toyin Raji, therefore, they would not be able to guarantee the security of the Eagles. The government said that the Eagles were the pride of Nigeria and it would not allow them to be exposed to such insecurity and risks.
A Super Eagles player, who wished to remain anonymous, spoke to journalists after the Eagles returned to their camp. He said that all that happened at the meeting was that General Abacha told the players that Nigeria would not take part in the Nations Cup. He said that they were not allowed to speak. He said that the players were not happy about the decision, but there was nothing that they could do about it.
The South African authorities gave security guarantees to CAF and the Nigerian authorities. In fact, I listened to a South African official speak on the BBC World Service. He said that the Eagles would receive "presidential level security" in South Africa. He emphasised that only Nelson Mandela received the kind of security that the Eagles would get in South Africa. The Federal Government of Nigeria was unmoved.
A country that shared borders with South Africa (I can't remember if it was Lesotho, Swaziland or Zimbabwe) offered to host the Eagles. They expressed their love for Nigeria, condemned what happened to Toyin Raji and said that the Eagles could camp in their country, fly into South Africa by helicopter to play their games and return to their country by helicopter. They even offered to foot the bill.
I listened to the opinions of callers on radio and TV stations in Lagos at that time and I also monitored the views of writers in the newspapers. Opinions were divided about the initial decision to withdraw from the tournament. Some were angry about what happened to Toyin Raji and so they supported the decision. Many hated the Abacha Government and so they opposed the decision. Some (mostly football fans) just wanted the Eagles to play at the Nations Cup. However, virtually everybody was united in accepting the offer of the 3rd country.
Those that initially supported the withdrawal felt that staying in another country would spite the South Africans while still allowing the Eagles to play in the tournament. Those that opposed the withdrawal were happy that a way had been found to ensure that the Eagles played in the tournament.
However, the government rejected the offer. The rejection of this offer made many Nigerians to believe that there was more to the withdrawal than mere security concerns. Remember that the South African Government had also condemned the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the 8 other activists.
And that's how Yekini missed an opportunity to become the highest goal scorer in Nations Cup history. I have no doubt that he would have scored at least 2 goals at the '96 Nations Cup of we had gone. Nigeria was consequently banned from the 1998 Nations Cup and Yekini was well passed his prime by the time that Nigeria hosted the 2000 Nations Cup.
Samuel Eto'o is now the highest goal scorer in Nations Cup history with 18 goals, Laurent Pokou is second with 14 goals and Yekini is third with 13 goals.
. Thank you for this piece. It vcaptures what happened then
. A fabricated and mischievous report only designed to create undue tension in Osun State...media lies do not win in court of appeal. Only facts , constitution , electoral acts and precedences are used by the judges. Oyetola and Adeleke will know next action soon when the judgement which can go either way or a rerun is decided
Johnnyessence: We’ll always identify with Senator Adeleke – Classmates
By Adesoji Adeniyi, Osogbo. May 1, 2019
Classmates of Senator Ademola Adeleke at the Muslim Grammar School, Ede in Osun State have paid him a solidarity visit. They insisted he attended the school between 1976 and 1981.
At a press conference in Ede, Dr. Mukaila Olopade, who was a former Sports Prefect in the school, said as their mate they will always identify with Ademola Adeleke, whom he described as a good jolly fellow.
Accompanied by other mates, Mukaila Ayoola, Ajibola Nureni, Ademola Oyelakin and Dauda Okanlawon, he said: “Those of us, who attended Muslim Grammar School, Ede between 1976 and 1981, would readily attest to the good companionship and brotherly fraternity that we shared with the amiable Senator Nurudeen Ademola Adeleke, who from childhood has shown leadership traits.
“Ademola’s time at the Muslim Grammar School, Ede together with us was years we shall proudly refer to as well spent in our formative years. We of the 1976/1981 set of which Ademola Adeleke was a part, could with all sense of responsibility and patriotic zeal affirmed that the distinguished senator gave a good account of himself as our classmate.
“Our 1976/1981 set, sat for the final West Africa School Certificate Examination and had our names, including Senator Ademola Adeleke’s recorded in its ledger as presented by an Assistant Registrar of the body (WAEC), when he was called upon by a Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja. What further proof is Senator Ademola Adeleke’s antagonists looking for to confirm his attendance and participation in the 1981 WASCE with the rest of us.”
According to him, all attempts by some people exhibiting hatred in their bikes to run down Ademola Adeleke is only an attempt to try God’s will and an effort in futility.
He disclosed that the senator was the President of “our Old Students Association for four years”, saying “this could not have been possible if he did not finish in the school and wrote the WASCE.
. For how long will Nigeria continue to produce educated illiterates? Birds of the same feather flock together.If you register for an external student does that make you complete education in the school? That is the case with Adeleke.He was admitted in 76 but no record of studentship by 1980.His name was not even in the register again .That meas he was a drop out.He later registered as an external candidate in 1981.with F9 in English only .Others absent.WAEC tendered the result in court as an exhibit.However in his INEC forms for Senate and governorship election he has a result where he passed all his papers.Where did he get the forged result?did he legally completely secondary school with a record from 1976 to 81?Was the Abuja court not right to have disqualified him for forgery?Nigerians cannot be deceived with media conference.The evidence is clear.. Additionally. last year he registered for NECO internal exam as an external candidate against the law with his brother.He did not come for the exam but a boy was writing for him.The boy was caught but he ran away.That is his case with NECO. Is impersonation during exam allowed? testimonial given to an external candidate does not make him a bonafide student in the school if he did not have a class record in the school as required by the law...In my opinion Adeleke is not victimised but he dug his own grave of failure by being lazy when he was young only to be paying for it now as an adult.....
PDP created a lot of problems in Nigeria especially during Jonathan era.It was during their time that they introduced electoral acts and amended constitution on election...In the past election cases ended at tribunal but they put it into constitution that ilthey must reach supreme court because APC won some states at the Appeal court then...In the past tribunal could cancelle election and do addition and subtraction of votes like that if Aregbesola and Oyinlola in 2011.Now it is in the the electoral law that no addition or subtraction of votes by election tribunal and no cancellation of votes too.If results are contested or debated the tribunal must order a rerun in the affected areas.In view of the above Osun crisis may result in rerun in line with Nigeria constitution and electoral laws which minority judgement dwelled on.Anybody who is under influence if Indian hemp or tramadol and thinks Adeleke is the automatic winner should have RETHINK.
. A musician who smokes Indian hemph with tramadol will always say rubbish when he is online.This is a typical example. How do you know he lost? It was an election that was contested by three parties.APC PDP SDP..Your lazy uncle lost. he felt dissatisfied and went to court.Oyetola also went to court to challenge the tribunal judgement.After appeal judgement both of them will still go to supreme court for appeal and counter appeal. Rule of law is at work.....Appeal and supreme court judgement can go either way. So don't think your uncle will be declared winner. automatically ..It is time for you to come out of hangover of your Tramadol and Indian hemph...
. speaker of state house of assembly......Ilesa......Senator..Ilesa.....minister ..ilesa?..It should not be so...I think Ife should produce the slot now since Ilesa produced the incumbent minister.Omisore should be given the slot for his contribution to the success of APC in the last election.
ejimatic: Oyetola, APC, INEC urge Appeal Court to uphold Osun election ….Court reserves judgments on four appeals — April 24, 2019 The Osun State Governor, Adegboyega Oyetola, his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) have asked the Court of Appeal in Abuja to uphold the victory of Oyetola and APC in the governorship election held in the state on September 22 and 27, 2018. Their request is contained in three separate appeals they filed against the majority judgment given by the Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal on March 22, 2019. The tribunal had, in the majority judgment, given by two of its three members upheld the petition by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the election, Senator Ademola Adeleke and voided Oyetola and APC’s victory. In their appeals, argued on Wednesday, Oyetola, the APC and INEC prayed the five-man panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Jummai Sankey, to set aside the majority decision of the tribunal, uphold their appeals and dismiss the October 16, 2018 petition by Adeleke and the PDP. They equally urged the court to dismiss the cross-appeal filed by Adeleke, on the grounds that it is unmeritorious. In the appeal by Oyetola, his lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) faulted the reasons given by the tribunal in reaching the judgment appealed against, arguing that the decision was not supported by the evidence led by the petitioners. He urged the court to void the judgment because the judge, Justice Peter Obiorah who wrote and delivered it, did not participate in all the proceedings of the tribunal. Olanipekun noted that “the judge, who did not sit, came to write the leading judgment and reviewed the evidence of the February 6, 2019 proceedings where he was absent. “Adjudication is like video watching. It cannot be done by proxy. The judge cannot analyse the evidence of a witness, whose demeanor he did not observe. The judgement should be declared a nullity on this ground alone” Olanipekun, who said he and some named senior lawyers were at the tribunal on February 6, 2019, faulted the argument by lawyer to Adeleke and the PDP that it was not clear from the record of proceedings, whether or not Justice Obiorah was absent on the particular day. He argued that the judge’s failure to sigh at the end of the proceedings on February 6, 2019 was enough evidence to justify the appellant’s claim that Justice Obiorah was absent on the day in question. Olanipekun also faulted the tribunal’s cancellation of results in 17 polling units in the state, and noted that the petitioners did not tender any result of the election before the tribunal. “If there was no result before the tribunal, the tribunal could not have cancelled what was not before it. Since no single result was submitted and could not have been cancelled,” he said. He argued that the tribunal went beyond its powers by annulling results in the 17 polling units in order to justify its the judgement it gave in favour of the petitioners Lawyer to the APC, Akin Olujinmi (SAN), while arguing the party’s appeal, contended that the tribunal was wrong to have allowed the petition, which was incurably incompetent. “The 1st and 2nd respondents sought to be declared winner of the election, held on September 22, 2018, which was declared inconclusive. They also asked the tribunal to void the rerun election held on September 27, 2018, because they believed it was unlawful. “You cannot say you should be declared a winner on the election that you said was unlawful and void,” he said. Olujinmi accused the tribunal of exceeding its jurisdiction when it engaged in amending the petitioners’ reliefs to make them grantable. “No tribunal has the jurisdiction to reframe, amend or formulate reliefs for the petitioners. “On realising that the reliefs could not be granted, they (members of the tribunal) amended the reliefs and granted it by themselves. “We are saying the tribunal has no power to amend a petitioner’s reliefs. The much they ought to do, on realising that the reliefs could not be granted, was to have dismissed the petition.” He further faulted the tribunal for holding that the petitioners proved its case of non-compliance in respect of the polling units where it voided results. Olujinmi added: “The tribunal was wrong. They cannot use the allegation of non-compliance directed at the election of September 27 against the election of September 22. “The tribunal relied on certified true copy of Form EC8A, which they said were dumped on the tribunal. This was what they still relied on to nullify results in the polling units in which they said malpractices were proved. The so called non-complaince did not affect the result of the election,” Olujinmi said. He argued that the tribunal went outside its powers and contravened Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act when it engaged in the deduction of votes from the outcome of the election to arrive at the decision it gave. Lawyer to INEC, Yusuf Ali (SAN) who argued in similar manner, contended that the tribunal erred in its majority judgment, particularly as regards the issue of non-compliance. He noted that the tribunal, having found that accreditation was properly done and that all witnesses agreed that the votes scored were not affected by the omissions noted in some result sheets, ought not to have voided any results. Citing Section 134 (b) of the Electoral Act, Ali argued that non-compliance means not compliance with the provision of the Act, not an act of omission on the part of INEC officials, which are not contrary to the provision of the Act. Ali also argued that since the tribunal held that the petitioners did not prove over-voting and non-compliance, it ought not to have turned around to void votes in some polling units. On the question of why INEC did not call it witnesses at the tribunal, Ali said it was unnecessary because the petitioners did not discharge the burden of prove placed on them by the law to warrant INEC to call fresh witnesses. Ali added: “There is no law that said INEC most call witnesses, since the petitioners could not discharge the responsibility of proving their declarative reliefs, there was no need for INEC to have called its own witnesses.” Lawyer to Adeleke and the PDP, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) faulted the three appeals and the arguments proffered by Olanipekun, Olujinmi and Ali. Ikpeazu argued that the tribunal was right in its decision to have declared Adeleke and his party as the winner of the election. He faulted the argument that Justice Obiorah did not participate in all the proceedings of the tribunal, arguing that there was no sufficient evidence to that effect. Ikpeazu urged the court to dismiss the three appeals and uphold the judgment of the tribunal. Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), who argued Adeleke’s cross-appeal, urged the court to allow his client’s appeal and reverse the portion of the judgment, where the tribunal rejected the evidence the petitioners lead in relation to six polling units. Ogunwumiju argued that the tribunal wrongly excluded some of its evidence, because while it called 23 witnesses to prove it’s allegation of non-compliance in 23 polling units, the tribunal only upheld 17 where it voided elections. Olanipekun, Olujinmi and Ali argued that the cross appeal was incompetent on several grounds and urged the tribunal to reject it. At the conclusion of proceedings that lasted over eight hours, the presiding judge, Justice Sankey said judgments would be reserved till a later date. She told parties that the date of the judgment would be communicated to them by the court’s Registry. Other members of the court’s five-man panel are: Justices Abubakar Datti Yahaya, Ita George Mbaba, Isaiah Olufemi Akeju and Bitrus Sang
. 4 Appeals based on 39 grounds..... Anybody who thinks Oyetola has no hope on his case should have a rethink.... I will still maintain my ground on section 140 of electoral act...I forsee a rerun in the 17 polling units and area where election did not take place at all on September 22....
Oyetola, APC, INEC urge Appeal Court to uphold Osun election ….Court reserves judgments on four appeals — April 24, 2019 The Osun State Governor, Adegboyega Oyetola, his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) have asked the Court of Appeal in Abuja to uphold the victory of Oyetola and APC in the governorship election held in the state on September 22 and 27, 2018. Their request is contained in three separate appeals they filed against the majority judgment given by the Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal on March 22, 2019. The tribunal had, in the majority judgment, given by two of its three members upheld the petition by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the election, Senator Ademola Adeleke and voided Oyetola and APC’s victory. In their appeals, argued on Wednesday, Oyetola, the APC and INEC prayed the five-man panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Jummai Sankey, to set aside the majority decision of the tribunal, uphold their appeals and dismiss the October 16, 2018 petition by Adeleke and the PDP. They equally urged the court to dismiss the cross-appeal filed by Adeleke, on the grounds that it is unmeritorious. In the appeal by Oyetola, his lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) faulted the reasons given by the tribunal in reaching the judgment appealed against, arguing that the decision was not supported by the evidence led by the petitioners. He urged the court to void the judgment because the judge, Justice Peter Obiorah who wrote and delivered it, did not participate in all the proceedings of the tribunal. Olanipekun noted that “the judge, who did not sit, came to write the leading judgment and reviewed the evidence of the February 6, 2019 proceedings where he was absent. “Adjudication is like video watching. It cannot be done by proxy. The judge cannot analyse the evidence of a witness, whose demeanor he did not observe. The judgement should be declared a nullity on this ground alone” Olanipekun, who said he and some named senior lawyers were at the tribunal on February 6, 2019, faulted the argument by lawyer to Adeleke and the PDP that it was not clear from the record of proceedings, whether or not Justice Obiorah was absent on the particular day. He argued that the judge’s failure to sigh at the end of the proceedings on February 6, 2019 was enough evidence to justify the appellant’s claim that Justice Obiorah was absent on the day in question. Olanipekun also faulted the tribunal’s cancellation of results in 17 polling units in the state, and noted that the petitioners did not tender any result of the election before the tribunal. “If there was no result before the tribunal, the tribunal could not have cancelled what was not before it. Since no single result was submitted and could not have been cancelled,” he said. He argued that the tribunal went beyond its powers by annulling results in the 17 polling units in order to justify its the judgement it gave in favour of the petitioners Lawyer to the APC, Akin Olujinmi (SAN), while arguing the party’s appeal, contended that the tribunal was wrong to have allowed the petition, which was incurably incompetent. “The 1st and 2nd respondents sought to be declared winner of the election, held on September 22, 2018, which was declared inconclusive. They also asked the tribunal to void the rerun election held on September 27, 2018, because they believed it was unlawful. “You cannot say you should be declared a winner on the election that you said was unlawful and void,” he said. Olujinmi accused the tribunal of exceeding its jurisdiction when it engaged in amending the petitioners’ reliefs to make them grantable. “No tribunal has the jurisdiction to reframe, amend or formulate reliefs for the petitioners. “On realising that the reliefs could not be granted, they (members of the tribunal) amended the reliefs and granted it by themselves. “We are saying the tribunal has no power to amend a petitioner’s reliefs. The much they ought to do, on realising that the reliefs could not be granted, was to have dismissed the petition.” He further faulted the tribunal for holding that the petitioners proved its case of non-compliance in respect of the polling units where it voided results. Olujinmi added: “The tribunal was wrong. They cannot use the allegation of non-compliance directed at the election of September 27 against the election of September 22. “The tribunal relied on certified true copy of Form EC8A, which they said were dumped on the tribunal. This was what they still relied on to nullify results in the polling units in which they said malpractices were proved. The so called non-complaince did not affect the result of the election,” Olujinmi said. He argued that the tribunal went outside its powers and contravened Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act when it engaged in the deduction of votes from the outcome of the election to arrive at the decision it gave. Lawyer to INEC, Yusuf Ali (SAN) who argued in similar manner, contended that the tribunal erred in its majority judgment, particularly as regards the issue of non-compliance. He noted that the tribunal, having found that accreditation was properly done and that all witnesses agreed that the votes scored were not affected by the omissions noted in some result sheets, ought not to have voided any results. Citing Section 134 (b) of the Electoral Act, Ali argued that non-compliance means not compliance with the provision of the Act, not an act of omission on the part of INEC officials, which are not contrary to the provision of the Act. Ali also argued that since the tribunal held that the petitioners did not prove over-voting and non-compliance, it ought not to have turned around to void votes in some polling units. On the question of why INEC did not call it witnesses at the tribunal, Ali said it was unnecessary because the petitioners did not discharge the burden of prove placed on them by the law to warrant INEC to call fresh witnesses. Ali added: “There is no law that said INEC most call witnesses, since the petitioners could not discharge the responsibility of proving their declarative reliefs, there was no need for INEC to have called its own witnesses.” Lawyer to Adeleke and the PDP, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) faulted the three appeals and the arguments proffered by Olanipekun, Olujinmi and Ali. Ikpeazu argued that the tribunal was right in its decision to have declared Adeleke and his party as the winner of the election. He faulted the argument that Justice Obiorah did not participate in all the proceedings of the tribunal, arguing that there was no sufficient evidence to that effect. Ikpeazu urged the court to dismiss the three appeals and uphold the judgment of the tribunal. Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), who argued Adeleke’s cross-appeal, urged the court to allow his client’s appeal and reverse the portion of the judgment, where the tribunal rejected the evidence the petitioners lead in relation to six polling units. Ogunwumiju argued that the tribunal wrongly excluded some of its evidence, because while it called 23 witnesses to prove it’s allegation of non-compliance in 23 polling units, the tribunal only upheld 17 where it voided elections. Olanipekun, Olujinmi and Ali argued that the cross appeal was incompetent on several grounds and urged the tribunal to reject it. At the conclusion of proceedings that lasted over eight hours, the presiding judge, Justice Sankey said judgments would be reserved till a later date. She told parties that the date of the judgment would be communicated to them by the court’s Registry. Other members of the court’s five-man panel are: Justices Abubakar Datti Yahaya, Ita George Mbaba, Isaiah Olufemi Akeju and Bitrus Sang
garfield1: You are funny.is that the only prayer he made? Cant someone make mistake again? The issue here is that the court should have used the copies of the party agents to recalculate the real figures or simply call for a rerun in the 17 contentious umits and i see the appeal court agreeing
Your submission is in the electoral which minority judgement emphasises.
engineerboat: Did you read anywhere here stated it will be determined on nairaland.
Always read before making comment
. if you read the thread carefully you will observe that some people have been taking sides for their parties already......When we make a comment we are objective and we know what we are saying.
The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal is currently hearing the appeal filed by the Osun State Governor, Mr. Adegboyega Oyetola and the All Progressives Congress, challenging the judgment of the state’s Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal which nullified their election.
The tribunal had on March 22, 2019, in a split decision declared Oyetola’s main rival in the September 2018 election in the state, Senator Ademola Adeleke of the Peoples Democratic Party as the one validly elected as the governor.
It nullified the certificate of return issued to Oyetola and ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission to issue a fresh one to Adeleke.
The tribunal’s Chairman, Justice Ibrahim Sirajo, in his minority judgment, dissented from the majority judgment adopted by Justices Peter Obiorah and Adegboye Gbolagunte.
Oyetola had in his 39-ground notice of appeal filed on March 26, 2019, urged the Court of Appeal to nullify the majority judgment, which he argued was perverse, replete with contradictions and not supported by evidence led by the petitioners.
. Today is for oral submission by the two parties....Judgements will be given before May 20.....The future of Osun will be determined not in Nairaland but by the Appeal and Supreme courts.PDP should not rest ApC should be awake on Osun matter.However in my own opinion I forsee a rerun in the voting units where results were cancelled and where there was no election at all on 22 September 2018. This is supported by what the electoral says on the debatable cancelled votes... Good luck to Osun people
fergie001: A bill for an Act to Provide for Establishment of a Federal Polytechnic, Aba, Abia State, on Tuesday passed second reading at the House of Representatives.
The bill titled: “A bill for an Act to Provide for Establishment of the Federal Polytechnic, Aba, Abia State; and for Related Matters (HB.1613)” emanated from the Senate.
The bill was seeking concurrence in the House for a second reading.
Moving the motion on the bill, Rep. Idris Wase (APC-Plateau), said it was important to pass the bill for such an institution in Aba.
Also, the Deputy Chief Whip, Rep. Pally Iriase, said that Aba deserved a Federal Polytechnic given the industrial ingenuity of the people of the area.
“It is good to lend our support and see reasons cogent enough to establish a federal polytechnic in Aba. This is one bill to my mind that is very well thought out.
“Aba is noted for industry and the ingenuity that today’s science can only help to improve upon. And no institution can do this better than a federal polytechnic.
“This is one bill that is nice for this House to pass,” Iriase said.
Similarly, Rep. Nkiruka Onyejeocha (APC-Abia), said that the establishment of the Polytechnic will assist the factories in the city.
“We have a lot of factories in Aba that if we establish a federal polytechnic in Aba, it is going to help a lot.
“We need federal presence in Aba. Mr Speaker, I appeal that our colleagues should please support the bill,” she said.
Rep. Betty Apiafi (PDP-Rivers), spoke in favour of the bill, saying it should be supported.
Similarly, Rep. Wole Oke (PDP-Osun), said, “Abia State deserves federal polytechnic in Aba. Abia is also an oil producing state. So, I support this bill,” Oke said.
Meanwhile, Rep. Uzoma Nkem-Abonta (PDP-Abia), said that though he was in support of the establishment of the institution, it should, however, be sited in the area that “lays the golden egg”.
Nkem-Abonta was referring to the oil producing zone of the state which he represents.
“We should look at the demography of the state. We should not forget the hen that lays the golden eggs. The area to site it is very important,” he said.
He then moved to propose an amendment to the bill to include the clause but was advised by the Speaker, Mr Yakubu Dogara, to do so at the Committee/public hearing level.
The speaker, in his concluding remarks to the debate, expressed surprised that Aba did not have a federal Polytechnic before now, insisting that it deserved one.
“It baffles me that we don’t have a polytechnic already in Aba. The location shouldn’t be a problem.
“If there is a place to establish a federal polytechnic in Nigeria, it should be in Aba. It is long overdue. When it gets to committee level, you can raise those issues,” he said.
When the bill was put to a voice vote by the speaker, it was unanimously adopted by the members and passed through second reading.
The standard procedure for Governorship appeals at the Court of Appeal is 5 justices, if the court is constituting a panal of 3 justices, then we have reason to be afraid.
Already they are trying to include the Ex-Chief Judge of Lagos High Court in the panel.
. I just saw your 2 rhetorical questions. There is nothing to argue for online.If you are a SAN good luck ..It makes no meaning....However when we talk we know what we are saying
The standard procedure for Governorship appeals at the Court of Appeal is 5 justices, if the court is constituting a panal of 3 justices, then we have reason to be afraid.
Already they are trying to include the Ex-Chief Judge of Lagos High Court in the panel.
. The appeal court president decides the number.Usually for Governorship election appeals 3 is selected.....The odd number gives room for majority and minority decision. At the supreme court the nature of the case determines the no of judges involved which will be selected by the CJ of Nigeria There is nothing to be afraid of since any decision made at the appeal court can still be challenged at the supreme court on election matters withing 60 days.
ejimatic: Osun guber: Appeal Court fixes April 24 for hearing
The Court of Appeal in Abuja has scheduled hearing for April 24 in the appeals filed by the Osun State Governor, Adegboyega Oyetola, and his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) against the March 22, 2019 by the Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal. Information about the hearing date is contained in notices sent to parties by the court’s Registry, a copy of which newsmen sighted on Monday in Abuja. The tribunal, in a split decision of two-to-one, voided the victory of Oyetola and the APC in the election held on September 22, 2018, but concluded with a rerun on September 27, 2018. Two members of the tribunal’s three-member panel upheld the petition filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate Senator Ademola Adeleke against the outcome of election, while its chairman dismissed it for being unmeritorious. Justices Peter Obiorah and Adegboye Gbolagunte gave the majority decision, which replaced Oyetola and APC with Adeleke and PDP as winners of the election. The tribunal Chairman, Justice Muhammad Sirajo, in his dissenting judgment/minority decision, held otherwise. He dismissed the petition by Adeleke and PDP on the grounds that the petitioners failed to prove their claims. In the separate notices of appeal they filed against the tribunal’s majority judgment, Oyetola and the APC ripped the judgment apart, arguing that “it is perverse, replete with contradictions and against the weight of evidence.” The want the Court of Appeal to uphold their appeals, set aside the majority judgment and dismiss the October 16, 2018 petition by Adeleke and the PDP. Oyetola and the APC said they were contesting the entire majority judgment, except where it held that it lacked jurisdiction to set aside the INEC Guidelines used for the election; that the allegation of over voting was not proved; that the petitioners did not prove voided votes, and other parts of the judgment where it agreed with their arguments. They queried the validity of the judgment, which was authored and delivered by Justice Obiorah, who they noted, did not participate in all the sittings of the tribunal during trial. The appellants are of the view that the entire of the majority judgment is a nullity, because it was written and delivered by Justice Obiorah “who did not participate in all the proceedings of the tribunal and who was not present when all the witnesses gave evidence.” They noted that Justice Obiorah was absent on February 6, 2019 when the respondents witnesses (RWs) 12 and 13 – Ayoola Soji and Oladejo Kazeem – testified and tendered exhibits, which the tribunal admitted in evidence. The appellants are contending that, having not attended the tribunal’s siting on February 6, 2019, Justice Obiorah did not see the two witnesses and was unable to examine their demeanour, as required, and therefore, it was unlawful for the judge to have authored a judgment in which he reviewed the evidence given by the witnesses. In the notice of appeal filed for Oyetola by his lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), it was argued that: “The writing of and or the participation of the Honourable Justice P. C. Obiorah in the writing of the judgment of the lower tribunal of 22nd March 2019 and delivery of same, vitiates the entire judgment.” Oyetola and the APC faulted the decision of the tribunal, in the majority judgment, to declare the rerun election unlawful and proceeded to set it aside. They also faulted the tribunal’s finding that the respondents did not deny the claim by the petitions, through PW74, that the Returning Officer cancelled election in the seven polling units and ordered a rerun. The appellants said: “The first and third respondents (INEC and APC), in their pleadings, did not admit that it was the Returning Officer that cancelled the result of the election in the seven polling units, but rather, that it was the 1st respondent that cancelled the election in the seven units as distinct from the units’ results. “Indeed, as pleaded at paragraphs 24, 25, 27 and 29 of the petition, it was the 1st respondent that cancelled the election in the seven units for the reasons alleged by the petitioners. “The tribunal ought to have held the petitioners bound by their pleadings that it was the 1st respondent that cancelled the election in the units and the fact that the 3rd respondent also pleaded that it was the 1sy respondent that cancelled the election in the units.” They argued that even if it was any of the electoral officials that announced the cancellation and rerun election, in law, they acted as INEC’s agents of the first respondent (INEC). The appellants noted that the petitioners did not only fail to tender results from the seven polling units to support their claim that election actually held in the polling units and the results were cancelled; they also failed to exhibit the votes scored by the parties that participated in the election, if actually their was an election. Oyetayo and APC argued that, rather than holding against the petitioners, for not supplying the necessary evidence, the tribunal wrongly relied on the evidence of PW74, which it had earlier expunged from the record for being hearsay. They argued that, in the absence of vital evidence, “the tribunal ought to have held that the petitioners did not make out the case that there was any election in the seven polling units and that the Returning Officer cancelled the results of the election in the seven units.” They argued that even if it was any of the electoral officials that announced the cancellation and rerun election, in law, they acted as INEC’s agents of the first respondent (INEC).
. v I share the same opinion with appellants on their conclusion on the cancellation of results by the agents of INEC. but let us await the appeal court decision on this ground.
Politics › Re: Breaking Osun Appeal Judgement Tommorrow Thursday May 9 by ejimatic: 7:52pm On May 08, 2019
