₦airaland Forum

Nukilia:
The end is near

How

fergie001:
Kano judgement in da mud!

No sir,you are taking the Kano judgment too personal.inec in Kano admitted via documentary evidence that no voting took place in certain units.this is settled
In ogun,adebutu was pleading disenfranchisement of voters not cancellation of votes and he brought no cogent proof.tge judgment in Ogun has some errors.election cases are not proven beyond reasonable doubt...

Tompolo imposed MacIver on sylva

https://www.nairaland.com/7860393/tribunal-dismisses-adebutus-petition-referring

Contrary to the above post,the tribunal also went into the merit and meat of the case and rightly dismissed the case.
Cc tutudesz,validated, mrvitalis, immaculatejoe

Justice Hamidu Kunaza-led tribunal in a unanimous decision dismissed the petition filed against Abiodun by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its governorship candidate, Ladi Adebutu.


The panel held that Adebutu’s petition was “incompetent, defective and lacking in merits.”


Daily Trust reports that the INEC had declared Abiodun winner after polling 276,298 votes, while Adebutu scored 262,38 and Biyi Otegbeye of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) came distant third with 94,754 votes.

But, PDP and Adebutu dragged Abiodun and APC before the Tribunal, alleging that the governor did not win the majority of votes cast during the March 18 governorship election.

PDP and Adebutu in the petition marked, EPT/OG/GOV/03/2023 accused the INECof non-compliance to the Electoral Act and corrupt practices during the election.


The petitioners also alleged that elections were disrupted by thugs in over 99 polling units, disenfranchising over 40,000 voters from participating in the election.

Adebutu sought an order of the court to declare him as the winner of the election.

He also prayed the court to order the INEC to conduct fresh election in 99 polling units in 41 wards which cut across 16 Local government areas of the State where elections were either not held and/or cancelled due to disruption and over-voting.

But the judges held that the petitioners failed to prove allegations of non-compliance, overvoting, disenfranchment of voters, non-qualification of second respondent (Abiodun) and corrupt practices during the polls, beyond reasonable doubt.


Justice Kunaza while reading the lead judgement held that the forensic experts have nothing to prove that they are qualified experts, adding that their reports cannot be relied on.

The panel also held that the there was no direct evidence that voters were disenfranchised during the election.

The tribunal maintained that the disenfranchised voters must testify that they were ready to vote; if they were allowed to vote their candidate would have won; and that they had their voters’ cards and were registered voters.

On the alleged non qualification of Abiodun due criminal records, Kunaza
declared that the petitioners have failed to show that the second respondent (Abiodun) had been tried, arraigned and convicted in the US.

“On the whole, the petitioners have not successfully proven the allegation of non compliance with the electoral act and have not discharged the burden of prove,” he said.


In dismissing the petition, Kunaza “I uphold the election of Dapo Abiodun as the dully elected governor of Ogun State in the March 18 election.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://dailytrust.com/ogun-tribunal-upholds-governor-abioduns-election/&ved=2ahUKEwilpYvDk9OBAxXUh1wKHUYBDgYQvOMEKAB6BAgHEAE&usg=AOvVaw3KZ10xtt8Z6eMcWzu3U-mf



Mynd44
Nplfmod
Seun
Seunmsg
Casualobserver
Helinues
Benuejosh
Cajal
Fergie001
Cajal
Muykem
Penguin2
Adioolayi
Famology
Seanfer
Kukutenla
Ifnobegod20
Ifnobegod20
Spy30
Raumdeuter
Orientation
Generalpula
Svododa
Aiel123

IfnobeGod20:
Technicality is not part of our law. The fact of a case is far overweigh the error in a case. For peace to reign in a country, justice must be seen to be served than judgement given. The merit of the case should have been their focus than the wordings used therein. It makes no sense that you leave the merit of a case and dwell on error of words.

Technicality is part of the judicial process.minor errors can be overlooked but not fundamental ones

seunmsg:
By the time the case is decided at the Supreme Court, a retrial would be time barred and there will be the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.

Exactly.if there went into the merit and it is unfavourable to dapo, the appeal court will reinstate it without ordering a retrial.the battle to succeed by senator yayi is the next phase.cc helinues

Apc will obviously clear Edo

fergie001:
Submissions
In the last paragraph of Page 212, the learned Judge quoted Section 71 here reproduced:

"Every result form completed at the ward, local government, state and national levels in accordance with the provisions of this Act or any guidelines issued by the Commission shall be stamped, signed and countersigned by the relevant officers and polling agents at those levels and copies given to the police officers and the polling agents, where available."

Section 63(1): Subject to subsection (2), a ballot paper which does not bear official mark prescribed by the Commission shall not be counted.

(2)If the returning officer is satisfied that a ballot paper which does not bear the official mark was from a book of ballot papers which was furnished to the presiding officer of the polling unit in which the vote was cast for use at the election in question, he or she shall, notwithstanding the absence of the official mark, count that ballot paper.

There is clearly a difference between a ballot paper and a result form.

*In Pages 212-214 of the Judgement and especially in the first paragraph of Page 215, it is clear the learned Judge assumed that a result form is same as a ballot paper.

*The tribunal leaned on Section 63(1) to describe an official mark to mean signing, dating, stamping and writing the name of the PO on the ballot paper. (see Page 215, line 3 of the Judgement).

This is not correct, an official mark was explained in Paragraph 36(i) of the INEC Manual Guidelines & Regulations to mean;

"Only ballot papers with the official watermark and stamp prescribed by the Commission shall be counted by the PO"

36(ii) Whenever a PO notices any ballot paper without the official watermark and stamp, he/she should immediately escalate and act on further instructions received by him/her."

A collective understanding of Paragraphs 36(i), (ii) of the Manual Guidelines of INEC and Sections 63(1),(2), 64(1) and 64(3) of the EA gives us a direction of what is lawful and unlawful.

See Section 64(1) of the Electoral Act: The presiding officer shall endorse the word “rejected” on the ballot paper rejected under section 52 (1) of this Act and for any other reason, and the ballot papers shall not be counted except otherwise allowed by the returning officer who may overrule the presiding officer.

Section 64(3) of the Electoral Act:
The presiding officer shall prepare a statement on rejected ballot papers, stating the number rejected, the reason for rejection and their serial number, and he or she shall on request, allow a candidate or a polling agent to copy the statement.

I am not unmindful of Paragraph 19(f) of the Manual Guidelines where the PO will sign, stamp and write the date of the election behind the ballot papers, but should his name be there? The only trite answer is NO.

There is no where in the Electoral Act or INEC Guidelines where the PO will have to write his name on the Ballot Papers. I repeat there is no where this can be found.

Just like S63(i) of the EA has a proviso in S63(2), Paragraphs 36(i) does in 36(ii). It is generally acceptable that the POs have a role to play in all of this.

What is also clear is that it is within the powers of the Returning Officer, a person who works for the 1st Respondent to over-rule a rejected ballot paper. See Section 64(3) above. In this case, he didn't need to over-rule a rejected ballot.

The prerogative of the election been correct as declared is not in contention by all parties.

Whose responsibility is it to now prove that indeed there was substantial non-compliance with the INEC's Manual & Guidelines, if any? The man who asserts or the man whose election is been challenged?

The learned Judge in Page 215 had pushed the burden of proof on the respondents rather than the man who sought declaratory reliefs.

Supreme Court Judgements have a unified position on this:
"The law is also trite that in a claim for declaration, the onus is on the plaintiff/petitioner to establish his case on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the case of the Defendant. The heavy weather made by the appellants in hammering on the respondents failure to call evidence in proof of their pleadings is a confirmation that the appellants are hiding behind one finger by abdicating their duty in proving the declaratory reliefs sought for. The proof is not determinant on whether or not the respondents called witnesses, but which squarely rests on the appellants by law." (Gunduri v. Nyako SC) Ogunbiyj JSC rtd

The Petitioner must call witnesses who had a first hand knowledge of this infraction and link the documents or evidence to the specific case in the petition, since if he doesn't go the extra mile, the tribunal or Court may not come to a conclusion. (APGA v. Al-Makura SC) Onnoghen JSC as he then was.

It is the petitioner who should leave no margin for error. It is and was the responsibility of the Petitioner to prove his case ab initio

The tribunal lambasted the Respondents for not calling the Returning Officer to testify if he indeed allowed those ballot papers. "The Respondents need not answer questions when the substantial proof of non-compliance have not been well-marshalled" (Obi v INEC 2023).

It is the Petitioner who wants to win his case, he indeed approached the Court to be so declared and should prove same. Surely, the presumption of regularity enjoyed by INEC's results are not rebuttable by presumptuous postulations or rhetorical questions but only by cogent, credible and acceptable evidence.

The Petitioner called up 30 Polling Unit agents some of whom 1st Respondent insisted were not names submitted to her as PU agents. None of them in their written depositions linked any evidence of ballot papers to their testimonies. PW31 is hearsay evidence been the State Collation Agent who was not at the PU and not credible.

The expert witness (PW32) before the open Court testified he relied only on the CTCs from INEC. This is not enough to prove same in my opinion as there were expected PU agents or eyewitnesses who saw first hand or those who even queried the counting of these "alleged" invalid ballot papers at the PUs or even POs who should ordinarily testify to this effect.

In Section 64(3) supra, POs were expected to write statements on rejected ballots and reasons adduced, which shall be copied by PU agents on request. There was no copy of the PO statements on rejected ballot papers or even those by the PU agents and reasons thereto tendered by any of the PU agents of the Petitioner, it is safe to say they are/were in agreement with the counted ballots at the PU level.

This was raised even by the Respondents and even confirmed by the trial Judge in Page 209 of the Judgement.

An expert witness should ordinarily give scientific or technical analysis to direct the Court to give a purposeful direction. However, PW32 tendered 'evidence' handed over to him by the Petitioner that had absolutely no backing of people who saw it first hand neither was there any scientific postulation to back what would have been deposed by the Party Agents.

Were these ballot papers tested in open Court? Our Jurisprudence is adversarial in nature, so dumping of documents on the tribunal to go on a voyage of discovery is unacceptable. The trubunal became mathematicians in the inner recesses of their Chamber, they simply jumped into the arena.

Our Courts have often prohibited inquisition or forensic examination of documents untested in Open Court.

"Such evidence must come from a witness who has the first hand knowledge of that which he testifies to. He must in other words be a witness who saw or heard or took part in the transaction upon which he was giving evidence. Where a witness gives an account of an information which is not within his personal knowledge, he would not be accredited as a competent witness." (Obi v INEC PEPT)

The tribunal hammered severally on Section 137 and Paragraph 46 of the INEC Manual guidelines and regulations and placed/elevated documentary evidence. In the same INEC Guidelines, Paragraph 41(1) of the 1st Schedule of the Electoral Act that insists on written deposition and oral evidence of witnesses. It begs to say there is a conflict.

In my humble view, this section cannot be wholly relied on.

Our Courts have always severally tied open Court cross-examination or evidence or linking documents to specific cases with respect to Section 36 of the 1999 CFRN.

"Therefore, it is an infraction of fair hearing principle for the court to do in its chambers, what a witness to the party in a case had not himself done in open court to advance or protect the interest of the party." (Ucha v. Elechi SC)

The doctrine of fair hearing derives its roots from Section 36 of the 1999 CFRN. The Constitution is the fons et erigo, the Supreme document of the land and when it is in conflict with any other document, it stands tall like Mount Gibraltar above every and any.

The 1st Respondent's objection on this was jettisoned by the tribunal.

Lastly, to buttress a point with regards to the Returning Officer... the evidence before the tribunal did not show any disputations from the PU agents of the Petitioner to oppose the counting of ballot papers without official marks, etc.

The PU is the building-bloc, the fundamental stage of any election in Nigeria.

In this petition, there is no where a PU agent testified about his PU with respect to unsigned or undated ballot papers or even tendered the report in open Court or through his witness statement, about his rejection on counting of these 'invalid' ballot papers (either orally or in writing).

Their acceptance of this allowed the PO and subsequently the returning Officer as there were no open rejection by agents of the Petitioner, at any stage of counting.

See Section 64(1),(3) of the Electoral Act supra

What the Petitioner simply did was harvest unmarked ballot papers LGA by LGA that had the votes of the 2nd Respondent and dumped before the Court. This is a fundamental error of huge proportion.

This should have been listed PU by PU serialised (see Buhari v Obasanjo, Udom v Umana)

The questions that comes to my mind are:-
A. How did the judges arrive at the serialization of the ballot papers, that it was/wasn't from a book sheet since this wasn't provided by the Petitioners.

B. How did they partition it, PU by PU since the Petitioner didn't do that?

C. Was EC40G tendered alongside? Did the tribunal come to the conclusion if some of those ballot papers existed in Polling Units that were already cancelled for violence or over-voting or BVAS by-pass?

D. Was there any Ward Collation Agent called up either in writing or oral evidence to testify?

E. How many of these ballot papers were unstamped, how many were undated, how many had no watermarks? None was provided.

How did they arrive at these decisions?

It is not the Court’s lot to be saddled with nor can it suo motu assume the partisan responsibility of tying each bundle of such documentary evidence to the appellant’s case to prove the malpractice alleged. It would amount to the Court doing a party’s case which will occasion injustice to the other party. The Court as an arbiter must not get into the arena and engage itself in doing a case for one party to the disadvantage of the other party." (Omisore v Aregbesola SC) Ogunbiyi JSC rtd

The Court is an adjudicator not an investigator.

^{It is clear that the 2nd & 3rd respondents raised this objection which was over-ruled. (See 2nd paragraph in page 209).}

"...the law is clearly settled that specifying the particular PU or specific places where irregularities are alleged to have occurred are material particulars in an election petition which allege irregularities and malpractices but fail to specify the Polling Units or specific places where the irregularities or malpractices occurred are bereft of material particulars and such averments are incompetent and liable to be struck out. (Obi v INEC 2023), (Belgore v. Ahmed SC), (Ikpeazu v Otti SC)

The tribunal made another error that should raise eyebrows.

In Page 222, was Gawuna a Party to the suit? Absolutely not.


I will pause for now...... rolams, garfield1 engineerboat bluntcrazeman

Nothing much to say except that 63 has two sections.one for petitioners abd two for respondents.the burden of proof is mostly on the petitioner but at times on a few cases shifts quickly to the respondents.
Guidelines as stated by you refers to watermarks and stamps.the 165,000 invalid votes were from the 235,000 cancelled votes.ec40g was tendered by apc and inec showing manifest irregularities.

seunmsg:
They should have gone into the merit of the case just in case the superior courts disagree with this decision. The Kaduna governorship election petition tribunal dismissed the case on similar ground of incompetence but still went ahead to rule on the merit of the case just in case the superior courts disagrees.

No,it is good for dapo that they didn't so that it this is upturned,they will only call for a retrial

kayusely70:
The verdict is shaky! It could be upturned at the Appeal Court!

Even if it is,they won't be able to rule in favour of adebutu as the court didn't look at the merit

Kukutenla:
Who wrote the petition?
Is it the lawyers or Adebutu himself

Whether it is him or the lawyers,it is legally ascribed to him via principle of vicarious liability

rolams:
I am seeing this for the first time.

Something similar happened in taraba 2015

poiZon:
OBA just go n find I nice place and calm down.

He will win at appeal

VinnyBaba:
Labour Party has good Presence in Delta State currently. 😏🙂

Hon. Ben Etanabene (LP) Represents Uvwie/Okpe Federal constituency in the House of Rep.😊

Then the Ngozi Man that defeated Ndudi Elumelu in same House of Rep Election. 😊😎

Apc has two senators

BluntCrazeMan:
Honestly oooo..

Power, Petroleum, and Finance..

Finance is manned by a competent fellow

kennyz247:
Someone far from Kaduna is speaking for person in Kaduna,

Southern Kaduna,birni gwari,kachia and Sabon gari are all christian dominated areas which is most likely to vote for PDP...

In those areas mentioned,if u even try call APC in those areas,the beating wey you go receive,even the best hospital in the world go reject your body..


Go get ur fact well

Oga,Kaduna south lga not southern kaduna.kachia is in southern Kaduna.birnin gwari and sabon gari are christian dominated

kennyz247:
Mr Man, forget 2003,2015 and Buhari factor..this is 2023 everything has changed in Kaduna State, note that PDP won Three senatorial seat in Kaduna 2023...

This is why you pdp and lp guys always lose out politically.wrong calculations.so because pdp won three senate seats there,it is now pdp territory? Why did ashiru not win there?

fergie001:
The reason for the heavy celebration?

Yea, that's always the "Justice Oho-ic" way.

Justice oho how? Is he the first to give a split ruling

Dbegining:
Mr man tgat sabon gari and KADUNA soutg are PDP strong holds.

If you see the kind of celebration that took place there when it was rumoured that PDP won the election ehn, you won't even say tyoe what you put up there.

12 – SABON GARI LGA

APC 44,406

PDP 33,553

LP 972

NNPP 2706

13 – KUBAU LGA

APC 39,855

PDP 26,627

LP 604

NNPP 102

14 – ZARIA LGA

APC 78659

PDP 47091

LP 672

NNPP 2567

15 – Kaduna South LGA

APC 69170

PDP 42604

LP 2292

NNPP 1048

As you can see,Sani won there.since 2015,apc has been winning there.buhari has been winning there since 2003.pdp has no chance
Those celebrating are southern kad minorities who are bitter.so far,Sani has been ruling well

kennyz247:
Most of the polling units are PDP strong holds

APC is losing this if re-election takes place

Big lie.birnin gwari,kad south and sabon gari are apc areas.only kachia is pdp

fergie001:
That's why I said it's a technical win for APC but he has to be very careful.

Being a split judgment,the appellate can overturn it

Fulaninigger:
It's inconclusive ooo

Yes but a victory for apc if you understand election well

fergie001:
16300, 24 PUs

Waste. total with PVCs wont exceed 14000.maximum voters turnout is 50% which equals 70000.

fergie001:
That's what I heard now I am hearing that it was 2-1. One upheld that and the other two ruled for supplementary in Birnin Gwari, Kachia, Kudan & Kaduna South LGAs.

Everybody is confused.

Burning gwari,kudan and kad south are all northern kad.apc is very strong in kachia.i learnt total votes is 16000

fergie001:
Who released that Press Release on behalf of the Governor?

I understand most of the re-run PUs are in South KD. Wahala go dey ooooo!

That's not possible na.pdp issues were mostly in lere,kudan,kad city,igabi, sabongari.

fergie001:
garfield1, it was declared inconclusive but the tribunal went to that fundamental error during pre-hearing.

Which error? Premature pre hearing or late filing

seunmsg:
I don't get it. How can the tribunal declare the election inconclusive and then still go ahead to declare the governor the winner? If there was an error in the pre-hearing that affected the substance of the case, why go ahead to declare the election inconclusive?

Zoom judgment

Varunpulyani:
Who is kemi adeosun?

That was 2019.moreover a court later ruled in her favour