Aiel123:

But bvas is used for accreditation. Any issue concerning over voting ,bvas should be considered.

Did you read the jdgement?

There were more ballot papaers than BVAS.

Many polling units tallied and in about 700unites ballots were more.

Wherever they were more, they were cancelled as stipulated by law.

Simple. that judgement cannot be faulted.

NothingDoMe:
And a legally sound majority judgment has never been turned at a higher court? 🤔

Normally, a legally sound judgment would not be upturned. Of course, anything is possible, but I don't know why any lawyer would look at a sound judgement and not believe the Supreme Court would uphold it. Mr Amadi is in order.

The will of the people, The will of God will prevail in the end . Imole de Okunkun Parada ni gbogbo ipinle Osun

Omoawoke:


Does that mean that if I’m losing a polling unit, I can ensure there is over voting so they cancel the result which will eventually be in my favour

that is why you have agents.

sunray:


The primary evidence is the instrument and report of accreditation. It is so fundamental to our election success story. Anyone who votes without accreditation endangered his voting centre.

And that’s what happened in Osun. The number of voters was higher than accredited voters. All the election in that unit will be cancelled. Because it’s not possible to pick out who did not do accreditation and voted. That’s what PDP was trying to do as well as INEC expert.

SmartyPants:


Appeals are not determined on the strength of previous judgments - neither the majority or minority decision is decisive. What matters is the argument the counsels can put forth on the appeal.

you are very right here

seunmsg:


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

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

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

Boss, you still dey here? I hall oooo!

The people wey dey shout better Nigeria carry this matter for head pass PDP o. They want a fraud to stand, me con confuse ooo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Compiled by Abioye Hashim Esq.

garfield1:


Nothing like primary or secondary evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Compiled by Abioye Hashim Esq.

fuke:


Did you read the jdgement?

There were more ballot papaers than BVAS.

Many polling units tallied and in about 700unites ballots were more.

Wherever they were more, they were cancelled as stipulated by law.

Simple. that judgement cannot be faulted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Compiled by Abioye Hashim Esq.

JuanDeDios:

Normally, a legally sound judgment would not be upturned. Of course, anything is possible, but I don't know why any lawyer would look at a sound judgement and not believe the Supreme Court would uphold it. Mr Amadi is in order.

seunmsg:


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

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

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

And the first one was not manufactured by the APC and the purported INEC staff?

This brings us back to the BVAS that was used in those polling units again.

That's the best option. The report brought by the APC was not fully synchronized. Remember, the law mandated INEC to provide the report and that was the reason it was given to the APC.

NothingDoMe:
Thank you. As is usually done here, they'll package APC self convos and push to front page. Utter rubbish.

you are very right here, and when you see some posts that matters most you won’t see it on front page. I will soon leave nairaland for them if that is what the nairaland kids want to be doing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Compiled by Abioye Hashim Esq.

sunray:


The primary evidence is the instrument and report of accreditation. It is so fundamental to our election success story. Anyone who votes without accreditation endangered his voting centre.

garfield1:


Which judges

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

press9jatv:
APC propagandist talking here. No point to justify his response. He’s just an attention seeker.

sam amadi is more pdp than atiku

press9jatv:
Inec will appeal their case in the Appeal court next month when Pdp filed their appeal case too. Inec will have to substantiate the second Bvas synchronisation reports which covers the whole polling units in Osun State

Your knowledge of law is limited. INEC cannot make any new argument to substantiate the second BVAS report. They can only do that at the tribunal and they failed woefully at it. At the appeal, they can only point out any mistake or error they think was made by the Judges in the judgement.

adesola89:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Compiled by Abioye Hashim Esq.

Pure rubbish

seunmsg:



Your knowledge of law is limited. INEC cannot make any new argument to substantiate the second BVAS report. They can only do that at the tribunal and they failed woefully at it. At the appeal, they can only point out any mistake or error they think was made by the Judges in the judgement.

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





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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



- Compiled by Hashim Abioye Esq.



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

rolams:


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

sit one side. You read nothing. Else, you won't be type out of tune with reality.

adesola89:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Compiled by Abioye Hashim Esq.

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

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

garfield1:


Pure rubbish

Muchecheche, oya, bring your superior argument na to counter the lawyer

garfield1:


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

Both parties according, the judgement benefitey from overvoting. Votes were deducted for both parties, am I right? Then the law should not reward illegality by awarding victory to any of the parties. Nullification and ordering a rerun should be the just thing in this scenario if true. There is a long way to go. Gladly for me and for obvious reasons, the legal battle won't end until after the presidential election. Adeleke remains governor for at least 3months.

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

did you read what you posted? Did you see court or tribunal there? What is there is presiding officer at the polling unit and that refers to events on the day of election. Did you readbthe part that says no return and declaration should be made? Was adeleke not returned and subsequently sworn in? That section has nothing to do with tribunal. You guys should learn to read and understand. Don't read with emotion.

Bennycollins:
Both parties according, the judgement benefitey from overvoting. Votes were deducted for both parties, am I right? Then the law should not reward illegality by awarding victory to any of the parties. Nullification and ordering a rerun should be the just thing in this scenario if true. There is a long way to go. Gladly for me and for obvious reasons, the legal battle won't end until after the presidential election. Adeleke remains governor for at least 3months.

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

adesola89:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Compiled by Abioye Hashim Esq.

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

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

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

I makwa Ife?

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

He is talking about 3judges deciding the fate of thousands of voters

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


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





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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



- Compiled by Hashim Abioye Esq.



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

JuanDeDios:

Normally, a legally sound judgment would not be upturned. Of course, anything is possible, but I don't know why any lawyer would look at a sound judgement and not believe the Supreme Court would uphold it. Mr Amadi is in order.

Lol. Same lawyers that were so confident that the Supreme Court would overrule itself on IMO? Issokay.

Like I said, it's up to PDP to pursue.

rolams:


And the first one was not manufactured by the APC and the purported INEC staff?

This brings us back to the BVAS that was used in those polling units again.

That's the best option. The report brought by the APC was not fully synchronized. Remember, the law mandated INEC to provide the report and that was the reason it was given to the APC.

There is nothing like synchronized from the electoral act

rolams:


And the first one was not manufactured by the APC and the purported INEC staff?

This brings us back to the BVAS that was used in those polling units again.

That's the best option. The report brought by the APC was not fully synchronized. Remember, the law mandated INEC to provide the report and that was the reason it was given to the APC.

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

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

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