₦airaland Forum

The Osun election Tribunal also indicted INEC in their ruling.
No wonder INEC did not want to join in the appeal.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DeeOneAyekooto/status/1619689396869160961

Election malpractice will never be allowed by PDP Rigging machine

So serious

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


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

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.

tinsel:
The Osun election Tribunal also indicted INEC in their ruling.
No wonder INEC did not want to join in the appeal.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DeeOneAyekooto/status/1619689396869160961

PDP has less than 10% chance of surviving at appeal and supreme Court.

Adeleke is a goner, imole re ti wokun losun, ileri oluwa ti see

muykem:
PDP has less than 10% chance of surviving at appeal and supreme Court.

How? Have you forgotten the same server report was rejected by the court when presented by Atiku against Buhari?

Was server part of the electoral act?

Was server part of the electoral materials used at the polling units?

Was server part of the material for the determinant of the winner in an election?

rolams:
How? Have you forgotten the same server report was rejected by the court when presented by Atiku against Buhari?

Was server part of the electoral act?

Was server part of the electoral materials used at the polling units?

Was server part of the material for the determinant of the winner in an election?

No. BVAS is only acceptance object for accreditation in our law today and INEC certified reports on BVAS is final.

Johnnyessence:
Why Ademola Nurudeen Jackson Adeleke will win in the Appeal court and Supreme Court of justice in the next 4 months . Read the highlights here


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

The shape of the mouth of the lawyer shows that he will be telling plenty of lies. Has he sat down to ask himself: where did the report on the server come from? Who planted it on INEC server. Awon olodo!!!

drlateef:
The shape of the mouth of the lawyer shows that he will be telling plenty of lies. Has he sat down to ask himself: where did the report on the server come from? Who planted it on INEC server. Awon olodo!!!

what he said really pained you. Eku Atemora

muykem:
No. BVAS is only acceptance object for accreditation in our law today and INEC certified reports on BVAS is final.

If BVAS is for accreditation and form EC8 is meant for results. Then, to determine the issue at hand, BVAS is supposed to be examine at the court and the judgement should be base on it and the result sheet.

rolams:
If BVAS is for accreditation and form EC8 is meant for results. Then, to determine the issue at hand, BVAS is supposed to be examine at the court and the judgement should be base on it and the result sheet.

That is what happened

Tribunal judgement is really giving them sleepless nights. PDLP are seriously labouring in vain. The mother of all shock is coming in 25 days time.

rolams:
If BVAS is for accreditation and form EC8 is meant for results. Then, to determine the issue at hand, BVAS is supposed to be examine at the court and the judgement should be base on it and the result sheet.

Abeg enlighten him more . Fergie001 I want your input on this response here

Ok

rolams:
If BVAS is for accreditation and form EC8 is meant for results. Then, to determine the issue at hand, BVAS is supposed to be examine at the court and the judgement should be base on it and the result sheet.

BVAS machines were brought to the tribunal after sitting has started so it had already subjected to manipulation in the face of law especially when INEC also brought another BVAS report. That's after thought and face saving.

muykem:
BVAS machines were brought to the tribunal after sitting has started so it had already subjected to manipulation in the face of law especially when INEC also brought another BVAS report. That's after thought and face saving.

Very funny of you. What's the essence of forensic expert brought to the court?