₦airaland Forum

ejimatic:
. Show us the majority judgement if it is different!

You are giving a reported speech here. Don't you get what I am saying?

tinsel:
The same tribunal also said INEC committed crime by issuing the second report. You want them to take that second report into consideration? Something they condemned. You are emotional here.

Then why not examine the machine itself?

pedel:
Sorry I initially assumed you are one of those people on Nairaland who can’t reason past their emotions.
The truth is I am pro APC but I won’t lose a minute sleep if they loose all the elections.
I never personally benefited from their being in power.
The APC government embezzled the money meant for the construction of the road leading to my house in Nigeria and signed that the road has been constructed. So screw them.
Back to the election matter:
How will INEC prove that they didn’t put the data in the BIVAS post the pendency of the suit filed by Oyetola?
Wether INEC is at fault or all the parties contributed to the over voting, one thing is constant: Section 51 of the Electoral Act 2022.
Once their is over voting the whole exercise shall be cancelled.
That’s exactly what the tribunal just established.
Both the PDP and INEC lawyers agreed that there was over voting in those polling units.

INEC had the custody of the BIVAS machine and they can not proof that they didn’t update it after the fact.

They shot themselves in the feet by the original BIVAS result they issued to the APC and Oyetola. It was a legally binding document and they can’t invalidate their own document.

The thing that should worry every reasonable Nigerian is if this same over voting should be allowed to happen in 13 states during the presidential election, it means we there shall be a rerun of the presidential election.

The INEC officers and the adhoc staff in charge of Osun election should be prosecuted and jailed.
This will ensure that our elections are credible.

Remember, BIVAS introduced in EA 2022 is to prevent the server issue Atiku and the PDP were planning to exploit in 2019.

It doesn’t matter how many votes recorded in the EC8, the vote cast must not exceed the number of voters accredited by BIVAS.

The BIVAS is the game changer.

My bro. It seems you didn't follow the case. PDP never agreed to the statement of over voting. Again, the machine was brought to the court for examination, an expert was called to examine it. Look at America election, the voting machines were examine and the judgement was based on it.

Again, INEC has been saying that the result given to the APC is yet to be fully synchronized but under the law, they are bound to issue it.

My fear is this, if care is not taken, this judgement will create an avenue to discredit our electoral system and the will of the people will always be upturned at the court. All the loser needs to do is wait till after the election, request for the unsynchronized result from the opponent stronghold and the court will base their judgement on it to pronounce the loser as the winner. The units will be cancelled and the electoral exercise will become useless.

BVAS that was used at the polling units for accreditation and the form EC8 used to write the results are the most reliable source to get the required information.

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.

tinsel:
The same tribunal also said INEC committed crime by issuing the second report. You want them to take that second report into consideration? Something they condemned. You are emotional here.

Report is not recognized by law but BVAS is.

ejimatic:
Achebe’s Eneke the bird appears in Osun election tribunal judgement
Chinua Achebe's proverbial bird made a rare appearance in court on Friday
ByAbdulqudus Ogundapo January 28, 2023 Reading Time: 3 mins read

Eneke the bird made a rare apprarance in court on Friday as the Osun State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal cited the proverbial bird in its judgement.

Eneke is a proverbial bird to which an unforgettable line on survival was attributed in Mr Achebe’s classic novel, Things Fall Apart.

In the majority judgement, read by its chairman, Terste Kume, the tribunal said former Governor Gboyega Oyetola of the All Progressives Congress (APC) won the election and not Governor Ademola Adeleke of the PDP, who was returned by INEC.

Mr Kume accused INEC officials of tampering with the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines to compromise the election in favour of Mr Adeleke.

“The said conduct of the officials of the 1st Respondent, as shown in this judgement, makes the proactive decision of Eneke, the bird in the Novel, Things Fall Apart, 1958 by Chinua Achebe very instructive. In the said novel appears these words; “Men have learnt to shoot without missing, she has learnt to fly without perching.”

Mr Achebe used the quote by the proverbial bird to illustrate how people were adapting to changes in the society in colonial time Igbo land in now South-east Nigeria.


The tribunal chairman said electoral officials manipulated the BVAS machines but did not cover their tracks.

Manipulation
Mr Kume faulted the synchronisation of the BVAS machines after the election, which INEC had cited as explanation for producing two contradictory sets of data on accredited voters.



The INEC counsel, Paul Ananaba, had during cross-examination argued that the election results in possession of the petitioners were incomplete because it was issued to them before the BVAS machines were synchronised.

The INEC counsel said the petitioners had therefore challenged the outcome of the election with incomplete data.


But the tribunal chairman insisted that the results of the election were still not accurate after the said synchronisation of the BVAS machines.

“We have looked, and evaluated the evidence of the parties as shown in the exhibits before this Tribunal. The contents of the exhibits are clear as day. The said evidence is not from the fertile and creative imagination of learned counsel for the Petitioners, as erroneously submitted by learned counsel for the Respondents in their respective reply addresses on points of law to the issues under consideration,” he said.



“The ‘synchronisation’ of the documents made by the 1st Respondent, and the physical inspection of same done by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, as shown in the table herein before reproduced, run riot to the defences raised by each of the Respondents to this petition in respect of issues 2 and 3 under consideration,” he added.

“The said ‘synchronisation’, rather than rhyme with each other are inconsistent and contradictory. The said exhibits tendered by the Respondents have not rebutted the presumption of regularity in favour of exhibit BVR and the other documents tendered by the Petitioners in this petition,

“In other words, the defences of the Respondents are plagued with fundamental mortal flaws highly irreconcilable and unreliable, incapable of defeating the credible evidence tendered by the Petitioners in respect of the 744 Polling Units were over-voting has been established.”



The Tribunal chairman maintained that evidence before the panel showed that the governorship election was not conducted in compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act.

“The inference, we hereby draw from the facts established by the evidence on record is that, the election conducted on the 16th day of July, 2022 was done in substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act (Supra), and the extant regulations made thereunder,” he noted.


“Moreover, exhibit BVR has not been withdrawn by the 1st Respondent who made and issued it. The Petitioners relied on exhibit BVR in maintaining this petition. The Respondents are hereby stopped from acting inconsistent with the import and tenor of exhibit BVR. See Section 169 of the Evidence Act (Supra). See also Thaddeus v. Atule (2022) LPELR-57539 (CA) 1 at 57-59, paras, F-A; Agboguuleri v. Depo & Ors (2008) LPELR-243 (SC) 1 at 17-18, paras, C-C; AG. Rivers State v. A.G Akwa Ibom State & Anor (2011) LPELR-633 (SC) 1 at 21-22 paras F-A and Mabamije v. Otto (2016) LPELR-26058 (SC) 1 at 15-16 paras C-B,” he cited.

“Similarly, the exhibits tendered by the Respondents after exhibit BVR, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioners were thought of after the declaration of result on the 17th day of July, 2022. See Agbonifo v. Aiwereoba (Supra); Lawal v. State (2010) LPELR-46221 (CA) 1 at 23 paras B-C; PDP & Anor v. Aminu & Anor (2019) LPELR-47330 (CA) 1 at 34-35 paras C-D and Agbo v. State (2006) LPELR-242 (SC) 1 at 43-44 paras G-B,”

“The said conduct of the Respondents, especially, the 1st Respondent amounts to tampering with official records. See Agbonifo v. Aiwereoba (Supra) at 20 – 21 paras F-A, per Nnaemeka-Agu (JSC) of blessed memory,”

“The conduct of the 1st Respondent in the said election under consideration has produced multiple accreditation reports contrary to its avowed declaration to conduct free, fair and credible elections on the basis of one man or woman with one vote.”

|

|
Tribunal chairman mocks Adeleke for dancing “Buga”
"The 2nd Respondent cannot "go lo lo lo lo" and "Buga won" as the duly elected Governor of Osun State in the election conducted on 16h day of July 2022

This is not the judgement. It is a reproduced version.

ejimatic:
Achebe’s Eneke the bird appears in Osun election tribunal judgement
Chinua Achebe's proverbial bird made a rare appearance in court on Friday
ByAbdulqudus Ogundapo January 28, 2023 Reading Time: 3 mins read

Eneke the bird made a rare apprarance in court on Friday as the Osun State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal cited the proverbial bird in its judgement.

Eneke is a proverbial bird to which an unforgettable line on survival was attributed in Mr Achebe’s classic novel, Things Fall Apart.

In the majority judgement, read by its chairman, Terste Kume, the tribunal said former Governor Gboyega Oyetola of the All Progressives Congress (APC) won the election and not Governor Ademola Adeleke of the PDP, who was returned by INEC.

Mr Kume accused INEC officials of tampering with the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) machines to compromise the election in favour of Mr Adeleke.

“The said conduct of the officials of the 1st Respondent, as shown in this judgement, makes the proactive decision of Eneke, the bird in the Novel, Things Fall Apart, 1958 by Chinua Achebe very instructive. In the said novel appears these words; “Men have learnt to shoot without missing, she has learnt to fly without perching.”

Mr Achebe used the quote by the proverbial bird to illustrate how people were adapting to changes in the society in colonial time Igbo land in now South-east Nigeria.


The tribunal chairman said electoral officials manipulated the BVAS machines but did not cover their tracks.

Manipulation
Mr Kume faulted the synchronisation of the BVAS machines after the election, which INEC had cited as explanation for producing two contradictory sets of data on accredited voters.



The INEC counsel, Paul Ananaba, had during cross-examination argued that the election results in possession of the petitioners were incomplete because it was issued to them before the BVAS machines were synchronised.

The INEC counsel said the petitioners had therefore challenged the outcome of the election with incomplete data.


But the tribunal chairman insisted that the results of the election were still not accurate after the said synchronisation of the BVAS machines.

“We have looked, and evaluated the evidence of the parties as shown in the exhibits before this Tribunal. The contents of the exhibits are clear as day. The said evidence is not from the fertile and creative imagination of learned counsel for the Petitioners, as erroneously submitted by learned counsel for the Respondents in their respective reply addresses on points of law to the issues under consideration,” he said.



“The ‘synchronisation’ of the documents made by the 1st Respondent, and the physical inspection of same done by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, as shown in the table herein before reproduced, run riot to the defences raised by each of the Respondents to this petition in respect of issues 2 and 3 under consideration,” he added.

“The said ‘synchronisation’, rather than rhyme with each other are inconsistent and contradictory. The said exhibits tendered by the Respondents have not rebutted the presumption of regularity in favour of exhibit BVR and the other documents tendered by the Petitioners in this petition,

“In other words, the defences of the Respondents are plagued with fundamental mortal flaws highly irreconcilable and unreliable, incapable of defeating the credible evidence tendered by the Petitioners in respect of the 744 Polling Units were over-voting has been established.”



The Tribunal chairman maintained that evidence before the panel showed that the governorship election was not conducted in compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act.

“The inference, we hereby draw from the facts established by the evidence on record is that, the election conducted on the 16th day of July, 2022 was done in substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act (Supra), and the extant regulations made thereunder,” he noted.


“Moreover, exhibit BVR has not been withdrawn by the 1st Respondent who made and issued it. The Petitioners relied on exhibit BVR in maintaining this petition. The Respondents are hereby stopped from acting inconsistent with the import and tenor of exhibit BVR. See Section 169 of the Evidence Act (Supra). See also Thaddeus v. Atule (2022) LPELR-57539 (CA) 1 at 57-59, paras, F-A; Agboguuleri v. Depo & Ors (2008) LPELR-243 (SC) 1 at 17-18, paras, C-C; AG. Rivers State v. A.G Akwa Ibom State & Anor (2011) LPELR-633 (SC) 1 at 21-22 paras F-A and Mabamije v. Otto (2016) LPELR-26058 (SC) 1 at 15-16 paras C-B,” he cited.

“Similarly, the exhibits tendered by the Respondents after exhibit BVR, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioners were thought of after the declaration of result on the 17th day of July, 2022. See Agbonifo v. Aiwereoba (Supra); Lawal v. State (2010) LPELR-46221 (CA) 1 at 23 paras B-C; PDP & Anor v. Aminu & Anor (2019) LPELR-47330 (CA) 1 at 34-35 paras C-D and Agbo v. State (2006) LPELR-242 (SC) 1 at 43-44 paras G-B,”

“The said conduct of the Respondents, especially, the 1st Respondent amounts to tampering with official records. See Agbonifo v. Aiwereoba (Supra) at 20 – 21 paras F-A, per Nnaemeka-Agu (JSC) of blessed memory,”

“The conduct of the 1st Respondent in the said election under consideration has produced multiple accreditation reports contrary to its avowed declaration to conduct free, fair and credible elections on the basis of one man or woman with one vote.”

|

|
Tribunal chairman mocks Adeleke for dancing “Buga”
"The 2nd Respondent cannot "go lo lo lo lo" and "Buga won" as the duly elected Governor of Osun State in the election conducted on 16h day of July 2022

Then, what stop the court from using the BVAS itself as the solution? Server result is not recognized by the constitution.

sunray:
Blame INEC who generated 3 conflicting reports on BVAS. They cannot convince the judges.

Base on this point of yours, don't you think it's a miscarriage of justice if one of the contestants is meant to suffer the shortcomings of INEC. According to your view ooo.

My dear, there is nothing like server at the polling units therefore, the judgement should be based on the materials present at the polling units where the election took place.

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?

Who is this abeg?

pedel:
What are you talking about? Did you read a copy of the majority judgement or you only read the emotional comments on Nairaland?
INEC contributed to the cancellation of the election because they didn’t follow their own rule.
The BIVAS data and form EC8 they gave to Oyetola shows that the number didn’t tally. Don’t forget this was the number they used in declaring the winner.
Oyetola went to the tribunal based on that.
INEC realised they messed up, they issued another BIVAS data calling it a supplementary result.
The number of actual vote cast as recorded in EC8 is more than the numbers of voters accredited by BIVAS. This is a case of over voting and according to the Electoral Act 2022, the votes has to be cancelled.
INEC allowed people who were not accredited by BIVAS to put put their ballot paper in the box.
The day of stuffing ballots is over. People can not sit in one room and thumb print thousands of ballot paper and dump it in the ballot after colliding with INEC officials.
The BIVAS is the game changer.
If you allow unaccredited person to vote in your polling unit, you risk cancellation of the entire election in that unit.
Stop being sentimental. SC will not be able to impeach the ruling of the tribunal.
When you find your stolen phone in the pocket of someone and they have removed your SIM card and changed the phone case will you agree that the person is not a thief?
Stop allowing Nigeria politics to damage your brain. Think with facts; not emotions.

Sorry, you need to be neutral before you can understand what I am saying. If INEC commits a blunder, it will be unfair to make a candidate suffer the effect.

To correct this, all the necessary materials must be examine. The machine used were brought to the court for examination but was it examine?

This man is stylishly regretting his defection. He is seeing the reality now.

Johnthejohn:
Adeleke must be wasting his time and resources, PDP cannot be allowed to Rig election and go scot-free

Yes, only the APC is allowed right?

Advocate500:
be prepared for agitation after February, because politics is all about participation not turn by turn venture.

This is a very loud and big statement. Some may not understand it.

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

I got you my bro. But he didn't understand the view of the third judge.

garfield1:
Bvas and bvas reports are the same

No my bro. BVAS is the machine itself while the report is a paper.

ejimatic:
What is the secondary evidence used as the basis of the judgment?

We are having two conflicting reports here, the best option is to examine the machine through which the data was gotten from.

garfield1:
Not true.bvas reports are the data sent directly from bvas after accreditation and election except you mean even the results declared can be written and compromised.

Since BVAS report are the data sent directly from the BVAS and we are having two different ones, then the best option is to examine the machine through which the data are obtained.

garfield1:
Section 64 has made voters register irrelevant in proving overvoting.check section 64(2-7)

I get your point but in this case there is no option than examining all the required tools such as BVAS, form E8 and the the voters card.

It's a miscarriage of justice is the judgement is based on the BVAS report submitted by the petitioner alone.

pedel:
Who issued the conflicting reports?

That's why the court must examine the BVAS machine, voters register and form E8.

seunmsg:
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.

Certified true copy doesn't mean it has been fully synchronized. I didn't say APC manufactured it. It was your statement that me used that word.

BVAS report is different from BVAS machine. Voters register was not consider in the judgement too.

garfield1:
Bvas and bvas reports are the same

No my brother. BVAS report can be written and compromised easily.

ejimatic:
What is the primary evidence?

BVAS machines used at the said polling units, Result sheet and voters register.

garfield1:
Which judges

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

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.

garfield1:
Nothing like primary or secondary evidence

How? What will the judges base their judgement on?

tabaralph:
It’s either you are not following the tribunal proceedings or you just want to be clever by half, do you know that the osun state inec confessed at the tribunal that there was over voting in more than 700 polling units?

No, he never said that. He said there was a seemingly over voting from the report submitted by the APC because of the synchronization that has not been completed.

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.

That's more reason why the BVAS should be the basis of the judgement.

duro4chang:
Did you read the judgment or you just rely on nairalanders and their emotional comments? INEC made a real mistake. INEC can't appeal because it was faulty.

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

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?

Aify147:
Atiku, the events of things have overtaken you. You’re not destined to be president in your lifetime. Buhari spoilt that destiny for you in 2019 with rigging. It was clear you won in 2019, and that was the only time you could have been president. Just respect nature and go and rest

Has the day of election passed by?

At where?