•Ex-governor’s lawyer: we shall appeal
Former Oyo State Governor Rashidi Ladoja yesterday lost his petition against the election of Governor Abiola Ajimobi, ending six months of legal tussle.
The governorship election petitions tribunal, sitting in Ibadan, the state capital, held that Ladoja and his party, Accord, “failed woefully” to prove their case.
In a unanimous judgment, tribunal Chairman Justice Mohammed Mayaki said Ladoja and Accord did not prove their allegations of rigging, electoral malpractices, violence and non-compliance with the Electoral Act, among others.
The tribunal resolved all the issues for determination in Ajimobi’s favour during the delivery of the four-and a half-hour judgment.
Ladoja urged the tribunal to, among others, declare him winner of the election because he polled the highest number of votes.
The former governor said Ajimobi’s election and return were voided by “acts, which clearly violate and breach various provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended, including but not limited to rigging and manipulation of election results, unprecedented acts of violence, thuggery, deliberate refusal to use card reader and allocation of votes where election did not hold”.
Ladoja also sought the cancellation of election in the 10 local government areas of Atiba, Atisbo, Iseyin, Iwajowa, Kajola, Itesiwaju, Oriire, Ogbomoso North, Ogbomoso South and Surulere.
He also sought the cancellation of results in some wards in 11 other local governments.
Ladoja urged the tribunal to declare him winner because he would be left with the highest number of votes, if the election in the above local governments and wards were cancelled.
Alternatively, the Accord candidate prayed the tribunal to order a fresh election in the state in accordance with the Electoral Act.
While reviewing the case yesterday, the three-man tribunal held that Ladoja and Accord could not prove their claims in line with the legal dictum that “he who alleges must prove”.
The tribunal faulted the star witness, Bimbo Adepoju, on points of law, describing his evidence as inadmissible since he admitted he was not an expert in electoral matters. His statements, the tribunal added, were contradictory.
Adepoju said he was a farmer, adding that he had no special skills in analysing election materials and reports.
For this reason, the tribunal held that Adepoju’s testimony could only be taken as an opinion, which could be useful anyway, but could not be taken as a body of information that the tribunal can rely on in deciding the petition.
“It is clear that Adepoju is not an expert and neither did he claim so. Some of his claims were contradictory. It is clear that voter cards, card readers and relevant INEC forms are to be handled as specified by the Electoral Act 2010 as amended.
“Though Adepoju and his team analysed the report, only experts in that area can give the kind of analysis that the court can rely on, “ Justice Mayaki said.
The tribunal held that though the petitioners alleged that election did not hold in many places, their witnesses confirmed that it held except in some units where they alleged that results were allocated in Ajimobi’s favour.
The tribunal noted that most of the evidence adduced by the petitioners and their witnesses were inadmissible as they failed to meet the requirements of the Electoral Act.
It held that the documents tendered could not demonstrate that the allegations were incontrovertible.
The documents, it said, had no evidential value, adding that the evidence did not address specific cases or allegations leveled.
“The petitioners failed woefully to relate evidence with specific allegations and incidents as claimed.
“On the whole, we hereby hold that the allegations determined above have not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the petitioners proved non-compliance, which they did not do, an election result cannot be merely invalidated, except it substantially affects the total result in favour of the respondent,” the tribunal held.
“We hold that the petitioners abandoned their reliefs and they failed woefully to establish their allegations. In view of the above, it is not worthwhile dwelling on evidence of respondents.
“The tribunal holds that the issues are resolved in favour of respondents having secured the majority of votes cast in the April 11 election, and in compliance with the Electoral Act 2010 as amended.
“Accordingly, the petition is dismissed,” the tribunal held.
Ladoja’s counsel Richard Ogunwole (SAN) said his client would appeal the judgment because the tribunal dismissed the petition on the strength of inadmissible evidence and incompetent witness.
“We won’t waste time. We won’t waste time at all. We are appealing without delay,” he said.
Ajimobi’s counsel Adebayo Ojo (SAN) hailed the judgment.
He praised the judges, saying they delivered a well-researched judgment.
The lawyer described it as the legitimisation of Ajimobi’s victory in the election.
