•Tribunal overrules PDP, Adeleke’s objection to admit INEC’s guidelines
•Judge chides lawyer to get organised
The Osun State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal has heard that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is, by law, allowed to rectify discrepancies in entries in election result sheets.
Three witnesses called by Osun State Governor Adegboyega Oyetola at the resumed sitting of the tribunal yesterday in Abuja, the nation’s capital, said they were trained in the operation of INEC’s Manual and Electoral Guidelines before they were engaged as agents of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the last governorship election in the state.
The witnesses – Bello Mukaila, Olatitoye Sodeeq, Iyiola Ismail, who served as APC polling unit agents in Osogbo and Ikire – said they learnt during training that INEC reserves the right to correct errors in result sheets and that such correction is valid once it is signed by the official who effected the correction.
They also identified some of the result sheets on which such discrepancies were corrected. Some of the result sheets were from polling units won by the APC and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
The tribunal is hearing the petition by the PDP and its candidate in the last governorship election in Osun State, Senator Ademola Adeleke.
Adeleke witnessed the tribunal’s proceedings, sitting from the beginning of proceedings (10 a.m) till around noon.
The legal team of the PDP and Adeleke got an additional hand yesterday with the attendance of proceedings by former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Kanu Agabi (SAN).
Though Agabi announced his appearance, but he allowed Onyechi Ikpeazu to conduct the petitioners’ case.
Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who led Oyetola’s legal team, also allowed Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN) to conduct his client’s case, though he intervened occasionally.
Olanipekun contributed to the argument that arose when Ikpeazu objected to move by APC’s lawyer Lasun Sanusi (SAN) to tender a copy of INEC’s Manual and Electoral Guideline for the election through Mukaila (the first witness of the day).
Olanipekun argued in support of the document’s admission and faulted Ikpeazu’s position that the document could not be admitted because it was not front-loaded.
In its ruling, the tribunal, led by Justice Ibrahim Sirajon, upheld the argument by Olanipekun and Sanusi and admitted the document in evidence.
Mukaila, who was Oyetola’s eighth witness, was the first witness for the day.
Led in evidence by Owonikoko, the witness, who described himself as teacher, said he was APC’s agent at Unit 3 Ward 6 in Osogbo, Olorunda Local Government Area.
Under cross-examination by Sanusi, Mukaila recalled that before they were deployed in the field, INEC trained them and took them through its Manual and Guideline for the conduct of elections.
Sanusi showed the witness a copy of the guideline, which the witness confirmed. It was when Sanusi applied to tender the document that Ikpeazu objected.
The tribunal rose briefly after taking arguments and returned few minutes later to deliver a ruling.
Justice Sirajo noted that the approved guidelines and regulation for the conduct of election, which Sanusi sought to tender, was a subsidiary regulation and certified true copy (CTC) of the actual one.
The tribunal chairman also noted that the witness testified on the document when he said they were trained with it.
He added that the document was one of the species of documents that the court could take judicial notice of, irrespective of the fact that it was being tendered by the third respondent.
He held that the objection by Ikpeazu “is misconceived; it is admitted and marked as Exhibit R112”.
After the ruling, Sanusi, who continued with his cross-examination of Mukaila, asked him to read a portion of the guideline, which contained how to resolve discrepancies in entries in result sheets.
Under cross-examination by Ikpeazu, the witness said the alterations that were visible on the white copy of the result sheet from his unit, could not be seen in the pink copy (the duplicate copy).
Sodeeq, who described himself as an aluminium fabricator, urged the tribunal to admit his written statement.
Under cross-examination by INEC’s lawyer Adeshina Agbede, the witness said he stood by the information in the statement he made before the tribunal and adopted yesterday.
Under further cross-examination by Sanusi, the witness said he and others were trained by INEC for five days before they served as party agents.
He said they were shown INEC guidelines during training, and identified the guidelines when they were shown to him.
Sodeeq said: “According to the training we got, we were told any discrepancies could be corrected at the Collation Centre by INEC officials.”
The third witness, Ismail, from Ikire in Irewole Local Government Area, described himself as a decoder installer. He said he served as APC agent in Unit 2 Ward 4, in the local government.
Under cross-examination by Agbede, the witness said there were cancellations in the result sheet from his unit and that the cancellations (which are only visible in the white copy of the result sheet) were initialled (as required) only on the white copy, which cannot be seen in the pink copy.
While being cross-examined by Sanusi, Ismail said he was trained, with others by INEC. He confirmed that the PDP won election in his polling unit
He confirmed here are some corrections in the white copy of the result sheet. He said INEC trained them on how corrections could be rectified.
The witness said, to his knowledge, no PDP agent complained about the alterations in the white result sheet.
Ismail added: “INEC told us at training that it reserves the prerogative to correct any discrepancies at the collation centre. It was that understanding that made us to append our signatures, despite noticing some of these discrepancies.”
Under cross-examination by Ikpeazu, the witness said he was not present when the cancellations were made on the white copy of the result sheet.
He said he did not know who did the cancellations.
When Ismail concluded his testimony, Olanipekun told the tribunal that the witness was his team’s last witness for the day.
He sought an adjournment to enable them proper for the next day.
Justice Sirajo granted his request and adjourned till today.
At the commencement of proceedings, Justice Sirajo advised Ikpeazu to be organised.
The judge’s advice was informed by the discrepancies noted in the list of lawyers he submitted to court and the one with him.
Ikpeazu announced the names of some lawyers in his team and left some out, an omission the judge noted from the list submitted to the tribunal.
The tribunal chairman later called out the names of about five lawyers, who were omitted by Ikpeazu, following which the petitioners’ lawyer apologised.
Justice Sirajo said: “Get more organised, please; get more organised. That is all I have to say for today. Get more organised.”
During the proceedings of the previous day (January 30), the judge lauded the candour of the witnesses of the second respondent, who he observed appeared truthful.
He noted that, unlike some of the petitioners’ witnesses, who demanded to be provided with calculator to do simple additions, Oyetola’s witnesses added figures, when asked to do so, without making excuses or outrageous demands.