The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Osun State

  • S’ West leaders must change tactics to actualise restructuring, says Fayemi

    Ekiti State Governor Dr. Kayode Fayemi has said the Yoruba race needs to be more tactical to actualise the call for restructuring.

    Fayemi urged the proponents of the policy in the region to change strategy and reach out to other regions on how to actualise the dream of Nigeria being restructured economically and politically.

    Fayemi spoke in Ado Ekiti on Saturday at the opening session of the 2019 National retreat of the Afenifere Renewal Group (ARG).

    Fayemi said: “There are those who entertained fear on this issue of restructuring and whether this is legitimate or not, we must reach out to them, because we are not an island onto ourselves.

    “We don’t need to be shouting on the roof top before we get it, but if we want to do it alone, the agitation will fall,” he warned.

    Expressing regret over voter apathy in the southwest, Fayemi said a situation where the total number of votes cast in all the states in the region was less than 50 percent of the total registered voters is worrisome.

    “In the last presidential poll,  Ekiti registered 909,000 voters , only 381,000 voted, 0sun 1.67million , only 737,000 voted, Ondo, 1.8m registered , 586,00, Oyo, 2.7m registered , 891,000 voted, 2.36m registered  in Ogun, 605,000 voted and Lagos with 6.3m, only 1.56m voted,” he stressed.

    He said whatever might be the reason for the low turnout of voters must be critically examined to properly correct the situation.

    “This might be caused by deficit of trust or fraudulent multiple registration, but whatever the case was, as long as we remain a constituent part of this country, ARG should reflect on this and act appropriately.

    “If it was as a result of deficit of voter education, then the ARG and governments need a lot to do.”

    Fayemi said the Yoruba Academy and the DAWN Commission should also help look into issues that directly affect the region including voter apathy, influence of religion, economic development among others.

    Also speaking at the event, Governor of Ondo State Rotimi Akeredolu and his Osun State counterpart, Gboyega Oyetola, said all the distinguishable traits of the southwest region initiated during the old western region must be brought back in the interest of the zone.

    The Osun governor, who was represented by his Chief of Staff, Dr. Charles Akinola, said: “The Yorubaness in us and those things that separated us from others are our developmental drives, our intellectual rigour, our brilliance, circumspection  and those values however, have  not really taken us to where we deserve”.

    Read also: We have recorded success against Boko Haram – Army

    Oyetola also appealed to the southwest governments to  leverage on its human capital in the diaspora and bring them home for the benefit of all.

    Akeredolu, represented by Commissioner for Regional Integration, Prof Bayonle Ademodi, added that the southwest is also facing serious economic and political crises that needed to be addressed.

    “We have to be really worried that the instability and insecurity in the Sahel has started affecting us and we need to get worried.

    “We knew we had  to think outside the box in the southwest on how to bring our own paradigm and we thought of Development Agenda for Western Nigeria (DAWN) to work on how to put us back on the right track.

    The National Chairman of the group, Hon Wale Oshun, reiterated the issue of restructuring and advised that it should be taken back to the front burner to benefit the Yoruba race.

    “The Yoruba people are progressive people. We are lovely and we care for each other. We are welfarists and we remain the same despite out stand in the just concluded governorship and legislative elections.

    “All we want as a people is to ensure that our interests at the national level are protected and that we get a fair deal in the scheme of things”.

    Oshun, however, expressed feat that Yoruba language is fast going into extinction due to paradigm shift caused by globalisation and laxity on the part of some parents.

  • Can Osun tribunal majority verdict stand appeal test?

    Does Section 140 of the Electoral Act permit a tribunal to declare a winner by calculating figures after cancelling results? No, says Osun State Election Petition Tribunal’s Chairman Justice Muhammad Sirajo. JOSEPH JIBUEZE reviews his dissenting verdict.

    ALL eyes are on the Court of Appeal as the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Osun State and Governor Gboyega Oyetola are set to challenge the majority judgment of the Election Petitions Tribunal which declared Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate Senator Ademola Adeleke winner of last September’s governorship election.

    APC Publicity Secretary Kunle Oyatomi said the tribunal’s decision cannot stand “superior legal scrutiny”.

    Oyetola reiterated his party’s position, saying there was no cause for alarm as he was still in charge.

    A statement by the Secretary to the State Government, Mr Wole Oyebamiji, said: “The administration of His Excellency, Mr Adegboyega Oyetola, Governor, State of Osun, wishes to assure the people that the judgment of the Election Tribunal has been put on appeal.”

    The majority verdict

    The tribunal consisted of three members: Justice Muhammad Sirajo (chairman), Justice Peter Obiorah (member I) and Justice Adegboye Gbolagunte (member II).

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Adegboyega Isiaka Oyetola and All Progressives Congress (APC) were the respondents.

    Justice Obiorah delivered the 223-page majority judgment. He returned Adeleke as Osun Governor-elect.

    His decision was based on the ground that the rerun of last September 27 was unlawful or invalid as the Returning Officer (RO) had no power to cancel results in seven polling units across three Local Government Areas where the rerun took place.

    The majority decision believed the petitioners’ pleadings that there was no ground for the rerun.

    The majority verdict deducted votes for both the APC and PDP in other polling units across some LGAs on the ground that there were non-compliance with the Electoral Act and that the non-compliance affected the outcome.

    The tribunal, in the majority judgment, also cancelled results from 17 polling units on grounds of substantial non-compliance with Electoral Act.

    The non-compliance, according to Justice Obiorah, was INEC’s failure to fill Form EC8A and some alleged alterations or forgery on the form.

    Form EC8A documents accreditation and ballot accounting. There is a column in the Form where INEC is required to enter those figures.

    However, the majority judgment also concluded that even if the rerun was not discounted or invalidated or was allowed to stay, Adeleke would still have won after those deductions in the other 23-50 units in other parts of the state.

    But, was the majority judgment right to have cancelled the rerun and deducted votes of both parties?

    That’s the fulcrum of the minority judgment and the only two issues on which Justice Sirajo disagreed with the majority judgment.

    The minority judgment

    Justice Sirajo said he had the privilege of reading the majority judgment.

    “I participated actively and contributed immensely by personally writing some portions of the judgment just delivered,” he said.

    He, however, disagreed with the decisions and conclusions reached in the majority judgment.

    Justice Sirajo differed on the aspects which border on allegations of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, particularly the allegation of non-recording of columns of result sheets designed to document accreditation and ballot accounting.

    He added: “I also disagree with the majority decision and conclusion on the lawfulness or validity of the re-run election of 27/09/2018. Other than these two substantive issues, I adopt the entire review of the pleadings and the evidence…”

    Giving his reasons, Justice Sirajo noted that the petitions challenged the cancellation in seven polling units across four LGAs – Orolu, Ife North, Ife South and Osogbo.

    The petitions had contended that that the RO lacked the legal right to cancel the result of the seven polling units.

    Justice Sirajo said the question was whether the RO had the power to order a rerun .

    He held: “By virtue of the INEC Guidelines, paragraph 44(n) thereof, the Manuals of Election Officials 2018 made pursuant to the powers donated to the first respondent (INEC) by the Electoral Act, the RO has the vires to order a rerun where the margin of win between the two leading candidates is less than the total number of registered voters where elections were cancelled or did not hold.”

    The judge referred to the case of Faleke vs INEC (2016), in which the Supreme Court held: …The first respondent was correct when it declared the election of 21/11/2015 inconclusive on the ground that the margin of win between the two front-runners at the election was less than the total number of registered voters in 91 affected polling units where elections were cancelled.

    According to Justice Sirajo, with regards to the polling units where election did not hold, the RO’s power to order a rerun “need no further scrutiny”.

    Having held that the RO had the power to declare an election inconclusive and order a supplementary election, the judge added: “It is in the exercise of that power that the governorship election in Osun State was declared inconclusive and a rerun ordered.

    “In the final analysis, I hold that the rerun election conducted on September 27, 2018 is valid. I also hold that the cases of Doma vs INEC and Ikpeazu vs Otti do not apply in the instant petition as the petitioners have failed to show that there was cancellation of election and who did the cancellation.

    “Merely declaring an election inconclusive does not necessarily imply that an election was cancelled.”

    Non-recording of columns in result sheets

    The petitioners had argued that non-recording of items in the result sheets was to shield the wrongful entries made as to the votes of the parties and the result of accreditation.

    Justice Sirajo found that none of the witnesses called by the petitioners bothered to explain in their evidence-in-chief the nature of the non-compliance and how it substantially affected the result of the election.

    He noted that the only grouse the petitioners had with the results in the 23 polling units was that the data for accreditation and ballot papers were not entered in the Forms EC8A, and as a result of this omission they want the results of the affected units cancelled.

    This, he said, is even as their witnesses said they had no problem with the votes credited to the parties in the result sheets.

    According to the judge, there was “abundant evidence” that there was accreditation in all the 23 polling units as admitted by the petitioners’ witnesses.

    Consequence of INEC’s failure to record accreditation columns

    “What then is the consequence of INEC’s failure to record the columns for accreditation and ballot accounting in the result sheets for those 23 polling units?,” Justice Sirajo asked.

    In answering the question, he referred to Section 139 (1) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).

    It says: An election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of this Act if it appears to the Election Tribunal/or Court that the election was conducted substantially in according with the principle of this Act and that the non-compliance did not affect not affect substantially the result of the election.

    Justice Sirajo emphasised that the process of an election in a polling unit begins with accreditation, casting of votes, sorting and counting of ballot papers, announcement of scores for political parties, recording of scores in the appropriate form together with the figures of accredited voters and account of ballot papers.

    “It is clear from the above provision that it is not every non-compliance or deviation with the provisions of the Act that will lead to invalidation of an election.

    “The framers of the Electoral Act are fully conscious of the human fallibility. That is why the statute did not expect and call for absolute compliance with its provisions.

    “The degree of compliance required to validate an election is substantial compliance. For any non-compliance to have the effect of invalidating an election, such non-compliance must in itself be substantial and must have substantially affected the result of the election,” he said.

    According to the judge, a petitioner who alleges non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act must not only assert and establish it, he must prove to the Tribunal’s satisfaction how the non-compliance affected the result of the election in the polling unit or constituency concerned.

    “In this petition, it is not in dispute that about 90 per cent of the processes involved in the conduct of election in a polling unit have been fully complied with.

    “Voters were duly accredited before they cast their votes. At the conclusion of voting, ballot papers were sorted out and counted.

    “The presiding officers announced the votes scored by the parties, entered the figures in the result sheets and signed. The party agents counter-signed the result sheets and collected copies,” Justice Sirajo said.

    According to the judge, the only non-compliance is that the presiding officers did not record the columns for accreditation and ballot accounting data.

    “There is no complaint that the election in those 23 polling units was afflicted by any irregularity.

    “I am satisfied that there is non-compliance by way of omission to record the columns for accreditation and ballot accounting in the 23 polling units out of the 3,010 polling units in Osun State,” he said.

    Justice Sirajo added: “I hold that the omission to record the colums for accreditation and ballot paper accounting on the result sheets, though a non-compliance, did not amount to substantial non-compliance.”

    He noted that the petitioners merely “chorusing” that the results sheets were “doctored”, “mutilated” or “altered” “does not amount to demonstration of how the non-compliance affected the result of the election.”

    His verdict

    Justice Sirajo held that the net result of his analysis is that the petitioners failed to show how the non-compliance with recording of the columns substantially affected the results of the election in the polling units as to lead to their cancellation.

    “In the final analysis, I hold that this specie of non-compliance is not substantial, and that even if it is substantial, ihasnot been proved that it substantially affected the result of the Osun State Governorship election held on 22/09/2018 and 27/09/2018.

    “Let me conclude by saying that even if this specie of non-compliance is found to be substantial as to affect  substantially the result of the election, the tribunal does not have the vires to subtract the votes affected by the non-compliance from the scores of the candidates and proceed to declare the candidate with the highest number of votes as the winner of the election.”

    Justice Sirajo was of the view that Section 140 of the Electoral Act 2010 does not permit the court to declare a winner by calculating figures after cancelling results.

    Read also: Osun: Ebora Owu finds mojo

    He held that the court can only order a supplementary election where it is convinced there were irregularities, as only INEC can declare the winner of an election.

    His words: “The last remark is informed by the provisions of Section 140 (2) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), which gives the Tribunal the power to only order a fresh or rerun election where non-compliance is established…

    “It is the law that where an allegation of non-compliance is proved, the Tribunal is only permitted to nullify the election and order a supplementary election in order not to disenfranchise voters in the affected areas in line with the principles of the Act.”

    Section 140 (2) provides: Where an election or tribunal or court nullifies an election on the ground that the person who obtained the highest votes at the election was not qualified to contest the election, or that the election was marred by substantial irregularities or non-compliance with the provisions of this Act, the election tribunal or court should not declare the person with the second highest votes or any other person as elected, but shall order for a fresh election.

    In the words of Justice Sirajo, “this is a mandatory provision that cannot be circumvented by the Tribunal or court.”

    He added: “The allegation we are dealing with here is allegation of non-compliance and it falls squarely under this sub-section of Section 140 of the Electoral Act.

    “There is no escaping from this sub-section and its effect, so long as the allegation is predicated on non-compliance.

    “I only need to add that an order for fresh or supplementary election referred to in Section 140 (2) quoted above can only be made where it is expressly asked for by the petitioners as the Tribunal is not a charity.

    “Having resolved these two important issues against the petitioners, I hold that the petition has no merit and same is hereby dismissed by me. I award the sum of N200,000 cost to each of the second and third respondents,” Justice Sirajo held.

    An expert’s view

    A law lecturer at the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Dr Misbau Lateef, said he was looking forward to the Court of Appeal decision.

    In an article published on loyalnigerianlawyer.com, he writes: “In my own personal analogy, this is how I treated that error of majority in deducting votes merely because INEC did not fill certain columns or even altered certain columns of Form EC8A, an act regarded by the Majority as non-compliance.

    “Pleadings of the Petitioner which swayed the majority judgment to deduct votes for both APC and PDP in some 23-50 units is like someone contesting the legitimacy of the birth or birthday of a child simply because certain important columns in the birth register in the hospital were not filled by the hospital officials, although the official gave a duplicate copy of birth certificate to the parents which contained all details.

    “Thus, if the doctor who took delivery, the matron who nursed the mother and baby, the mother of the child, the father and others present at birth are unanimous on the fact of birth and the date of birth, will failure of the hospital official to enter certain important columns – even if it’s date of birth – in the register of birth in the hospital amount to a substantial non-compliance with registration of birth, such that it can defeat the above unanimous evidence of everyone concerning the birth and date of birth of the child? No!!!!

    “Finally, I seriously think the majority judgment was wrong on all fronts. They ought not to have deducted votes as the alleged non-compliance was not substantial and was not proved to be substantial by the Petitioner in line with s.139 (2) of the E.A noted above.

    “They also ought not to have cancelled the rerun on the erroneous ground that the RO cancelled elections in those seven units across three LGs, when there was no such categorical proof before them…,” Lateef said.

    Too early to celebrate

    Legal observers have asked PDP supporters not to celebrate until they cross  Court of Appeal and Supreme Court hurdles.

    They point to the Taraba experience in which huge celebrations trailed the tribunal’s sacking of PDP’s Darius Ishaku and return of Senator Aisha Alhassan as governor, only for Alhassan to lose at the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, both of which held that the lower Tribunal grossly misdirected itself by nullifying Ishaku’s victory.

  • APC defiant as tribunal voids Oyetola’s election

    The Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal yesterday voided the election of Adegboyega Oyetola of the All Progressives Party (APC) as governor of Osun State.

    In a two-to-one split decision by a three-man panel, the tribunal declared Senator Ademola Adeleke of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) winner of the election and ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue him with a certificate of return.

    Justice Peter Obiora, who read the majority judgment on the petition by Adeleke and the PDP, held that the petitioners were able to prove their allegations of irregularities and substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act in the conduct of the governorship election in Osun State on September 22 and 27, 2018.

    Justices Obiora and Anyinla Gbolagunte, in the majority judgment, held that the petitioners were able to prove irregularities in the results declared by INEC in relation to 17 polling units that cut across about five local government areas.

    The tribunal Chairman, Justice Ibrahim Sirajo, however, disagreed with the two other judges and gave a minority judgment in which he dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petitioners failed to prove their case.

    Justice Obiora held in the majority judgment that the tribunal was left with no option but to believe that INEC altered results sheets from the 17 polling units after elections had been counted and party agents signed.

    He said the similarity in the alteration in the copies of the result sheets, which were not reflected in the pink copies issued to party agents, and the failure of INEC official to fill the first eight columns of the result sheets, betrayed a fraudulent intention on the party of INEC.

    Justice Obiora proceeded to cancel the results in the 17 polling units affected on the grounds that the petitioners did not only to prove that the non-compliance was substantial, but also that the non-compliance substantially affected the outcome of the election.

    The judge noted that in the 17 polling units, which was cancelled, the APC scored 2029 votes, while the PDP scored 1249 votes.

    Justice Obiora, also in the majority decision, voided the rerun election held on September 27, 2018.

    He held that the state returning officer, who announced the cancellation of election results in the seven polling units cutting across four local governments in which the rerun elections were held, acted outside his/her powers.

    Justice Obiora said a state returning officer has no power under any law to cancel an election and order a rerun.

    He then proceeded to deduct the results cancelled in the majority judgment from the total scores of both the APC and PDP both before and after the rerun election

    Justice Obiora said: “By our earlier calculation, the votes affected by non-compliance are: APC-2,029; PDP-1,246, which we hereby nullify.

    “If the above votes are deducted from the scores of the parties as at September 22, 2018 election, the stand of the parties will be as follows:

    “APC: 254,345 votes, minus 2,029 votes equals 252,315 votes. PDP: 264,698 votes, minus 1,246 votes, equals 253,452 votes.

    “If per chance, the rerun election is found to be valid, and the final scores of the parties declared after the rerun election of September 27, 2018 is allowed to stand, then deducting the votes that were found to be afflicted by non-compliance shall stand the parties in the following scores:

    “APC: 255,505 votes, minus 202,029 votes, equals 253,476 votes. PDP: 255,023 votes, minus the afflicted votes of non-compliance which is 1,246, will give us 253,777 votes.

    “In both situations, it is obvious that the petitioners won the election into the office of the Governor of Osun State.”

    Justice Obiora awarded N200,000 cost against the APC and Oyetola, in favour of the petitioners.

    Sirajo, in minority judgment, said the rerun election of 27th September 2018 was properly held.

    He noted that the petitioners failed to prove that election results were actually conducted in the seven polling units in which the rerun elections were held and that it was the state returning officer that cancelled the result.

    Sirajo also faulted the majority judgment position that the non-recording of accreditation and voting record in the result sheet substantially affected the outcome of the election.

    He held that under Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act, the tribunal lacked the powers to have deducted the cancelled votes and declare the petitioners winners.

    Justice Sirajo said: “It is the law that where there is no accreditation, the resultant votes are unlawful votes as the election itself is null and void.”

    “The legal implication of non-accreditation cannot be applied to the 23 polling units under consideration, in view of the abundant evidence of accreditation in all the 23 poling units through the affirmative evidence of the petitioner witnesses.

    “The non-filing of information in some portion of the result sheets were not sufficient to have prompted the tribunal to cancel the election in the 17 of the 23 polling units under review.

    “In this petition, it is not in dispute that about 90 per cent of the process involved in the conduct of election in a polling unit have been fully complied with. Voters were duly accredited before they cast their votes.

    “At the conclusion of voting, ballot papers were sorted out and counted. The presiding officers announced the votes scored by the parties, entered the figures in the result sheets and signed.

    “The parties’ agents counter-signed the result sheets and collected copies. The only non-compliance is that the collation officer did not record the column for accreditation and ballot accounting. There is no complaint that the poling units were afflicted by any other irregularities

    “I am satisfied that there is non-compliance by way of omission to record the columns accreditation and ballot accounting in the 23 polling units out of the total 3010 polling units. What then is the degree of non-compliance? Has it attained the degree of substantial non-compliance?

    “I hold that the omission to record the column of accreditation and ballot accounting in the result sheet does not amount to substantial non-compliance

    “Merely chorusing that the certified true copies of the result sheets were doctored, altered or mutilated, as did by the petitioners’ witnesses before the tribunal does not amount to demonstration of how the alleged non-compliance substantially affected the results of the election.

    “The net result of my analysis above is that the petitioners have failed to show how the non-compliance, with respect to the recording of the columns for accreditation and ballot accounting in 23 polling units substantially affected the results of the election in those polling units as to lead to their cancellation.

    “In the final analysis, I hold that this specie of non-compliance is not substantial, and even if it is substantial, it has not been proved that it substantially affected the result of the Osun State Governor’s election held on the 22nd September 2018 and 27th September 2018.

    “Let me conclude by saying that even if this specie of non-compliance is found to be substantial, as to substantially affect the results of the election, the tribunal does not have the power to subtract the votes affected by the non-compliance from the scores of the candidates and proceed to declare the candidate with the highest number of votes as the winner of the election. The tribunal does not have that power.

    “This my remark is informed by the provision of Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), which gives the tribunal the power to only order a fresh or rerun election where non-compliance is established.

    “By no stretch of imagination or ingenuity of reasoning can a tribunal import the provision of section 140(3) of the Electoral Act into Section 140(2) of the same Act, where the proved electoral malfeasance is substantial non-compliance.

    “Where the allegation of non-compliance is proved, the tribunal is only permitted to nullify the election and order a supplementary election in order not to disenfranchise voters in the affected polling units in line with the principle of the Act.

    “I only need to add that the order for a supplementary election can only be made where it is expressly asked for.”

    He proceeded to dismiss the petition and awarded cost of N200,000 each in favour of the APC and Oyetola, against the petitioners.

  • Judgment won’t stand, says Osun APC

    In a swift reaction to the judgment yesterday, the APC in Osun State rejected the Election Petition Tribunal’s verdict.

    A statement issued by the APC’s Director of Publicity, Research and Strategy in Osun State, Mr. Kunle Oyatomi, yesterday said “the verdict cannot stand superior legal scrutiny. Therefore we will appeal against it.”

    The Osun State Government also urged the people to remain calm and go about their lawful activities following the tribunal judgment.

    It reassured the people of their safety as well as the security of their property, saying that the “government of the State is still the only legitimate Government having the authority to govern the State.”

    The statement said an appeal on the judgment had been filed.

    A statement issued by the Secretary to the State Government (SSG) Mr. Wole Oyebamiji, said: “The Government of the State of Osun wishes to appreciate the teeming support of the majority of the people in all things essential for mutual progress.

    “As it is, the administration of His Excellency, Mr. Adegboyega Oyetola, Governor, State of Osun, wishes to assure the people that the judgment of the Election Tribunal has been put on appeal.

    “This is to further assure all the residents of the State of adequate security of lives and properties, as the Government of the State is still the only legitimate Government having the authority to govern the State.

    “We assure all our people that justice will prevail at last, and the law enforcement agencies have been instructed to maintain law and order across the state.

    “We, therefore, urge all the residents of the state to go about their lawful duties without any hindrance.”

  • UPDATED: Tribunal sacks Oyetola as chair faults judgment

    The Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal on Friday voided the election of Adegboyega Oyetola of the All Progressives Party (APC) as governor of Osun State.

    In a two-to-one split decision by a three-man panel, the tribunal declared Senator Ademola Adeleke of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) winner of the election and ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue him with a certificate of return.

    Justice Peter Obiora, who read the majority judgement on the petition by Adeleke and the PDP, held that the petitioners were able to prove their allegations of irregularities and substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act in the conduct of the governorship election in Osun State on September 22 and 27, 2018.

    Justices Obiora and Anyinla Gbolagunte, in the majority judgment, held the petitioners were able to prove irregularities in the results declared by INEC in relation to 17 polling Units that cut across about five Local Governments.

    The tribunal Chairman, Justice Ibrahim Sirajo, disagreed with the two other judges and gave a minority judgment in which he dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petitioners failed to prove their case.

    Justice Obiora held, in the majority judgment, that the tribunal was left with no option than to believe that INEC altered results sheets from the 17 polling units after elections had been counted and party agents signed.

    He said the similarity in the alteration in the with copies of the result sheets, which were not reflected in the pink copies issued to party agents, and the failure of INEC official to fill the first eight columns of the result sheets, betrayed a fraudulent intention on the party of INEC.

    Justice Obiora proceeded to cancel the results in the 17 polling units affected on the grounds that the petitioners did not only to prove that the non-compliance was substantial but that the non- compliance substantially affected the outcome of the election.

    The judge noted that, in the 17 polling units, which have been cancelled, the APC scored 2029 votes, while the PDP scored 1249 votes.

    Read also: PDP accuses APC chiefs of mobilising 125 soldiers to constituency

    Justice Obiora also, in the majority decision, voided the rerun election held on September 27, 2018.

    He held that the state returning officer, who announced the cancellation of election results in the seven polling units, cut across four Local Governments, in which the rerun elections were held, acted outside his/her powers.

    Justice Obiora said a state returning officer has no power under any law to cancel an election and order a rerun.

    He then proceeded to deduct the results cancelled in the majority judgment, from the total scores of both the APC and PDP both before and after the rerun election

    Justice Obiora said: “By our earlier calculation, the votes affected by non-compliance are: APC – 2,029; PDP- 1,246 which we hereby nullify.

    “If the above votes are deducted from the scores of the parties as at September 22, 2018 election, the stand of the parties will be as follows:

    “APC: 254,345 votes, minus 2,029 votes equal 252,315 votes. PDP: 264,698 votes, minus 1,246 votes equal 253,452 votes.

    “If per chance, the rerun election is found to be valid, and the final scores of the parties declared after the rerun election of September 27, 2018 is allowed to stand, then deducting the votes that were found to be afflicted by non-compliance shall stand the parties in the following scores:

    “APC: 255,505 votes, minus 202,029 votes, equal 253,476 votes. PDP: 255,023 votes, minus the afflicted votes of non-compliance which is 1,246, will give us 253,777 votes.

    “In both situations, it is obvious that the petitioners won the election into the office of the Governor of Osun State.”

    Justice Obiora awarded N200, 000 costs against the APC and Oyetola, in favour of the petitioners.

    Sirajo, in minority judgment, said the rerun election of 27th September 2018 was properly held.

    He noted that the petitioners failed to prove that election results were actually conducted in th seven polling units in which the rerun elections were held and that it was the state returning officer that cancelled the result.

    Sirajo also faulted the majority judgment position that the non-recording of accreditation and voting record in the result sheet substantially affected the outcome of the election.

    He held that under Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act, the tribunal lacked the powers to have deducted the cancelled votes and declare the petitioners winners.

    Justice Sirajo said: “It is the law that where there is no accreditation, the resultant votes are unlawful votes as the election itself is null and void”

    “The legal implication of non-accreditation can not be applied to the 23 polling units under consideration, in view of the abundant evidence of accreditation in all the 23 poling units through the affirmative evidence of the petitioner witnesses.

    “The non-filing of information in some portion of the result sheets were not sufficient to have prompted the tribunal to cancel the election in the 17 of the 23 polling units under review.

    “In this petition, it is not in dispute that about 90 per cent of the process involved in the conduct of election in a polling unit have been fully complied with. Voters were duly accredited before they cast their votes.

    “At the conclusion of voting, ballot papers were sorted out and counted. The presiding officers announced the votes scored by the parties, entered the figures in the result sheets and signed.

    “The parties agents counter-signed the result sheets and collected copies. The only non-compliance is that the collation officer did not record the column for accreditation and ballot accounting. There is no complaint that the poling units were afflicted by any other irregularities

    “I am satisfied that there is non-compliance by was of omission to record the columns accreditation and ballot accounting in the 23 polling units out of the total 3010 polling units. What then is the degree of non-compliance? Has it attain the degree of substantial non-compliance?

    “I hold that the omission to record the column of accreditation and ballot accounting in the result sheet does not amount to substantial non-compliance

    “Merely chorusing that the certified true copies of the result sheets were doctored, altered or mutilated, as did by the petitioners’ witnesses before the tribunal does not amount to demonstration of how the alleged non-compliance substantially affected the results of the election.

    “The net result of my analysis above is that the petitioners have failed to show how the non-compliance, with respect to the recording of the columns for accreditation and ballot account in 23 polling units substantially affected the results of the election in those polling units as to lead to their cancellation.

    “In the final analysis, I hold that this specie of non-compliance is not substantial an even if it is substantial, it has not been proved that it substantially affected the result of the Osun State Governors election held on the 22nd September 2018 and 27th September 2018.

    “Let me conclude by say that even if this specie of non-compliance is found to be substantial, as to substantially affect the results of the election, the tribunal does not have the power to subtract the votes affected by the non-compliance from the scores of the candidates and proceed to declare the candidate with the highest number of votes as the winner of the election. The tribunal does not have that power.

    “This my remark is informed by the provision of Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), which gives the tribunal the power to only order a fresh or rerun election where non-compliance is established.

    “By no stretch of imagination or ingenuity of reasoning can a tribunal import the provision of section 140(3) of the Electoral into Section 140(2) of the same Act, where the proved electoral malfeasance is substantial non-compliance.

    “Where the allegation of non-compliance is proved, the tribunal is only permitted to nullify the election and order a supplementary election in order not to disenfranchise voters in the affect polling units in line with the principle of the Act.

    “I only need to add that the order for a supplementary election can only be made where it is expressly asked for,” Justice Sirajo said.

    He proceeded to dismiss the petition and awarded cost of N200, 000 each in favour of the APC and Oyetola against the petitioners.

  • NANS hails tribunal declaration of Adeleke as Osun governor

    The National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) has hailed the tribunal declaration of Sen. Ademola Adeleke as governor of Osun State, saying it is hope awakening.

    Mr. Adeyemi Azeez, National Public Relations Officer (PRO) of the association, made this known in a statement on Friday in Abuja.

    According to Azeez, NANS describes the tribunal victory of Adeleke as a clear hope for the nation’s democracy.

    READ ALSO: NANS canvasses Abians, students to re-elect Gov. Ikpeazu Okezie

    “NANS equally commends President Muhammadu Buhari for once again proving to Nigerians that he is a man of integrity and would not for any reason manipulate or economise the integrity of this country’s democracy for any selfish or party interest.

    “We commend the determined sincerity and commitment of the Osun guber tribunal for not compromising the truth.

    “NANS hereby implores other states gubernatorial tribunals, to emulate the worthy and sincere practise of the Osun tribunal,” he said.

    Azeez added that the judgment would go a long way in restoring, redeeming and repositioning the integrity of Nigeria’s hard earned democracy.

  • Oyetola urges councils to generate independent funding

    Osun State Governor Gboyega Oyetola has urged the state Local Government Areas (LGAs) and Local Council Development Areas (LCDAs) to seek independent funding.

    The governor urged the council authorities to develop workable means of generating revenue outside the statutory allocation to cater for the critical needs of their people.

    He spoke yesterday at the inauguration of the newly-built secretariat complex of Ila Central Local Council Development Area (LCDA) in Ila-Orangun, which was attended by former governor and former Interim Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Chief Bisi Akande, political and traditional rulers.

    Oyetola reiterated his administration’s commitment to actualising the objectives for which the councils are created.

    According to him, one of the ways LGAs and LCDAs could deliver on their mandate is to “creatively” increase their internally generated revenue, judiciously utilise their monthly allocations and deliver equitable services to the people.

    He said the welfare of the people has been the priority of his administration, hence the need for the leadership of the councils to allow the agenda of his administration in the areas of quality healthcare, functional and compulsory basic education, equitable infrastructure, economy and agriculture to infiltrate the grassroots.

    The governor said: “It is our dream to deliver prosperity and development to the people, using the local councils as dependable allies and channels. We are committed to the development of all our council areas as they remain the only veritable means of bringing sustainable development to every part of the state.

    “The commissioning of the new Secretariat of Ila Central Local Council Development Area today is a challenge to other LCDAs to seek independent sources to deliver development to their people. It starts with building a structure where staff can think out innovations and initiatives and consequently deliver sectoral services to the people.

    “One way LCDAs can achieve this is to creatively increase their internally generated revenues, judiciously utilise their monthly allocations and deliver equitable services to the people.

    “The building of this complex within few years of the creation of Local Council Development Areas is a robust testament to the seriousness the leadership of Ila Central Local Council Development Area places on governance and service to the people.”

    Chairman, Ila Central Local Government Area (LCDA) Mr. Ademola Kolawole hailed Oyetola for aggressively transforming the state to the next level of development in spite of the not too pleasant economic realities.

    He attributed the successful completion of the secretariat complex to unflinching support received from the state government.

    Oyetola said yesterday that Osun State Government has no plan to return to payment of modulated salaries

    He also explained that the state has no plan to lay off workers but will rather prioritise their welfare.

    The governor, who said this spoke during the inauguration of the secretariat complex, described the insinuation that the government was planning to return to payment of modulated salary, which ended in June 2018 and which he has sustained since assuming office in November 2018, as “baseless and unfounded”.

    He said the insinuation was being peddled by “the opposition and people with ulterior motive”.

    The governor urged workers to disregard the rumour.

    The state paid modulated salary to its senior employees during its economic hardship, but this was terminated in June 2018.

    Oyetola said his administration had been working assiduously to develop workable and realistic means of increasing the revenue of the state to match its expenditure.

     

     

  • Oyetola, Makinde pledge support for LAUTECH

    Osun State Governor Gboyega Oyetola and Oyo State governor-elect Seyi Makinde have promised that their administrations will work to ensure that the Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, (LAUTECH), Ogbomoso, Oyo State, succeeds.

    LAUTECH is co-owned by the Osun and Oyo State governments.

    Oyetola and Makinde spoke when the university management visited them in their states.

    Governor Oyetola said his administration is proud of the high standard of education obtainable in the institution, and promised to support it to combat its challenges.

    The governor promised that his door would be opened at all times to the Governing Council and Management.

    The Vice Chancellor, Prof. Michael Ologunde, appealed to the governor to empower his management to put a permanent end to incessant strikes occasioned by inadequate funding.

    Makinde promised to “rescue the school from the claws of death”.

    The governor-elect urged the Prof. Ologunde-led administration to consolidate on the university’s leadership position, saying his government was not against disciplining students and workers, provided it is done with human face.

    Prof. Ologunde reiterated that the school management had no hand in the suspension of the Students Union President, Mr. Abiodun Oluwaseun.

    According to him, proscribing the union became the last plausible option to avoid a breakdown of law and order.

     

  • Sen. Adeleke votes, optimistic of victory at tribunal

    Sen. Ademola Adeleke of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Osun State on Saturday expressed optimism of emerging victorious at the Governorship Election Tribunal.

    He spoke after casting  his vote at exactly 9:01 am at Unit 09 Ward 02 Polling Unit at Sagba-Abogunde area, Ede.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Adeleke is  challenging the victory of Gov. Gboyega Oyetola in the Sept. 27, 2018 rerun governorship election in the state.

    ” I am sure of victory at the Osun Governorship Tribunal because of the confidence I have in the judiciary system of this country,’’ he said.

    Read Also: Adeleke’s passion for selfless service

    Adeleke, however, said Saturday’s  State House of Assembly election had been peaceful, expressing confidence  that the PDP would emerge victorious.

    He commended INEC  for the successful conduct of the House of Assembly election, saying the exercise had so far been hitch-free in Ede.

    Adeleke urged the electorate to be patient  while waiting to be accredited so as to ensure a peaceful conclusion of the exercise.

    NAN

  • ‘PDP’s petition against Oyetola a bedlam of confusion’

    •Tribunal reserves judgment in dispute over Osun governorship election

    THE Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal has reserved judgment in the petition by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Senator Ademola Adeleke, in the September 2018 governorship election.

    The PDP and Adeleke are challenging the declaration of Adegboyega Oyetola of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    The tribunal yesterday, after entertaining final arguments and adoption of written addresses by lawyers to the parties, announced that judgment had been reserved.

    Its chairman, Justice Ibrahim Sirajo, said parties will be informed, at least, 48 hours before the date of delivery of the judgment.

    Wole Olanipekun (SAN) appeared for Oyetola; Akin Olujinmi (SAN) represented the APC. Lasco Pwahomdi appeared for INEC.

    In adopting their separate final addresses, Olanipekun, Olujinmi and Pwahomdi urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the petitioners failed to prove their case.

    In fact, Olanipekun described the petition as “a bedlam of confusion”.

    Read also: Polls: More alliances in Oyo, Lagos, Kwara, Ogun

    But, lawyer to the petitioners, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), while adopting his final address, urged the tribunal to uphold the petition and grant all the reliefs prayed by the petitioners.

    Yesterday’s proceeding was witnessed by the Osun State governor, who was accompanied by some of his officials.

    He was dressed in white agbada, but declined to speak with reporters, who sought his views after the tribunal’s proceedings.

    Adeleke, who attended the tribunal’s sittings during the trial period, was absent yesterday.

    Olanipekun, while adopting his final address, noted that the petition was full of confusing claims and betrayed the petitioners’ lack of understanding of the nation’s election petition jurisprudence.

    In identifying what he described as the many contradictions in the petition, Olanipekun noted that “in pages 37, 38 and 39, the petitioners are presenting a different case entirely from their pleadings”.

    “The petition is a bedlam of confusion,” he said.

    Olanipekun noted that the petitioners have admitted breaching the electoral law by seeking that some of their votes be quashed.

    He added: “They are also asking the tribunal to quash some of their votes. A self-confessed petitioner, who has in writing, admitted infringing the law, cannot be asking to be returned as a winner of the election.

    “In their relief seven, they want the court to nullify the certificate of return, but they failed to present the certificate before the tribunal. Where is that certificate? Can the tribunal nullify what is not before it?

    “They said the certificate of return is with us. If it is with us, should they not have given us a notice to produce it? They did not give us notice to produce it,” Olanipekun said.

    He relied on a decision of the Court of Appeal given on Wednesday in the motion filed by the presidential candidate of the PDP, Atiku Abubakar and urged the tribunal to decline the petitioners’ prayer to void the guideline issued by INEC for the conduct of the election.

    In similar argument, Olujinmi faulted the evidence given by 63 polling agents called as witnesses by the petitioners.

    He noted that, though the petitioners called 80 witnesses in all, 63, who were polling unit agents, gave common evidence by saying similar things and using almost exactly the same words.

    Olujinmi also argued that the evidence by the petitions’ 74th witness, who was the state polling agent, amounted to hearsay evidence because he admitted getting the information from the documents submitted to him.

    He urged the tribunal to ignore the various documents tendered by the petitioners, which he said, they merely dumped on the tribunal without demonstrating their link to the case.

    Olujinmi also noted contradictions in the case of the petitioners and the evidence they led.

    He noted that while the petitioners want the tribunal to declare them winner of the first part of the election held on September 22, 2018 and void the supplementary election held on September 27, 2018, their 74th witness said they have no cause of action as it relates to the election of September 22, 2018.

    Ikpeazu, in his counter argument, urged the tribunal to disregard the issues raised by the respondents’ lawyers.

    He faulted the written addresses by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, which he argued, were not filed as required by law.

    Ikpeazu said there was no confusion as it relates to the case of the petitioners. He said the respondents’ claim of existence of confusion betrayed their misunderstanding of the case.

    Ikpeazu said the petitioners’ case was that, based on the result of the election of September 22, the 1st petitioner, having satisfied provision of Section 179(2) of the Constitution, ought to be declared as having won.

    He faulted the respondents’ argument that the petitioners dumped documents on the tribunal.