The Greater Together Campaign Organisation (GTCO) of Dr. Dakuku Adol Peterside of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Rivers State has said its candidate’s stolen mandate by Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP’s) candidate, Nyesom Wike, will be retrieved at the elections petitions tribunal.
The GTCO, through its Director of Communications, Mrs. Ibim Semenitari, gave the assurance yesterday in Port Harcourt, the state capital.
It also concurred with the prayer of Wike, a former Minister of State for Education, that in the case of the governorship election in Rivers, God would complete what He had begun.
GTCO said: “Wike made reference to God during a celebratory feast organised by the PDP in Port Harcourt, after he was presented with the certificate of return by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
“The GTCO notes that Wike’s claim to the governorship of Rivers State is built on a faulty foundation and so cannot stand. We consider Wike’s wishful prayer that God should complete what He had begun an aberration and an insult to good conscience. But for us, since we believe that God thrives on justice, Wike’s prayer will certainly add to the speedy recovery of the mandate robbed off Rivers people through the barrels of gun and pellets of bullets.
“Besides Wike’s immoral claims, we were appalled at the calibre of guests we sighted at that gathering. We saw suspected murderers, suspected kidnappers, ballot box snatchers and sundry criminals dancing on the graves of those they killed.”
The campaign organisation also cautioned the “governor-elect” against a short-lived celebration.
It assured that justice would prevail at the end of the race, in the true spirit of his prayer.
GTCO added: “While Wike and his cohorts celebrate, we suggest caution, as we hold a strong conviction that justice will prevail and the mandate he is parading will be retrieved.”
The Accord governorship candidate in Oyo State, Rashidi Ladoja, has told his supporters that he is going to the tribunal to seek redress and reclaim what he described as “his stolen mandate”.
Ladoja spoke yesterday at the Accord secretariat, Samonda, Ibadan.
According to him, there is much evidence to show that the elections were manipulated in favour of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The Accord candidate warned that if attacks on his supporters continue, he will tell them to defend themselves.
“I wonder why a party which claimed to have won the election will resort to assaulting opposition members because they did not vote for it,” he said
The former governor said he will go to court to find the truth behind the election, adding that he will do whatever it takes to get justice and claim the mandate the people “gave” to him.
How can electoral offenders be tamed? It is by establishing an Electoral Offences Tribunal (EOT) argue lawyers say, will speedly handled and relieve the courts of such additional burden, report ERIC IKHILAE
Reports of politicians and their reporters’ involvement in underhand deal during last Saturday’s elections have, again, brought to the fore the need to strengthen existing mechanisms for combating electoral offences.
Stuffing and snatching of ballot boxes, shooting, detonation of explosives to scare voters and pre-election violence and intimidation, have confirmed the fear that free and fair election may be impossible.
Since 1999, successive elections have been marred by irregularities with politicians and their supporters, bent on winning at all cost.
Observers have argued that the trend is bolstered by the do-or-die approach to election since many believe that political offices are avenues to wealth.
Despite the danger this poses to democracy, institutions responsible for prosecuting electoral offenders appear helpless.
Part V111 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) lists various types of electoral offences and prescribes punishment for them.
Section 23, for instance, prohibits the buying or selling of voter cards; such offences attract a fine not exceeding N500,000 or imprisonment not exceeding two years or both on conviction.
Under Section 81, a political party or association, which contravenes the provisions of Section 227 of the Constitution (prohibiting retention, organisation, training or equipping quasi-military organisations) commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine of N500,000 and N700,000 for any subsequent offence; and N50,000 for every day that the offence continues.
The Act also provides that any person, who aids and abets a political party to contravene Section 227 commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine of N500,000 or imprisonment for a term of three years or both.
Section 91 of the Act criminalises contravention of limitation on election expenses.
Under Section 91(12), any accountant, who falsifies or conspires or aids a candidate to forge or falsify a document relating to his expenditure in an election or receipt or donation for the election or in any way, aids and abets the breach of the provisions of Section 91 commits an offence and on conviction is liable to 10 years imprisonment
Section 122 prohibits impersonation and voting when not qualified, and its contravention attracts a maximum fine of N500,000 or 12 months imprisonment or both.
Under Section 129(4) anybody, who snatches or destroys any election material shall be liable on conviction, to 24 months imprisonment. Section 130 frowns at undue influence of electorate on electoral officials; its contravention attracts a maximum fine of N100, 000 or 12 months imprisonment or both, while threats, under Section 131 attract a maximum fine of
N1, 000, 000.00 or three years imprisonment.
Section 150 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) empowers the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to undertake the prosecution of election offenders. Section 150 is complemented by Sections 174 and 211 of the Constitution, which empowers the Attorney-General of the Federation and states’ Attorneys-General to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person with respect to federal laws and state laws respectively.
While it is impossible for INEC to exercise its prosecutorial power without investigation, it requires police assistance, saddled with investigatory powers under Section 4 of the Police Act. Also, the Electoral Act, in Section 149 allows the Election Tribunals to recommend prosecution for an offence disclosed in any election petition.
However, Section 150(1) & (2) of the Act provides that an offence committed under the Act shall be prosecuted in a Magistrate Court or High Court of the state where the offence is committed, or the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, and that prosecution under the Act shall be undertaken by INEC’s Legal officers or any lawyer appointed by it.
Despite the legal provisions empowering the INEC, the police and the Attorneys-General (both at state and federal levels) to prosecute electoral offenders, the culture of electoral impunity has continued unabated, while agencies of state empowered to combat it appear either overwhelmed or unwilling to act.
So far, there is no known case where election tribunals have exercised the powers conferred on them in Section 149 of the EA to recommend any political actor for prosecution for electoral offences.
In cases where some violations are detected and culprits apprehended, negligible few are taken to court. During the last voters registration exercise, INEC said it detected about 870, 000 cases of multiple registrations, which are offences under the Electoral Act, but a negligible few were prosecuted under the law.
In 2014, the Governing Council of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) recommended to the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Mohammed Adoke (SAN) the prosecution of 41 persons including former Edo State governor, Professor Oserhiemen Osunbor for their alleged involvement in electoral laws violation.
David Mark
Other prominent names on the list sent to the AGF include a former Speaker of the Kogi State House of Assembly, Clarence Olafemi, a former INEC Resident Electoral Commissioner in Ekiti State, Mrs Ayooka Adebayo and an Assistant Superintendent of Police, Christopher Oloyede.
NHRC also listed the People’s Democratic Party, INEC and the Nigeria Police Force, police officers, INEC’s officials, lawyers and politicians in the recommendation to the AGF.
The 41 alleged electoral offenders were said to have all been indicted in the judgments by various election petitions tribunals and courts. They were alleged to have been linked to offences related to forgery, perjury and breach of trust. The NHRC attached to its letter to the AGF, copies of the judgments where those listed were indicted.
NHRC’s inclusion of Osunbor was in relation to the finding of the election tribunal in the petition by Governor Adams Oshionhole, where the tribunal came out with criminal and administrative indictments against the respondents in the case.
The case against Mrs Adebayo was in relation to her role in the election in Ekiti State as captured in the tribunal’s finding in the judgment on the petition by Governor Kayode Fayemi against Olusegun Oni and others.
In the case of ASP Christopher Oloyede the Court of Appeal held that “the evidence on record showed that a policeman, ASP Christopher Oloyede signed an election result sheet as party agent on behalf of the PDP. This is an illegality and violation of electoral rules both by INEC and the police.
“ASP Oloyede behaved disgracefully and abused his position. Neither INEC nor the Police could defend the illegality that ought to have been sanctioned.”
As regard Olafemi, the report referred to the judgment of the electoral tribunal, where it was stated that “the petitioners have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the 1st respondent, Hon Clarence Olafemi leading his agents and thugs did commit acts of corrupt practices and non-compliance with the Electoral Act by disrupting the ýconduct of election, harassing and intimidating eligible voters who were sent away from polling units without voting.”
Prof Osunbor is currently at the Federal High Court, Abuja, challenging his inclusion in the list by the NHRC. But since the list was submitted to him, the AGF is not known to have taken any steps to act on the recommendations by the NHRC.
Also, President Goodluck Jonathan, who in 2011 pledged to ensure the creation of the Electoral Offences Commission (EOC), has not found the courage to fulfill the pledge.
The Electoral Reform Committee set up by President Jonathan’s predecessor, the late President Umaru Musa Yar’adua recommended the establishment of an autonomous and constitutionally recognised EOC vested with the power of arrest and prosecution of electoral offenders under a separate mechanism that is independent of the government in power.
Observers argued that beyond INEC’s claim of lack of capacity to combine prosecution of election offenders with its primary duties of conducting elections, the elimination of election fraud will remain a mirage under the prevailing arrangement.
They see no possibility for elections devoid of fraud and manipulation when the incumbent President, who is a member of a political party, insists on retaining the power to appoint the Chairperson, National Commissioners and Resident Electoral Commissioners of the electoral body that ought to be independent.
They further argued that a credible electoral process is impossible where the electoral management body is denied autonomy and independence, and the power of incumbency used and misused; where security agencies are deployed and used against opposition forces with the aim of sustaining the incumbent in power.
As a remedy, they suggested the need to strengthen existing legal and institutional frameworks around electoral accountability with the intention of providing adequate penalty for electoral crimes.
They noted that those, who commit or encourage the commission of electoral offences are encouraged by the fact that the Police, other investigating agencies and INEC are incapable of ensuring thorough investigation and conviction, and that where such is possible, the Attorney-General will take over the prosecution and terminate their trial when their party gets to power.
It is their contention that the establishment of an EOC, removed from the operational control of the Executive and the Attorney-General of the Federation and of the states, but granted financial autonomy could help in combating electoral offences.
Lawyers, including Mahmud Magaji (SAN), the Chairman, NHRC, Dr.Chidi Odinkalu, Dr. Abubakar Sulaiman, and the Executive Director, Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC) and Coordinator of the Nigeria Civil Society Situation Room, Clement Nwankwo suggested among others, the strengthening of existing legal framework and the need for the National Assembly to pass the Bill for the creation of an EOC into law.
Odinkalu argued that ensuring electoral accountability could be achieved, but not with a force of the degree. “The fact that those involved in electoral offences have not been prosecuted now does not mean they cannot be prosecuted later. But to address that, we need to continue to keep evidence, keep records, and keep alive, the demand for accountability.
“In 2011 nobody would have foreseen that the NHRC would be calling for the prosecution of people. That is progress. In 2014 the NHRC started asking for the prosecution of named people, some of whom have been governors, acting governors and senators.
Now, at these elections, there are entities collecting and documenting evidence for prosecution. I am confident that the time for accountability is here and we are not going to change that.
“I, personally, do not believe that we should be creating all these new commission and tribunals for the same problems. Let’s make our police work. Let’s make the courts work. And let’s normalise all crimes. So, I am not an apostle of an Election Offences Tribunal or Commission, but I am an apostle of accountability. And I think we are making progress towards ensuring electoral accountability in the country.
“Nobody in 2011 would believe that a former governor will be suing a public body before a Nigerian court to be excluded from prosecution for electoral crimes. That is progress. Whatever happens in that case, we are going to end up at the Supreme Court. We are going to get the jurisprudence changed and we are going to make progress,” Odinkalu said.
Sulaiman urged the Legislature to urgently pass the Bill for the establishment of an independent EOC, with the capacity to investigate all electoral fraud and related offences, coordinate enforcement and prosecution of all electoral offences.
“The commission should be imbued with the capacity and legal powers to set up Mobile Courts to try election offences on election days. It should also have the powers to evolve measure to prevent and eradicate the commission of electoral malpractices and facilitate rapid exchange of scientific and technical information among other democracies on the conduct of joint operation and training aimed at eliminating electoral malpractices,” he said.
Nwankwo contended that it was a failure on the part of the President that recommendation for the creation of an EOC, which has gone through some discussions at the Legislature, has not been passed into law.
“Usually, if the President was to prepare a Bill and send it to the National Assembly, it would be an Executive Bill and will be taken seriously. The initiative to create an EOC has been driven mostly by private interest. And I think that this is the failing of the President in not setting up a commission to be able to deal with this.
“We think the President should be able to create a body that will prosecute persons that commit electoral offences and ensure that people, who commit such offences are not allowed to walk away free.
“While we await the creation of such a body, the relevant agencies could still rely on existing laws to prosecute electoral offenders. INEC has the powers, under existing laws to identify electoral offences and insist on prosecution.
The National Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal in Minna on Friday upturned the result of the Niger East Senatorial by-election conducted in August 30, 2014 and concluded on September 6, 2014 in favour of Barr. David Umaru of the All Progressives Congress.
The Chairman of the three-man tribunal, Justice Ibrahim Bako, who gave the verdict in a judgment that lasted for almost four hours in Minna, declared the APC candidate winner having returned 79,779 votes as against Dr. Shem Zagbayi Nuhu of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) who had 68,525 votes.
Umaru of APC had on September 26, 2014 petitioned the tribunal, challenging the declaration of Nuhu by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the winner of the by-election.
Delivering judgment, Bako ordered as follows: “that an order is hereby granted, nullifying the results of 100 or so polling units out of the polling units that were affected by the non-compliances to the Electoral Act.
“That an order is granted nullifying the return of the 1st Respondent (Nuhu) on the ground that he did not win the majority of the lawful votes cast at the election held on August 30, 2014 and concluded on September 6, 2014 at the Niger East Senatorial district.
“That an order declaring the 1st Petitioner as the winner of the election held on August 30 but concluded on September 6, 2014, having won the majority of the lawful votes at the election and he is hereby granted.
“That an order directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to issue a Certificate of Return to the 1st Petitioner forthwith as the duly elected Senator of Niger East Senatorial district, Niger State.”
The tribunal ordered for the deduction of the scores of votes recorded illegally from the final scores of the parties.
The electoral body had declared on September 7, 2014 that Nuhu of PDP polled 92,050 votes while Umaru had 87,425 votes after the deduction of the unlawful votes, but at the end of the deduction the respondent had 68,525 and the 1st petitioner polled 79,779 votes to be declared winner.
Reacting after the judgment, the lead counsel to the winner, Barr. Chris Osuagwu, commended the verdict and gave the victory to the rule of law and to the tenacity of his client who had faith in the judiciary.
“We give glory to God for this judgment. Today’s judgment has shown that no matter how long evil thrives, judgment must surely prevail.
The tribunal has given judgment and it shows that there is hope for the masses,” Osuagwu stated.
But the counsel to the respondent, Barr. Musa Sulaiman, said that his client will respect the decision of the tribunal.
Congratulating the judiciary for keeping the hope of the common man alive, the Publicity Secretary of APC in Niger State, Jonathan Vatsa, told journalists at the court premises that, “today’s victory has given hope to the masses.
“The judgment has shown that the common man can have his right defended and protected by the judiciary.”
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), in connivance with the Presidency, has concluded plans to use the Osun Election Petition Tribunal to scuttle the next month general elections in the country.
It was gathered that the party, with the collaboration of the Presidency, is desperate in installing Senator Iyiola Omisore as governor of the state before the February 14 polls in the country.
OSUN DEFENDER’s investigation revealed that the desperation of the Presidency is such that it would do anything to remove Governor Rauf Aregbesola, who, the presidency has identified as a stumbling block to its ambition in the South-West.
It was gathered that the presidency is hell-bent on forcing the tribunal to declare Omisore as winner of the August 9, 2014 governorship poll in the state to destabilise the APC and cause upheaval in the geo-political zone, which may spread across the country and eventually lead to the eventual postponement of the general elections and allow the PDP to re-strategise for the polls.
The medium further gathered that the party has felt defeated with the outcome of the governorship poll in the state, considering its importance to the general elections and would do anything to undo its perceived mistake.
According to a source, the Presidency is desperate about the February 14 poll and has seen Governor Aregbesola as a problem in the South-West and getting him out of the way by hook or crook means would serve its purpose, especially as the courts are currently on strike and the governor would not be able to proceed to the appellate court, while Omisore would have been sworn in as governor during the poll, believing it could help the PDP’s chance in the zone.
“As you know that the chances of the president returning to office fades everyday and would do anything to get back to the office, including tramping on the judiciary.
“The Presidency does not give a damn about the facts before the tribunal, but is ready to force a decision on the members of the panel to favour the PDP and presidency.
“You should know that no judge can overlook the chances of becoming a Chief Judge of a state and the party is ready to lure the chairperson of the panel with the chance of becoming a CJ in her state.”
Findings showed that the recent celebration galore embarked upon by members of the PDP in Osogbo, the state capital, after the adoption of written addresses by both parties, was part of the script by the party to hoodwink the public into believing they succeeded in proving their case before the court ahead of the final script of the party.
Meanwhile, the APC in the state is said to be aware of the plan by the PDP and is taking steps towards ensuring justice is done in the matter, irrespective of interest from high quarters.
Some loyalists of the party are said to be threatening to make the state ungovernable should the tribunal be lured into declaring Omisore, as they are living witnesses to the election and there was no unit the result was manipulated.
An immediate display of the factual setting from which this case arose, at the threshold of this judgment, will, I believe, help depict the case in its correct context. The current Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria came into force in 1999. Section 197 of the Constitution establishes for each State of the Federation.
(a) State Civil Service Commission,
(b) State Independent Electoral Commission and
(c) State Judicial Service Commission.
On July 10, 2010, the Constitution was amended. The amendment affected section 200(1), especially, as it relates to the qualification of members of the State Independent Electoral Commission.
2. For reasons which shall become obvious in the course of this judgment, I should mention here, for record purposes that, when this action was filed, there were three claimants, namely Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), All Nigeria People’s Party (ANPP) and Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), who shall, hereinafter, collectively be referred to as the original claimants. In the course of these proceedings, leave of court was secured to amend the claimants’ names to All Progressive Congress (APC), following what the original claimants called merger of the three political parties.
3. Essentially, this action challenges the composition of the 3rd Defendant, Kogi State Independent Electoral Commission, (KOGSIEC), on the basis that its membership consists of persons who are members of the 9th defendant, People’s Democratic Party (PDP). It is the contention of the claimant that the 4th – 8th defendants, being members of the 9th defendant, are not qualified to hold positions as chairman (4th defendant) and members (5th – 8th defendants) of Kogi State Independent Electoral Commission (3rd defendant) hereinafter simply called and referred to as KOGSIEC.
4. It is important to state here, as a background fact that this action was instituted when election into the local government councils in Kogi State was approaching. The claimant articulates its fears and apprehension over the ability of KOGSIEC to conduct credible, fair and free elections, having regard to its (KOGSIEC) composition. The fears are expressed in paragraphs 12, 13, and 14 of the amended statement of claim as follows:
12.The 4th Defendant as a member of PDP can never be fair and/or be seen to be fair in the discharge of his function as Chairman of the 3rd Defendant likewise the 5th – 8th Defendants.
13.The Claimants shall be highly prejudiced if the 4th – 8th Defendants are allowed to remain in that office to conduct the forthcoming Local Government Elections as a member (sic) of PDP which party is also in control of the 1st Defendant, and is sponsoring candidates to contest the election which the 3rd Defendant is to organise.
14.The composition of the 3rd Defendant headed by the 4th Defendant is illegal; unconstitutional null and void.
5. The claimant, therefore, seeks the following declarations and orders:
(a) A DECLARATION that members of Political Parties registered in Nigeria are not competent and qualified to be members of the 3rd Defendant rather only men and women of integrity who are not partisan are entitled to be made members of the 3rd Defendant.
(b) A DECLARATION that the 4th – 8th defendants are not qualified to hold any office of chairman and Members of the 3rd Defendant being members of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
(c) A DECLARATION that the composition of the 3rd Defendant by the 1st Defendant with the Chairmanship and membership of the 4th – 8th Defendants is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.
(d) A DECLARATION that all the actions and steps taken by the 3rd Defendant with the 4th – 8th Defendants as Chairman and members of the 3rd Defendant are illegal, null and void owed to their qualification.
(e) AN ORDER nullifying the appointment of the 4th – 8th Defendants as Chairman and members of the 3rd Defendant.
(f) AN ORDER declaring all the action taken by the 4th – 8th Defendants as chairman and members of the 3rd Defendant as illegal, wrongful, unlawful, null, void and of no effect.
(g) AN ORDER nullifying the composition and membership of the 3rd Defendant owing to the disqualification of the 4th – 8th Defendants as the Chairman and members.
(h) AN ORDER directing the 1st Defendant to appoint persons of proven integrity who are not members of PDP or any other Political Parties as Chairman and members of the 3rd Defendant.
(i) AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the 4th – 8th Defendants from performing the functions of the Chairman and members of the 3rd Defendants and an order restraining the 1st& 2nd Defendants from recognising the 4th – 8th Defendants as Chairman and Members of the 3rd Defendant.
6. In their further amended joint statement of defence, the 1st – 8th defendants deny that the 4th – 8thdefendants are members of the 9th defendant. They aver that, at the material time of the appointment of the 4th – 8th defendants as chairman and members of 3rd defendants (as the case may be), they were not and still not registered members of the 9th defendant or any other political party for that matter. It is stated in their pleadings that they are men of honour and integrity who are eminently qualified to be appointed into the respective offices they hold in the 3rd defendant and as such, their appointments remain proper, valid and lawful. The relevant facts in this regard are contained in paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 12 of the further amended joint statement of defence, reproduced hereunder:
7.The Defendants admit paragraph 6 of the Claim to the extent that the 4th Defendant is the Chairman of Kogi State Independent Electoral Commission (KOSIEC) and that he lives in Lokoja, Kogi State within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. All other averments in the said paragraph are denied and the Claimant is put to the strictest proof.
8. The Defendants admit paragraph 7 of the Claim to the extent that the 5th – 8th Defendants are members of the 3rd Defendant and that they were appointed by the 1st Defendant. All other averments in the said paragraph are denied and the Claimant is put to the strictest proof.
9.The Defendants admit paragraph 8 of the Claim to the extent that the 9th Defendant is a registered political party in Nigeria and had the right to sponsor candidates for the just concluded Local Government Election in Kogi State. All other averments in the said paragraph are denied and the Claimant is put to the strictest proof.
7. Similarly, the 9th defendant, in its statement of defence avers that the appointment of the 4th- 8th defendants is legal, proper and not in contravention of any law whatsoever. (See paragraph 7 of the 9th defendant’s statement of defence). The 4th – 8th defendants are also described in paragraph 8 of the 9th defendant’s statement of defence as “honest and respectable persons of high integrity who can be trusted to conduct a credible, free and fair election for Kogi state”. (Par. 8)
Samuel Oduntan, the man employed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate in the August 9 election, Senator Iyiola Omisore, to analyse the results of the poll has confirmed that there were no discrepancies in the results.
In his oral evidence before the Osun State Election Petition Tribunal yesterday, the witness, who claimed to be a statistician early in his witness statement, turned back to say that he was not a registered statistician.
He also told the Justice Elizabeth Ikpejime-led tribunal that he used Certified True Copies (CTCs) and duplicates of the results forms of the election, which had earlier been tendered by the petitioners, saying he found no discrepancies in the course of his analysis.
Omisore and the PDP are challenging the re-election of Governor Rauf Aregbesola of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was joined in the suit.
The witness, who had stated in his written deposition that no voting point was created in the polling units being challenged by the petitioner, was confronted with the result forms of some of the units and he quickly changed to say that voting points were created, but not based on 300 voters per voting points.
When being cross-examined by the INEC counsel, Ayotunde Ogunleye, the witness said: “I am not a registered statistician. In the two analyses I have done in the past, those who employed me did not win the case.
“I did a similar analysis in the case of Kogi State and submitted the report, but it was not tendered for the case.
“I am not from Osun, neither did I monitor the election, but I was employed by the petitioners to do the analysis of the election materials.”
Also answering question from the APC counsel, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, Oduntan said: “In my comparison of the duplicates result forms given to the petitioners and the CTC of the forms, I found no discrepancies. I didn’t say I found any discrepancy.”
The witness, who had also claimed in his statement that the result forms he analysed were not stamped nor signed, confirmed to the tribunal that he did not see the original copies of the documents to ascertain whether or not they were signed.
Osinbajo confronted the witness with the fact that there were a lot of errors in his report of the purported analysis, which he denied.
While being cross-examined by Aregbesola’s counsel Femi Falana, the expert witness confirmed that despite that not all the polling units and wards in the 17 local governments are being challenged, he based his analysis on all the wards and units of the 17 councils.
A section of the media has not served the cause of truth and has rather shown unconscionable partisanship on the Osun State governorship election and its aftermath.
While it is generally agreed that media houses have their biases, their ultimate responsibility is to serve the cause of truth and promote democratic development in the land, irrespective of their bias.
It is disheartening however that some media organisations either out of laziness or mischief or both are fond of taking news report written by Osun PDP media minders and slamming it on their front pages without crosschecking its veracity. This unprofessional conduct has caused confusion and portrayed the media concerned as liars and unreliable entities.
Not long ago, an appellate court in Ilorin, Kwara State made a ruling on jurisdiction in a long standing suit on the 2011 elections in Osun. This means the trial of the suit proper is set to begin. However, in a bizarre twist, PDP rewrote the judgement and claimed that all elected legislators, state and federal, have been sacked and should vacate their seats. Almost all newspapers reported it as such. A few tried to ‘balance’ it with the reaction of Osun APC.
One would have thought that the newspapers have their reporters in court and would rather rely on their own report. When their reporters are not in court, they should have obtained the certified true copy of the judgement and refer it to their legal departments for interpretation and meaning, in case the editors cannot understand court judgements.
Now, the truth eventually came out that it was a preliminary ruling and to further put the media in shame, PDP has now withdrawn the original suit. How low can the media sink in the partisan quagmire?
Again, Osun PDP spun an infernal lie that 100,000 invalid votes had been discovered among Governor Rauf Aregbesola’s lot in the ballot and this would mean that Senator Iyiola Omisore would be sworn in on November 27. The report also claimed that Aregbesola for this reason has asked for a rerun election. This evil report found its way into the website of AIT and the pages of Nigerian Tribune. Several internet rodents latched it and feasted on it with frenzy. The election petition tribunal was so incensed that it warned of dire consequences if such false reports were to appear in the media again.
AIT pulled down the report and apologised on the same website. Nigerian Tribune, in its usual characteristics, is yet to make any amends. It is really instructive what has now become of the legacy of Chief Obafemi Awolowo.
The questions we should be asking ourselves are: one, how much could PDP have paid that is worth the integrity of a newspaper? Secondly, why would media organisations deliberately inflict such pain on its audience that look up to it for the promotion of truth and justice?
It is my sincere hope that media organisations will protect their name and integrity from being sullied as a result of Osun PDP’s fruitless desperation.
The candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the Niger East Senatorial by-election, Mr David Umaru, has challenged the declaration of Dr. Shem Zagbayi Nuhu of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as the winner of the poll.
Umaru is praying the National Assembly Election Tribunal sitting in Minna, the Niger State capital, to declare him winner of the by-election, “having polled majority votes”.
Joined as respondents are 388 others, including the PDP, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) and INEC presiding officers.
Umaru is praying the tribunal to cancel results in 378 polling units and recalculate the total result.
He said the votes ascribed to each of the candidates were not their actual scores, but the product of “deliberate wrong entries and collation of figures made by the third respondent’s agents or officers at the polling units”.
On September 7, INEC declared Nuhu winner of the by-election with 92,056 votes while Umaru got 87,406 votes.
Umaru said: “If the results of the polling units affected by these non-compliance and irregularities are cancelled and deducted from the final scores of the candidates, I shall have the highest number of valid votes cast at the election, thus: APC 87,405-22,491 = 64,914 PDP 92,056-53,837 = 38,219.
“Nuhu did not secure the majority of lawful votes and is not qualified to contest the election, having not been properly sponsored by his party (PDP) in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.”
The Election Petition Tribunal sitting at Magistrate Court in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has upheld the election of the Chairman of Gwagwalada Area Council, Alhaji Abubakar Giri of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the March 16, 2013, council election.
In a unanimous judgment, the Chairman of the three-member tribunal, Justice Binta Mohammed, said the chairmanship election held on March 16, 2013, was conducted in a substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended.
According to her, the election conducted across the 10 wards of Gwagwalada Area Council where the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) polled 11, 323 votes and All Progressives Congress (APC) scored 11, 525 votes was in order.
“In view of the foregoing, the petitioners failed to substantiate their claims. This petition, therefore, lacks merit and is hereby dismissed,” she said.
The Chairmanship candidate of the PDP, Alhaji Adamu Muspha, had filed a petition, through his counsel, Chief Karina Tunya (SAN) before the tribunal challenging the declaration of Giri as the duly elected chairman of Gwagwalada council by INEC.
The PDP had contended that the election conducted at Kofar-Gida and at Giri Kpeseli polling units of Gwako Ward was not in compliance to the Electoral Act as contained in the INEC guideline and election manual for 2011and alleged gross irregularities.
But counsel to the respondent, Chief Ologun Orisha (SAN) represented by Barrister Samuel Zhibiri, described the judgment as a sound and well-researched one, adding that the judgment was very articulate and apt.
However, counsel to the PDP, Chief Karina Tunya (SAN), disagreed with the judgment of the tribunal, saying the tribunal had failed to properly evaluate and analyse all evidences tendered before it.
“Documents that are supposed to be rejected were admitted. So, we will definitely appeal the tribunal’s judgment,” he said.
Meanwhile, the chairman of the council, Alhaji Giri, who spoke with reporters after the judgment, said the judgment has proved that he truly won the March 16, 2013, chairmanship election of the council. He was accompanied by his predecessor, Alhaji Zakari Angulu-Dobi, FCT APC Chairman, Alhaji Usman Abdulmalik; Secretary of the council and Alhaji Usman Yahaya.
He said: “My victory at the tribunal was not only for me, but also for the entire residents of the council. I call on members of the PDP in the council to join hands with my administration to move the council forward.”
