The Osun state election petition tribunal, on Friday, January 13, adjourned the judgment on the petition filed by the state’s former governor, Gboyega Oyetola, challenging the victory of Ademola Adeleke of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the July 16, 2022 governorship election.
The chairman of the three-man panel, Justice Tertsea Kume, reserved the judgment after the petitioner and respondents adopted their final written addresses in Osogbo, the state capital.
Oyetola and the All Progressives Congress (APC), on August 5, submitted a petition before the tribunal in Osogbo.
Oyetola and APC were challenging the election results from 749 polling units across 10 local government areas of the state for alleged electoral malpractice, especially over-voting.
The counsel to APC, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), in his final written address, said that all documents and processes were filed and submitted on January 8.
Fagbemi adopted all submitted written documents and objections on point of law, and also argued all objections earlier filed by the respondents, urging the court to accede to all his submissions and requests.
Fagbemi also cited sections 51 (2) and 47(2) of the Electoral Act on the cancellation of polling units where the number of votes exceeded the number of registered and accredited voters.
Also, Akin Olujimi (SAN), counsel to Oyetola, while speaking on Friday, said tha the testimonial tendered by Adeleke did not show that he attended Muslim Grammar School in Ede region of the state.
Olujimi dismissed the claim by the respondents that Adeleke was eligible to contest the election.
He also submitted that the testimonial that Osun state governor tendered was fake because it was obtained in 1988 from Osun state, while Osun was actually created in 1991.
According to him, the respondent should have pleaded that the mistake was a typographical issue but which they never did.
Olujimi said that all the documents tendered by the respondent’s counsel had no connection with each other, with no probative value.
INEC Counsel, Prof. Paul Ananaba (SAN), in his own submissions, tendered to the court his final written addresses dated December 30, 2022, and filed the same date.
Ananaba adopted all documents submitted as his final written address, adding that the duty of INEC was to certify that the respondent, Adeleke, was qualified to contest the governorship election which they did.
He said that, “The petitioners complained of over-voting and infractions by picking 749 polling units to contend with from 1750 polling units, according to the first respondent witnessed (RW1).
“If the deduction of 1750 units was carried out from the total 3763 units in the state, the second respondent will still emerge as the winner with over 20,000 votes.”
Meanwhile, Onyechi Ikpeazu, counsel to Adeleke, also adopted all the tendered documents filed as its final written address and urged the tribunal to dismiss the petitioner’s application against his client, The Guardian reports.
Ikpeazu said that the argument against Adeleke’s certificates and eligibility to contest the governorship election had been addressed by the Court of Appeal.
On the issue of the over-voting claim, Ikpeazu told the court that certified true copies of documents of accreditation were done through the BVAS machines, adding that BVAS was the primary source of accreditation.
He further argued that extraction from the INEC database was not the same as extraction from the BVAS machines.
Ikpeazu noted that the petitioners’ agents did not contest the results of any polling units on the day of the election, despite the fact that they also signed the results which were authentic.
He said that, “The entries in form EC8A tallied with figures on the forms as being contended by the petitioners.
“You can not determine over-voting proper without the application of the BVAS machines.”
Counsel to PDP, Alex Iziyon (SAN), also adopted all written documents filed and submitted on point of laws.
Iziyon noted that the issue of forgery of the certificate as contended by the petitioners had been cleared in the judgment of the court of appeal and had no value.
Comments