The Supreme Court today (Monday) spent about four hours
devoted to the long drawn battle for Osun governorship.
Chairing was the Chief Justice himself, Tanko Mohammed
who alertedly coordinated the hearing ,enforcing rules and
affirming the apex court readiness to do justice.
As much as the final judgement is scheduled for July 5th,the
public beyond political propaganda may want to peruse the
following as the takeaways from the hearing:
1. CJN’S FRANKNESS
Contrary to insinuations, the CJN demonstrated fairness,
alertness and passion for adjudication with justice as the
ultimate goal. Repeatedly, he affirmed: “We will read your
briefs twice ,thrice and even more before we write our
judgement. We will do justice”. The insistence to follow
substance rather than technicalities was clearly evident.
2. COUNSELS’ STRATEGIES
The counsels on both sides were at maximum alert. The
respondents’ lawyers adopted the strategy of dodging the
issue, the substance of the case,opting for an exit strategy by picking for errors in the appellant’s brief. Interestingly, the only one the counsel got on one of the four Appeals under
consideration was a secondary error which does not touch the primary core of the appeal. The Appellant’s counsels on the other hand combined combative corrective measures before the lord justices while maintaining the focus on the core grounds of the appeal;
3. CONSOLIDATION OF APPEALS
The CJN directed consolidation of the four appeals into two
even while allowing all issues to be mentioned and addressed.
The main appeal and the cross appeal which was a
constitutional issue were adopted under dramatic setting. The more than 30 grounds canvassed by the Appellant were thus consolidated .The goal was to fast track the hearing and ease the writing of final judgement;
4. UNANSWERED MAIN APPEAL
The appellant’s counsel adopted the brief of the main appeal
which was seeking upturning of Appeal Court judgement and
seeking declaration of Ademola Adeleke as the governor of
Osun state. Interestingly, neither APC nor INEC filed any brief
on this. Both supported the brief filed by Gboyega Oyetola
through his counsel, Wole Olanipekun.
5. CROSS APPEAL SHOTS
The appellant also adopted the brief for the cross appeal,
positing that on constitutional ground, Senator Ademola
Adeleke should have been declared winner based on
September 22 poll results by the INEC in compliance with
Section 179. (2) of CFRN. They also Cited a Supreme Court
judgement in the case of Buhari versus Obasanjo, where the
Supreme court struck down the INEC manual on use of Card
Readers as it conflicted with the Electoral Act. The appellant
argued that any additional conditions for winning election not known to the constitution should be struck down by the apex court. The CJN and others took copious note during the presentations.
6. APEALLANTS’ LEGAL ERUDITION
Argument that September 22 outcome did not satisfy
constitutional requirement of election being held in all parts of the state constituency was countered by appellant’s counsel.
The cancellation of seven polling units was described as an
illegal act designed to rob the winner of September 22 victory through the holding of another illegal rerun on the 27th;
7.WEAK DEFENCE
The Oyetola/APC team at the Supreme Court today failed to
come up with ANY CREDIBLE defense against Sen Ademola
Adeleke’s solid grounds of Appeal to be declared legitimate
Governor of Osun state having satisfied the requirements of
Section 179 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria.
Instead of arguing the merits of the case,the respondent went wild with a Preliminary Objection based on an observed minor typo at the last page of the notice of Appeal as transmitted by the Appeal court, particularly page 4,027, where the counsels were listed as “Counsel to the Respondents” instead of “Counsel to the Appellant”. A very trivial and inconsequential typo.
8. CRITICAL LEGAL NOTE
The Supreme Court ruled In JERIC NIGERIA LIMITED v. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC (2000) 14 NWLR (pt.691), the Supreme Court per KALGO JSC at page 458 that quoted in part:
“…….. The error is as in my respectful view not fatal as to
render the appeal incompetent. It is also true as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that this court has long moved away from sticking to technicalities as opposed, to the determination of parties rights on merits and substantial justice. See the State v. Gwonto (1983) 1 SCNLR at 160; Amako v. The state (1995) 6 NWLR (pt. 399) 11 at 26; Akpan v. The State (1992) 6 NWLR (pt. 248) 439.
“I am therefore satisfied and hereby find that the putting in of
the year *”1996 instead of “1997” in referring to the date of the judgment of the trial court appealed against to the Court of Appeal on the Notice of Appeal filed by the respondent, is a mere irregularity in the circumstances and did not vitiate the appeal or render the Court of Appeal incompetent to entertain the appeal”.*
9. THE WEAK FOCUS
The typo that respondent’s counsels based their arguments on was so inconsequential that it did not affect them in their
replies as they did not refer to it in any of their reply briefs, it
also occurred in 1 out of 4 Appeals filed by Senator Adeleke’s
team of Counsels, there cannot therefore be any basis for
concern or alarm.
10. CONCLUSION
Judgement on the consolidated Appeals 553, 554 and 555 as well as the separate cross Appeal 556 were reserved till the 5th of July, 2019.

Adebisi who was in Abuja is based at Ikoyi Lagos.

www.promptnewsonline.com/osun-guber-11-takeaways-from-supreme-court-hearing-by-adebiyi-adebisi/

*APC HAS NO CREDIBLE DEFENCE TO ADELEKE/PDP'S APPEALS AT THE SUPREME COURT*
- base their entire case on minor typo.

It was a very sorry case and sad day for the OYETOLA and APC team of counsels at the Supreme Court today when they couldn't come up with ANY CREDIBLE defense against Sen Ademola Adeleke's solid grounds of Appeal to be declared legitimate Governor of Osun state having satisfied the requirements of Section 179 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Instead of arguing the merits of the case OYETOLA/APC went wild with a Preliminary Objection based on an observed minor typo at the last page of the notice of Appeal as transmitted by the Appeal court, particularly page 4,027, where the counsels were listed as "Counsel to the Respondents" instead of "Counsel to the Appeallant".

A very trivial and inconsequential mistake which OYETOLA'S lead counsel; Chief OLANIPEKUN (SAN) and Chief OLUJINMI (SAN) were so ashamed to move personally but instead pushed his young son to move in court. A testament to their dodging the shame of basing their entire argument on trivialities. Adeleke's counsels albeit filed a motion to amend the typo part and this motion was adopted by the honourable Justices before they went to poignantly argue Adeleke's meritorious case on solid grounds of law.

It is quite pathetic that OYETOLA'S counsels had no substance to present before the 7 man panel of Justices of the Supreme court but triviliaties. More pathetic is their position that the SUPREME COURT has made a tradition not to dwell on trivialities but substances of cases.

The Supreme Court ruled In JERIC NIGERIA LIMITED v. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC (2000) 14 NWLR (pt.691), the Supreme Court per KALGO JSC at page 458 that:

"I also entirely agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent that the mis-circumstances of the case is a mere irregularity which did not vitiate the appeal or cause any miscarriage of justice. The error is as in my respectful view not fatal as to render the appeal incompetent. It is also true as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that this court has long moved away from sticking to technicalities as opposed, to the determination of parties rights on merits and substantial justice. See the State v. Gwonto (1983) 1 SCNLR at 160; Amako v. The state (1995) 6 NWLR (pt. 399) 11 at 26; Akpan v. The State (1992) 6 NWLR (pt. 248) 439.
I am therefore satisfied and hereby find that the putting in of the year *"1996 instead of “1997” in referring to the date of the judgment of the trial court appealed against to the Court of Appeal on the Notice of Appeal filed by the respondent, is a mere irregularity in the circumstances and did not vitiate the appeal or render the Court of Appeal incompetent to entertain the appeal".*

The typo that APC/OLETOLA's counsels based their arguments on was so inconsequential that it did not affect them in their replies as they did not refer to it in any of their reply briefs, it also occurred in 1 out of 4 Appeals filed by Senator Adeleke's team of Counsels, there cannot therefore be any basis for concern or empty alarms that APC Social media pundits are wailing over. It merely shows they have no credible defence to the stolen mandate which their principals hold.

Judgement on the consolidated Appeals 553, 554 and 555 as well as the separate cross Appeal 556 were reserved till the 5th of July, 2019.

The truth will always prevail over lies and deceits

*OSUN GOVERNORSHIP Supreme Court TUSSLE Updates Brought To You By Continental News Gazette~CNG*

Hearing Commence at the Supreme Court as counsels to Defendants and Appellants announced appearance

Chief Olanipekun wanted to move a Notice of Preliminary Objection but Dr Ikpeazu, PDP Counsel, stated that he has a motion on notice which will cure the preliminary objection. Chief Olanipekun stated that the 1st Respondent is opposing the motion and has filed counter processes

The Supreme Court held that the judgment in Appeal No. 553 filed by Adeleke and PDP against the judgments of the Court of Appeal in favour of APC and INEC will cover Appeals No. 554 and 555 filed against the judgments of the Court of Appeal in favour of APC and INEC.

Wole Olanipekun is fighting his preliminary objection and Dr Ikpeazu is covering the ground to make sure Wole fails.

Dr Ikpeazu SAN is now moving a motion seeking to cure the defects upon which the 1st Respondent's Preliminary Objection was predicated. He urged the court to grant the application.

The CJN asked Dr Ikpeazu what the motion is all about. He replied that the motion is seeking to amend the name of the Counsel appearing under the signature.

Dr Ikpeazu admitted that the notice of appeal was not attached as Exhibit and apologised to the court for the failure but was asked to be refer to the Record.

Dr Ikpeazu, upon inquiry from the Court said the essence of their application is to amend as 1st and 2nd Respondents to read 1st and 2nd Appellants.

The Supreme Court reserved ruling on the Preliminary Objection and the Motion for amendment.

Dr Ikpeazu identified the Brief of argument as being filed on the 24th May, 2019. and the Reply Brief was filed on 30th of May. He prayed the court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and restored the Tribunal verdict.

*~CNG*

There is difference between propaganda and the substance of the law.

The lawyer had lay down there arguments before the SCJ

All BMC Propaganda cannot change anything at the moment.

PAGE 1

Governor Adegboyega Oyetola, his party, the All
Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC) have urged the Supreme Court
to dismiss the four appeals filed the candidate of the
Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the last governorship
election in Osun State, Senator Ademola Adeleke.
Adeleke’s four appeals, marked: SC/553/2019;
SC/554/2019; SC/555/2019 and SC/556/2019 are
challenging the May 9, 2019 judgments of the Court of
Appeal, Abuja which affirmed the election of Adegboyega
Oyetola of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the
governor of Osun State.
The Court of Appeal also set aside the majority judgment of
the election tribunal which had allowed Adeleke’s petition
and declared him winner of the election.
On Monday, a seven-man panel of the court, led by the
Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Ibrahim
Muhammad heard the appeals and chose July 5, 2015 for
judgment.
On Monday, by agreement of lawyers in the appeals, the
court took submissions from Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) for the
appellant and Wole Olanipekun (SAN) for the 1st respondent
(Oyetola) in respect of appeal marked: SC/553/2019.
The court said its judgment in the main appeal –
SC/553/2019 – will be applied to two other similar one,
filed by Adeleke against the Court of Appeal’s decision in
relation to the appeals filed by the Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC) and the APC, marked:
SC/554/2019 and SC/555/2019.
The court also took arguments from Ikpeazu (for the
appellant), Yusuf Ali (SAN) for INEC; Bode Olanipekun (SAN)
for Oyetola and Olumide Olujinmi, for APC in relation to the
fourth appeal, marked: SC/556/2019.
In their arguments, lawyers to the respondents – INEC,
Oyetola and the APC faulted the appeals and prayed the
court to dismiss them for lacking in merit.
Read Also; Osun gov dispute:
Supreme Court hears Adeleke’s
appeal, Monday
The respondents prayed the court to uphold the judgments
as given onMay9, 2019 by the Court of Appeal in Abuja,
which affirmed Oyetola of the APC as the winner of the
governorship election held in September 2018.
In relation to the first set of appeals – SC/553/2019;
SC554/2019 and SC/555/2019, Ikpeazu urged the court to
set aside the judgements of the Court of Appeal and restore
the majority judgment given in his client’s favour by the
election tribunal.
In a counter-argument, Wole Olanipekun, Ali and Olunijmi
faulted the competence of the appeals and urged the court
to dismiss them for lacking in merit.
They prayed the court to uphold the May 9 judgments given
in favour of the respondents by the Court of Appeal.
In arguing the fourth appeal: SC/556/2019, Ikpeazu urged
the court to set aside the two concurrent judgments of the
election tribunal and the Court of Appeal, in which both
courts rejected Adeleke’s request to void the supplementary
election held after INEC declared the Osun governorship
election inconclusive.
Ikpeazu said his client’s contention was that INEC lacked
the powers to have cancelled elections in some pooling
units and order a rerun.
He argued that the supplementary election was unnecessary
because his client had won the election and met the
constitutional requirement to be declared winner.
Continue on page 2


https://thenationonlineng.net/osun-oyetola-apc-inec-ask-supreme-court-to-dismiss-adelekes-appeal/

PAGE 2


Ikpeazu prayed the court to set aside the Paragraph 44 of
the INEC’s Guideline,on which basis the supplementary
election was held,on the grounds that it conflicted with the
Constitution.
Olanipekun’s son, Bode Olanipekun (SAN) argued the fourth
appeal for Oyetola, urged the court to disregard Ikpeazu’s
contention that the supplementary election was
unnecessary.
He argued that Paragraph 44 of INEC Guidelines was not in
conflict with the Constitution.
Olanipekun, who noted that Section 178(4) of the
Constitution provides that the entire state is the
constituency for a governorship election.
He argued that “where elections have not held in the entire
state, the appellant cannot contend that he won the
election, as against the 2nd respondent (Oyetola), who won
the election as conducted across the whole of the state,”
Olanipekun said.
He urged the court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in
merit.
Lawyers to INEC and the APC argued in similar vein, with Ali
(for INEC) arguing that Ikpeazu’s submission on reliefs 8and
9 of his client (Adeleke’s) petition, overlooked the fact that
election tribunal are special tribunal with limited jurisdiction
to determine whether somebody was properly returned in an
election.
“The quarrel of the appellant is against concurrent findings
of two lowers courts. There are no compelling reasons to
make this court interfere with the concurrent findings of the
two lower courts,” Ali said.
Olujinmi urged the court to be guided by its earlier decision
in the case of Faleke v. INEC 2016 8 NWLR, prt 1543 pg 61,
in which this court affirmed the limited scope of the
jurisdiction of the election tribunal.
He noted that even though Adeleke and his party, the PDP
are aware of this court’s decision in that case (Faleke case),
but have failed to approach the court for departure on its
position on that issue.
Other members of the panel that heard the appeals Justices
Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, Kumai Aka’ahs, Kudirat Kekere-
Ekun, Amiru Sanusi, Paul Galunmje and Uwani Abbah-Aji.


https://thenationonlineng.net/osun-oyetola-apc-inec-ask-supreme-court-to-dismiss-adelekes-appeal/2/

We have gone past Osun, we are focused squarely on retrieving Atiku's stolen mandate.

Adeleke will win.

APC Court of Nigeria despite admitting that INEC went beyond their powers and constitutional mandate in certain dealings at the Osun election erroneously granted the appeal of APC on one of the grounds that the the justice that read the lead judgment was absently during the course of the proceedings.

The APC justices forgot that the Tribunal is a superior court of records. I wonder what court of records means to them.

ChristianNorth:
We have gone past Osun, we are focused squarely on retrieving Atiku's stolen mandate.

Adeleke will win.

APC Court of Nigeria despite admitting that INEC went beyond their powers and constitutional mandate in certain dealings at the Osun election erroneously granted the appeal of APC on one of the grounds that the the justice that read the lead judgment was absently during the course of the proceedings.

The APC justices forgot that the Tribunal is a superior court of records. I wonder what court of records means to them.

Exactly.

What people don't know is that, yesterday hearing was to put dots to the supreme court decision.

All neccesary judgment had been written.

Hopin whether APC will come up with something tangible as their defense yersterday, but in their usual manner, NO DEFENSE

no wonder Wole Olanipekun had to put his son forward to the slaughter table at the supreme court yesterday

As divergent as judicial pronouncements on the
September 2018 governorship election in Osun State have
been, there has been a consensus judicial opinion on a
point — the Independent National Electoral Commission
“went to work” on the result sheets of some polling units
after the conduct of the poll.
On March 22, 2019, the tribunal, by a split decision of
two-to-one of the three-man panel, nullified the election
of Governor Adegboyega Oyetola of the All Progressives
Congress and declared the Peoples Democratic Party as
the true winner of the election.
However, by another split decision of four-to-one of its
five-man panel, the Court of Appeal in Abuja on May 9,
2019, nullified the judgment of the tribunal and affirmed
Oyetola’s victory at the poll.
But the minority and majority judgments at both the
tribunal and the Court of Appeal agreed that INEC
“doctored” the result sheets but disagreed on the effect of
the alterations on the result sheets from the affected 17
polling units on the outcome of the election.
It will be recalled that the majority judgment of the
tribunal had invalidated the results of the Osun State
governorship election in 17 polling units where it held that
the failure of INEC’s electoral officers to fill in eight
columns on the Forms EC8As (the result sheets) of the
said polling units amounted to a “substantial non-
compliance” with the Electoral Act and INEC’s Guidelines
and Manuals for Electoral Officers.
In arriving at its decision to declare Ademola Adeleke the
winner of the election, the tribunal in its majority judgment
subtracted the number of votes polled by both the PDP
and the APC in the 17 polling units from the total number
of votes polled by the two parties in the election and also
nullified the September 27, 2018 supplementary poll which
it held was baseless.
The affected polling units which the tribunal declared were
conducted without “substantial compliance” were eight in
Osogbo, the state capital, and one in each of Ife North,
Iwo, Ayedaade, Ejigbo, Ilesa East, Boripe, Olorunda, Ife
South, Egbedore.
The certified true copies of the Forms EC8A from the
polling units which were tendered in court had all the eight
columns completed, in contrast to the duplicate copies
without the entries which were presented in court by the
petitioners.
But the petitioners – PDP and Adeleke – successfully
proved to the tribunal that the certified true copies of the
documents were doctored by providing the “pink copies”,
which were the duplicate copies issued to party agents in
the polling units after election ended at the various polling
units.
The effect was that the certified true copies of the
documents produced by INEC lost the statutory privilege
of being presumed regular.
Justice Peter Obiorah, who read the lead majority
judgment of the tribunal consented to by another member
of the panel, Justice Adegboye Gbolagunte, said, “The
witnesses of the petitioners said that the CTCs were
‘doctored’.
“Of a truth, that is what they are because the CTCs
contained what were obviously inserted on the forms after
the election was concluded and the genuinely filled forms
issued out to the polling agents.
“Who made those strange entries? When were the strange
entries made?
“The respondents, particularly, the 1st respondent (INEC),
did not provide any answer.
“The fact that the CTCs were tampered with and suddenly
emerged with figures in the columns and the large spread
of the polling unit results where it occurred lends
credence to our opinion that the act of non-recording of
the columns at the time of the election was deliberate.”
In the closing remark in the majority judgment, Justice
Obiorah frowned on the conduct of INEC, which he said,
“holds an office of public trust” and should always strive
“to maintain the sanctity of the electoral process”.
He stated, “We cannot close the judgment without making
a comment on what we observed to be the conduct of the
1st respondent.
“We note that a substantial number of the certified true
copies of the Forms EC8A either had figures on them
altered or had figures entered on them in columns were
not on the pink copies of the Forms EC8A distributed to
the parties’ polling agents on the day of the election which
were tendered before this honourable tribunal.
“The obvious implication of this unfortunate development
is that the 1st respondent went to work on the documents
after the election behind the parties.
“The 1st respondent should realise that it holds an office
of public trust and should at all times strive to maintain
the sanctity of the electoral process.”
Justice Muhammad Sirajo, the chairman of the tribunal,
disagreed with the majority judgment by affirming the
APC’s victory in the election, but agreed that the result
sheets produced by INEC could not enjoy the presumption
of regularity as they ought to.
This he said informed his decision to base his analysis of
the evidence on the ‘pink copies’ produced by the
petitioners instead of the CTCs in INEC’s custody.
He said, “What is more in view of the fact that the
presumption of regularity with respect to the certified true
copies of the result sheets for these 23 polling units has
been successfully rebutted by the petitioners for the
various reasons stated in the majority judgment of this
tribunal, which I subscribed to, there is no reason, for me
to base my decision on them.”
At the Court of Appeal, four members of the panel
affirmed the minority judgment of the tribunal and
affirmed Oyetola’s victory at the poll, while a member of
the appellate court’s panel affirmed the tribunal’s majority
judgment.
Those who adopted the majority judgments in the three
appeals decided on by the Court of Appeal were Justices
Jummai Sankey, Abubakar Yahaya, Isaiah Akeju and Bitrus
Sanga.
Justice George Mbaba disagreed
But all the five panel members agreed that the result
sheets were doctored.
Justice Sankey, the head of the panel who read the lead
judgment, held that it would be pretentious to quibble
about the doctoring.
She said, “Upfront, from the evidence and the pleadings
before the tribunal, it is quite apparent that non-
compliance with the Guidelines and Manual for the
Election in this regard was established by the
respondents, in that by the presentation of evidence of the
certified true copies (otherwise referred to as ‘CTC’) of the
Forms EC8A and their pink counterparts, it was evident
that there were entries in the eight columns of the CTCs
of the Forms EC8As of these polling units which were not
contained in the counterpart copies given to polling
agents of the respondents, otherwise known as ‘pink
copies’.
“Therefore, the tribunal drew the conclusion that the
columns were filled after the pink copies had been given
to the party agents.
“I think the tribunal came to a right conclusion on this
based on the cold hard evidence in the documents before
it. To quibble about this would only be pretentious.”
Justice Sankey, in however affirming the minority
judgment of the tribunal, was quick to add that the
absence of entries in the eight columns in the pink copies
of the result sheets which were relied on by the tribunal,
was not a substantial compliance and did not substantially
affect the outcome of the election.
She added, “Thus from the above pieces of evidence from
the 1st and 2nd respondents’ witnesses, they were
consistent in saying that all these provisions were duly
complied with by the election officials in the 17 polling
units.
“The only problem the witnesses had was in relation to the
fact that the 1st respondent did not fill out the eight
columns for accreditation and ballot accounting in the
Forms EC8A given to them at the close of voting and
announcement of results.
“The evidence of these witnesses, who were the polling
agents, was therefore in disagreement with the averments
of the petitioners in paragraphs 45 to 77 of the petition,
wherein they pleaded that the failure to fill in the columns
in the Forms EC8A was deliberate in order to hide
wrongful entries as to votes and accreditation.
“No such evidence was given by them or elicited from
them under re-examination.
“More significant is the fact that the witnesses all agreed
that they signed the white copies of the results and they
were given the pink carbonised copies.
“In addition, they all agreed that they did not have any
problem with the scores recorded on both the CTCS and
the pink copies of the Forms EC8A and that the scores in
the result sheets were correct.”
On his part, Justice Mbaba, dissented from the Court of
Appeal’s majority judgment, upheld the majority judgment
of the tribunal and nullified Oyetola’s election.
On the issue of doctoring of the result sheets, Justice
Mbaba said, “It was clear that the Form EC8As (pink
copies) given to the parties by the appellant and the CTC
of the same Form EC8A produced from the custody of
the appellant (meant to be original of the same process)
spoke differently, and conflicted, providing the basis for
rebuttal of the presumption of regularity.
“See section 63 of the Electoral Act, as to the study of
appellant.
“It was also found by the tribunal that the widespread
nature of the obvious defect suggested it was a deliberate
act of the appellant to compromise the credibility of the
elections and so it affected the outcome of the elections,
to qualify as substantial non-compliance.”
The PDP and its governorship candidate, Adeleke, had
dragged the APC, the Osun State governor and INEC to
the Supreme Court to challenge the majority judgment of
the Court of Appeal.
The appellants had in their four separate appeals urged
the apex court to uphold their case, set aside the majority
judgement of the Court of Appeal delivered in favour of
Oyetola, the APC and the INEC, and dismiss Oyetola’s
appeal against the majority decision of the tribunal.
Certainly, the Supreme Court’s assessment of the impact
of the non-filling of the entries on the result sheets in the
17 polling units would be central to the decision of the
apex court on the validity of the election.
Culled from Punch


https://thenigerialawyer.com/osun-what-the-courts-have-said-about-inec-in-split-judgments/

ChristianNorth:
We have gone past Osun, we are focused squarely on retrieving Atiku's stolen mandate.

Adeleke will win.

APC Court of Nigeria despite admitting that INEC went beyond their powers and constitutional mandate in certain dealings at the Osun election erroneously granted the appeal of APC on one of the grounds that the the justice that read the lead judgment was absently during the course of the proceedings.

The APC justices forgot that the Tribunal is a superior court of records. I wonder what court of records means to them.

It is a done deal these robbers called APC and INEC just shot themselves at the feet.

Bunch of miserable losers up there. Your eyes will clear by July. Just dream on

Johnnyessence:
PAGE 2


Ikpeazu prayed the court to set aside the Paragraph 44 of
the INEC’s Guideline,on which basis the supplementary
election was held,on the grounds that it conflicted with the
Constitution.
Olanipekun’s son, Bode Olanipekun (SAN) argued the fourth
appeal for Oyetola, urged the court to disregard Ikpeazu’s
contention that the supplementary election was
unnecessary.
He argued that Paragraph 44 of INEC Guidelines was not in
conflict with the Constitution.
Olanipekun, who noted that Section 178(4) of the
Constitution provides that the entire state is the
constituency for a governorship election.
He argued that “where elections have not held in the entire
state, the appellant cannot contend that he won the
election, as against the 2nd respondent (Oyetola), who won
the election as conducted across the whole of the state,”
Olanipekun said.
He urged the court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in
merit.
Lawyers to INEC and the APC argued in similar vein, with Ali
(for INEC) arguing that Ikpeazu’s submission on reliefs 8and
9 of his client (Adeleke’s) petition, overlooked the fact that
election tribunal are special tribunal with limited jurisdiction
to determine whether somebody was properly returned in an
election.
“The quarrel of the appellant is against concurrent findings
of two lowers courts. There are no compelling reasons to
make this court interfere with the concurrent findings of the
two lower courts,” Ali said.
Olujinmi urged the court to be guided by its earlier decision
in the case of Faleke v. INEC 2016 8 NWLR, prt 1543 pg 61,
in which this court affirmed the limited scope of the
jurisdiction of the election tribunal.
He noted that even though Adeleke and his party, the PDP
are aware of this court’s decision in that case (Faleke case),
but have failed to approach the court for departure on its
position on that issue.
Other members of the panel that heard the appeals Justices
Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, Kumai Aka’ahs, Kudirat Kekere-
Ekun, Amiru Sanusi, Paul Galunmje and Uwani Abbah-Aji.


https://thenationonlineng.net/osun-oyetola-apc-inec-ask-supreme-court-to-dismiss-adelekes-appeal/2/

...this is it as it happened
Not the take aways

engineerboat:
There is difference between propaganda and the substance of the law.

The lawyer had lay down there arguments before the SCJ

All BMC Propaganda cannot change anything at the moment.

The only propaganda i see here is from your boy johnny,a very desperate one.

Cajal:
...this is it as it happened
Not the take aways

Thank you.that his takeaway is a viewpoint of a pdp apologist

Introduction
Nigerian courts, especially the Supreme Court of Nigeria,
have in many decided cases, continued to represent their
preference for substantial justice over technical justice.
Contemporaneously, these courts have held that once an
originating process commencing a suit is unsigned by a
claimant or the claimant’s counsel, they are robbed of the
jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. [i] This fatal
consequence of an unsigned originating process on a suit,
as held by Nigerian Courts, seems to be contradictory and
hypocritical to their preference for substantial justice. It
has been argued that the inadvertence of a counsel to
sign an originating process should ordinarily fall within the
ambit of technicality which substantial justice should cure.
[ii] This article explores this purported contradiction and
hypocrisy and ultimately answers whether Nigerian courts
are sacrificing substantial justice for technicalities.
Modes of Commencing Action
Pursuant to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, 1999 as amended, every court has its own Rules
which govern the practice and procedures to be followed
by litigants and their Counsel when instituting or defending
an action before such court. [iii] The Rules provide for the
modes in which actions are commenced in court.
Pertinently, the established modes as provided under the
various Rules of court include; Writ of Summons,
Originating Summons, Originating Motion and Petition. [iv]
Of all these modes, Writ of Summons is the most used, as
almost all causes of action can be enforced through it. [v]
Issues Implicated
In commencing an action, a counsel to a litigant is
mandated to prepare the originating process by adapting
the relevant Form provided in the Rules. Once adapted,
such a counsel is required by the Rules to fill in his details
[name, capacity and address] and finally, sign the
originating process. [vi] It is after the foregoing has been
done that the originating process will be filed at the
Registry of the relevant court and consequently, sealed by
the Registry. As simple as the foregoing processes may
seem, there are instances where due to inadvertence, a
counsel would proceed to commence an action without
signing the originating process. The question which
agitates the mind is: what legal effect does the failure of a
counsel to sign an originating process have on the action?
At first blush, one would think such a failure was merely a
technical mistake which would have no damning effect on
the action. However, the body of case law that has been
developed in the Nigerian legal system says otherwise.
The Nigerian Courts, spearheaded by the Supreme Court,
have held that once an originating process is unsigned, it
renders same void. The failure is so fatal that a court
cannot exercise its jurisdiction and if exercised, all
proceedings undertaken in that matter shall be a nullity.
[vii] The fatality is so gross that if the adverse party fails
to discover the failure at the trial court, he can raise it at
the appellate court for the first time without seeking the
permission of the appellate court. This was the decision
of the Supreme Court in SLB Consortium Limited V.
Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation [2011] LPELR-
SC.180/2008.
This principle has been extended to situations where an
originating process was signed but the name of the
counsel who signed is not written below the signature.
Examples abound where lawyers inadvertently omitted
their names but wrote the names of their law firms below
the signature. It has been held that such inadvertence
renders the originating process void and entire suit
incompetent. [viii] According to Nigerian courts, only a
legal practitioner within the meaning of section 2 (1) of
the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap L11, LFN 2004, can sign
an originating process and not a law firm owned by that
legal practitioner. [ix]
In practice, once the issue of an unsigned originating
process is raised before the court and the court finds that
the originating process was indeed unsigned, courts hint
counsel to withdraw the action so as not to waste the
courts’ time since it is certain that any Ruling that would
be delivered on the issue would be against the claimant.
The position of the Nigerian courts however seems
contradictory and hypocritical considering the judicial
representation and holdings of these same courts to
uphold substantial justice over technicalities. An example
of these holdings is the dictum of the Supreme Court in
Dapianlong v. Dariye (No.2) [2007] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1036) 332
where Onneghen J.S.C [as he then was] held as follows;
“The reign of technical justice is over. On the throne now
sits substantial justice. Long may you reign, substantial
justice! ” Was it not in Alioke v. Oye & Ors [2018]
LPELR-45153(SC) 28-29, Paras. E-E that the Supreme
Court also held as follows: “our duty as an Apex Court is to
do substantial, justice-stark justice, based on fairness
which to all intent and purposes, seeks to not only ensure
fairness in dispensing justice, but which is manifestly seen
and duly acknowledged by all and sundry as justice both in
content and context. We are not judicial technicians in the
workshop of technical Justice. The jurisprudence or logic
of our reasoning is and as humanly possible, would be
devoid of technicalities… The need to do substantial justice
and avoid delving into the error of technicalities is well
settled. Even in cases where errors of omission or
commission called blunders have been made, it is unjust to
hold that because blunders have been committed, the party
blundering is to incur the penalty of not having the dispute
between him and his adversary determined upon the
merits. ”
It is thus apposite to look into the meaning of
technicalities. The Court of Appeal in Benedict Orji & Ors.
V. Ozo Nne Iloputaife & Ors. [2011] LPELR-9199(CA) 24,
paras. A-E, relying on the Black’s Law Dictionary. 6th Ed.,
defines technicality to mean “ immaterial, not affecting
substantial rights, without substance ”. Thus, any issue that
does not border on the substantive rights of the parties
before the court is a technicality. From the foregoing, the
inadvertence of a counsel to sign an originating process
ought to be treated as a technicality as it does not affect
the substantive rights of the parties before a court.
If indeed Nigerian courts are concerned only with the
substantive rights of the parties or the merit of the case
before them, then it presupposes that their decision on the
effect of an unsigned originating process is not only
contradictory and hypocritical but also amounts to
sacrificing substantial justice for technicalities. This is
because the attention of our courts should be centred on
resolving the substantive issues between parties on the
merit, on the principle of:
1. what happened between the parties?
2. what is the legal position on what has happened?
3. who is guilty or who is at fault between the parties?
4. what are the available remedies?
5. who deserves the remedy between the adverse
parties?
Issue bordering on whether an originating process was
signed by a lawyer should not generate any controversy in
the first place. If a counsel fails to sign an originating
process before commencing an action, such can easily be
resolved by the counsel producing his/her Call to Bar
Certificate to the court and if need be, signing the already
filed originating process after the court is satisfied that the
counsel was called to the Nigerian bar and enrolled at the
Supreme Court. However, it seems our courts prefer to
jettison the substantive issue in controversy between
parties [which could be conflict over title to land, divorce,
breach of contract, liability for a crime and others] and
focus scarce attention on whether an originating process
was signed.
By their decision, our courts have played into the hands of
litigants who enjoy frustrating the cause of justice through
delay tactic. Thus, once a lawyer discovers that the
originating process of the opposing side is unsigned, he
need not raise any objection at the trial court until the
matter gets to the Supreme Court. As earlier indicated,
such a lawyer does not need the permission of the
Supreme Court to raise the objection for the first time and
once successfully raised, everything that had been done
right from the trial court to the Supreme Court shall be a
nullity. With the slow court system in Nigeria where a case
may take up to 10-15 years to get resolved from the trial
court to the Supreme Court, a litigant’s hope and time in
getting justice would have been wasted on the technical
excuse that an originating process was not signed by his
counsel. Taking the inadvertence of counsel on innocent
litigants is antithetical to justice.
Recommendation and Conclusion
While the law frowns at taking law into one’s hand, people
have in obedience, tried to ventilate their grievances in
court by instituting actions against the adverse party. The
best our courts can do is to decide the issues between
the parties on the merit, on the principle of: what
happened between the parties? what is the legal position
on what has happened? who is guilty or who is at fault
between the parties? what are the available remedies?
who deserves the remedy between the adverse parties?
Issue as to whether an originating process was signed by
a counsel should not garner attention in courts since
same can be resolved by the counsel satisfying the court
that he is qualified to practise by producing; his/her Call to
Bar Certificate to the court; and evidence of enrolment at
the Supreme Court. Nigerian Courts, in the interest of
substantial justice, must look beyond technical justice and
overrule its decision.
Abiodun M. Rufai, Esq., Muhammedaje@gmail.com
[i] Okarika v. Samuel [2013] 7 NWLR (Pt. 1352) P.
19 at 43 paras A-C.
[ii] Okafor v. Nweke [2007] 10 NWLR (Pt.1043)
521.
[iii] Section 236, 248, 254F, 264, 279 of the
Constitution as Amended.
[iv] Order 5 Rules 1 and 5 of the High Court of
Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019. Also, Orders 3
and 5 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules,
2009.
[v] Ekanem & Ors. v. The Registered Trustees off
The Church of Christ, The Good Shepherd & Ors. [2011]
LPELR-9098(CA) 20-21, Paras.D-A.
[vi] Order 8 Rule 1 and 2 of the High Court of
Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019.
[vii] Okarika v. Samuel [supra]. See also Julius
Berger (Nig) Plc V. Jameshill Associate Ltd [2018]
LPELR-44299(CA).
[viii] SLB Consortium Limited V. Nigerian National
Petroleum Corporation [2011] LPELR-SC.180/2008.
[ix] SLB Consortium Limited V. Nigerian National
Petroleum Corporation [supra].

https://thenigerialawyer.com/legal-consequence-of-an-unsigned-originating-process-are-nigerian-courts-sacrificing-substantial-justice-for-technicalities-by-abiodun-m-rufai-esq/

engineerboat:


Exactly.

What people don't know is that, yesterday hearing was to put dots to the supreme court decision.

All neccesary judgment had been written.

Hopin whether APC will come up with something tangible as their defense yersterday, but in their usual manner, NO DEFENSE

no wonder Wole Olanipekun had to put his son forward to the slaughter table at the supreme court yesterday

You said this during the appeal court hearing.de ja vu

I thought I was the only one able to see tru the shenanigans of the lunatic writer who a SAN committed an elementary error n the jerk brushed it aside knowing the opponent will capitalise on it, he then went further to declaring more rubbish about why the bye election should be ignored all together n believe any court in Nigeria will be foolish enough to admit such after we have over 20 governors elected as result of same byelection.

PDP apologist are indeed exceedingly foolish when they go all out defending the foolishness of those they support. I did not even have to follow the court proceeding before I know Adeleke lost from foolishness of OP's rant.

Cajal:
....so u people believe the supplementary elections will be voided
U are playing I think!!
What is embedded in INEC GUIDELINE....
Even from the faces of PDP coubsels ...u know is a case closed against them

engineerboat:


Exactly.

What people don't know is that, yesterday hearing was to put dots to the supreme court decision.

All neccesary judgment had been written.

Hopin whether APC will come up with something tangible as their defense yersterday, but in their usual manner, NO DEFENSE

no wonder Wole Olanipekun had to put his son forward to the slaughter table at the supreme court yesterday

....so u people believe the supplementary elections will be voided
U are playing I think!!
What is embedded in INEC GUIDELINE....
Even from the faces of PDP coubsels ...u know is a case closed against them

Johnnyessence:
PAGE 2


Ikpeazu prayed the court to set aside the Paragraph 44 of
the INEC’s Guideline,on which basis the supplementary
election was held,on the grounds that it conflicted with the
Constitution.
Olanipekun’s son, Bode Olanipekun (SAN) argued the fourth
appeal for Oyetola, urged the court to disregard Ikpeazu’s
contention that the supplementary election was
unnecessary.
He argued that Paragraph 44 of INEC Guidelines was not in
conflict with the Constitution.
Olanipekun, who noted that Section 178(4) of the
Constitution provides that the entire state is the
constituency for a governorship election.
He argued that “where elections have not held in the entire
state, the appellant cannot contend that he won the
election, as against the 2nd respondent (Oyetola), who won
the election as conducted across the whole of the state,”
Olanipekun said.
He urged the court to dismiss the appeal for lacking in
merit.
Lawyers to INEC and the APC argued in similar vein, with Ali
(for INEC) arguing that Ikpeazu’s submission on reliefs 8and
9 of his client (Adeleke’s) petition, overlooked the fact that
election tribunal are special tribunal with limited jurisdiction
to determine whether somebody was properly returned in an
election.
“The quarrel of the appellant is against concurrent findings
of two lowers courts. There are no compelling reasons to
make this court interfere with the concurrent findings of the
two lower courts,” Ali said.
Olujinmi urged the court to be guided by its earlier decision
in the case of Faleke v. INEC 2016 8 NWLR, prt 1543 pg 61,
in which this court affirmed the limited scope of the
jurisdiction of the election tribunal.
He noted that even though Adeleke and his party, the PDP
are aware of this court’s decision in that case (Faleke case),
but have failed to approach the court for departure on its
position on that issue.
Other members of the panel that heard the appeals Justices
Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, Kumai Aka’ahs, Kudirat Kekere-
Ekun, Amiru Sanusi, Paul Galunmje and Uwani Abbah-Aji.


https://thenationonlineng.net/osun-oyetola-apc-inec-ask-supreme-court-to-dismiss-adelekes-appeal/2/

From this,wole son did well.he's preparing his son for the bigger stage to take over from him.the supreme court during the kogi guber case clearly legalised supplementary polls

Can a Tribunal Cancel Some Votes Cast in an Election and Still Declare a Candidate Winner of the Election based on the Un-Cancelled Votes? A Brief Reflection on Section 140 & Related Sections of the Electoral Act, 2010, as Amended I have seen and read the following statement on more than four different Social Media platforms within the last 24 hours: “Meanwhile, section 140 (2) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) does not permit the Tribunal to deduct votes and declare a winner.” With due respect, I am unable to agree with those who hold or disseminate such an opinion. I do not think that statement represents the true state of Nigeria’s electoral lawspertaining to powers of an Election Tribunal. Meanwhile, beyond reports in the newspapers, I have not read the detailed decision of the Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal, as delivered on 22 March, 2019. So, I would restrict myself to commenting on just the import of the provisions of section 140 (1), (2) and (3), as well as on some other relevant sections, ofthe Act on powers of an Election Tribunal to deduct/cancel votes cast in some areas/portion in an election and still declare a candidate winner of an election based on the un-cancelled votes/areas. I first reproduce the entire section 140 (1), (2) and (3) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended: “(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, if the Tribunal or the Court as the case may be, determines that a candidate who was returned as elected was not validly elected on any ground, the Tribunal or the Court shall nullify the election. (2) Where an election 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 shall not declare the person with the second highest votes or any other person as elected, but shall order a fresh election. (3) If the Tribunal or the Court determines that a candidate who was returned as elected was not validly elected on the ground that he did not score the majority of valid votes cast at the election, the Election Tribunal or the Court, as the case may be, shall declare as elected the candidate who scored the highest number of valid votes cast at the election and satisfied the requirements of the Constitution and this Act.” Irespectfully submit that section 140 (2) of the Electoral Act, as amended is NO longer part of the Act, having been declared null and void in 2011 for its inconsistency with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended. In the case of LABOUR PARTY V. INEC & ORS , the Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja had on Thursday, 21 July 2011, had declared that sections 140 (2) and 141 of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended, were null and void for being inconsistent with sections 134 and 179 of the Constitution which imbues the judiciary/court with powers to declare the person with majority votes winner of an election process Constitution. The court had thenordered that the two sections of the Electoral Act should not be binding on any Election Tribunal. Delivering judgment on the matter, the presiding trial judge, Hon Justice Gabriel Kolawole , had held that the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was bereft of any legislative competence to dictate to the Court of law decision the Court should take over a suit filed before it. Describing sections 140(2) and 141 of the Electoral Act, 2010 as an affront on the concept of separation of powers, the judge stated thatthe two sections smacked of legislative tyranny, in the sense that they removed the constitutionally guaranteed powers of the court to declare any candidate winner of an election. Thejudge further stated that what the National Assembly had done in this instance was todeliberately interfere with judicial affairs. While noting further that the two sections were nothing but legislative judgment, the judge had concluded thus: “Sections 140 (2) and 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 delimits power of the court to adjudicate dispute between parties in an Election Petition. It, therefore, derogates powers enshrined in Sections 4 [8] and 6 (1) of the 1999 Constitution. The decision a court can arrive at in any dispute is based on the peculiar factsand evidences presented before it, it is not what any parliament can technically determine. Once an Election Tribunal is seised with a matter in line with provisions of section 239 and 385 of the constitution, it can no longer reside with the legislature to curtail or abridge the powers of that court .I, therefore, find Sections 140 (2) and 141 needless and an unnecessary intrusion, it is my view that Election Tribunals can operate effectively without these two provisions.Consequently, it is hereby declared inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and, therefore, null and void. The various election tribunals shall not be bound by the provisions of Sections 140 (2) and 141, it is thus accordingly struck-down, same being unconstitutional.”

the 2011 judgment of the Federal High Court remains and represents the law on the subject till today; the decision a court can arrive at in any dispute is based on the peculiar facts and evidences presented before it, the court having, as the Federal High court said, the constitutionally guaranteed powers to declare any candidate winner of an election in line with sections 134 and 179 of the 1999 Constitution.It must however be noted that in the case of JEV v. IYORTYOM & 2 ORS (2014) 5-6 SC. PT III), the attention of the Supreme court was drawn to the 2011 judgment of Kolawole, J. in Labour Party v. INEC and this is what Fabiyi JSC had to say about the judgment: “EXHIBIT 2, the judgment of the Federal High Court, delivered on the 21st July 2011 is a ‘joker’ relied upon by the applicant to initiate his application. I dare say that this court was unaware of same. I do not agree with senior counsel to the applicant that the court was ignorant of same. A Judge is not a robot. Once an exhibit is placed before him, he must read and carefully consider it. I took time to read Exhibit 2 very well. The learned trial Judge did not touch on the non-joinder of the National Assembly as well as the locus standi of Labour Party. Since the judgment is not on appeal before this court, I maintain a stoic stance and hereby keep my peace.” I think the crucial part of this orbiter dictum by Fabiyi, JSC, in this case is that “since the judgment is not on appeal before this court, I maintain a stoic stance and hereby keep my peace.” I therefore submit that the Supreme court in the case of JEV v. IYORTYOM & 2 ORS did not upturn the 2011 judgment of Kolawole, J. The judgment still subsists, even if one considers it bad law, until set aside or overruled. A slightly similar scenario had played out in MAYAKI & OTHERS v. REGISTRAR, YABA MAGISTRATE COURT, (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt 130) 43 where the Court on appeal had described the judgment of the trial Magistrates’ Court as a “judicial rascality ,” but nevertheless refused to set the judgment aside.

On the other hand, I submit that section 140(2) of the
Electoral Act, even if it is held to still be effective, is
IRRELEVANT to the majority decision in Osun. This is because,
in my humble opinion, section 140(2) can only be USED or be
applied in these three instances:
1. Where an election tribunal or court nullifies the ENTIRE
election on the ground that the person who obtained the
highest votes at the election was not qualified to contest
the election, or
2. Where an election tribunal or court nullifies the ENTIRE
election on the ground that election was marred by
substantial irregularities or
3. Where an election tribunal or court nullifies the ENTIRE
election on the ground that there was SUBSTANTIAL non-
compliance with the provisions of this Act.
Based, on that section, I think it is only where ANY ONE of the
above three options applies that the election tribunal or court
is mandated to not declare the person with the second highest
votes as elected, but to order a fresh election. In my humble
view, none of those three instances WAS PRESENT in the
OSUN State scenario. Accordingly, section 140(2) does not
apply. Reasons:

1. In Osun State, the Tribunal’s decision DID NOT nullify the
ENTIRE election as invalid. Only the rerun election was
canceled; so, section 140(2) is inapplicable;

2. In the Osun State case, the Tribunal’s decision did not
declare that the person earlier declared winner (Oyetola)
was not qualified to contest. So, Section 140(2) is
irrelevant here;

3. The Tribunal’s decision in Osun did not declare that there
was substantial non-compliance of the entire election,
with the Electoral Act. The Tribunal’s decision was only
that some part (namely THE RERUN ELECTION in 7 wards) did not comply with the Electoral Act. It was only the seven (7) wards adversely affected, and NOT THE ENTIRE GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION, that was canceled and deducted So, section 140(2) has no relevance here.

Second, it is respectfully submitted that section 140 (1) of the
Act applies to only situations where the Tribunal determines
that the entire election has to be voided/nullified on grounds
that the candidate who was returned (by the electoral umpire)
as elected was not validly elected on any ground. Such
grounds that could give rise to a decision voiding/nullifying
the entire results of an election include the following, as set
out by section 138 (1)(a), (b),(d) & (e) of the Electoral Act:

1. that a person whose election is questioned was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election;

2. that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or noncompliance with the provisions of this Act; and 3. ….

4. that the petitioner or its candidate was validly nominated
but was unlawfully excluded from the election.

5. that the person whose election is questioned had submitted to the commission affidavit containing false information of a fundamental nature in aid of his qualification for the election.

It must however be note that as provided by section 139 (1) of the Act, “an election shall not be liable to be nullified/ 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 accordance with the principles of this Act and that the non-compliance did not affect substantially the result of the election.” A plain interpretation of the actual import of section 39 (1) of the Electoral Act (as amended) is, in my humble opinion, that an Election Tribunal clearly possesses the power to decide that: 1. Although the conduct of an election is not wholly/entirely in compliance with the Electoral Act, yet, the election is sufficiently valid to produce a winner on grounds that the conduct of the election has substantially complied with the Act. In other words, the Tribunal is entitled to decide that a portion of the election IS in compliance while the other portion IS NOT. Accordingly, where the Tribunal holds that the portion that is in compliance with the Electoral Act is substantial to produce a winner, the Tribunal can validly declare as winner, the personwith majority of the votes cast in the portion in which the Tribunal finds that the election was validly conducted. For this purpose, where the Tribunal in exercise of its powers under section 139(1) finds that a particular portion of the election or its conduct IS NOT in compliance with the Electoral Act, the Tribunal has the power to nullify the affected portion and thereafter determine whether the other portion, the SAVED, un-nullified portion, is sufficiently substantial to ground a declaration that a person has won the election. I think, respectfully, this is what the Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal did on 22 March 2019 when it foundin its wisdom (rightly or wrongly) that a certain portion of the conduct of the gubernatorial election in Osun State (specifically, the re- run portion of the election) had violated the law and as such was liable to be nullified with the consequence that all votes cast in the affected portion/areas be deducted from the total votes cast while the other portion (the areas not adversely affected) was now relied upon to determine the winner of the election. It is therefore clear, I submit, that an Election Tribunal possesses the power to cancel or deduct the votes cast in an election conducted in any area in violation of the Electoral Act. However, whether the Tribunal properly applied the powers to deduct votes in a cancelled area and whether the tribunal’s reasons for cancelling elections conducted in the area it cancelled is now a matter which depends of the facts of this case, and in respect of which the appellate Courts are in the best position resolve.

Respectfully, therefore, I think section 139(1) impliedly gives the Tribunal powers to cancel part of an election (found to be against law) and to declare a person winner based on the un- canceled part of the Tribunal finds that the votes secured in the un-canceled part substantially complied with the Electoral Act! Further, section 140 (3) of the Act empowers the Election Tribunal to declare as elected the candidate who scored the highest number of valid votes cast at the election conducted in the portion where no such cancellation as a result of illegality happened if it finds that the votes cast in the portion where conduct of electionsis held to have “satisfied the requirements of the Constitution and of this Act” were substantial enough to justify such a declaration.Besides, section 138(1) (c) provides as a ground for an election petition that the petitioner could be declared winner if the tribunal finds “that the respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.” This is a clear indication that the Tribunal could declare some votes unlawful and invalid, and proceed to rely on the “lawful, valid votes” to determine the winner.” One may hence reasonably conclude that by combined effects of section 138, 139 and 140 (1) and (3) of the electoral Act, as amended, an election Tribunal possesses powers to cancel or nullify a part of an election it find does not comply with the provisions of the Act, and, may indeed declare any person winner of an election based on the un-cancelled portion, if it appears to the Election Tribunal or Court that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the principles of this Act and that the cancellation of votes in some part as a result of non-compliance did not substantially adversely affect the overall result of the election. Accordingly, the statement being circulated by my friends, to the effect that “section 140 (2) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) does not permit the Tribunal to deduct votes and still declare a winner ” is obviously unfounded, baseless, and, as the Court had held in Labour Party v. INEC (supra), an Election Tribunal “ shall not be bound by the provisions of Sections 140 (2) .”

However, speaking specifically of the Osun State case, the
Governorship Election Tribunal had on 22 March 2019 declared
as winner, the candidate of the People’s Democratic Party
(PDP), Senator Ademola Adeleke, holding that the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Mr. GboyegaOyetola,
was not validly returned. It would be recalled that in the first
ballot in the Osun State Governorship Election, the PDP
candidate had won majority valid votes(254,698) while
Mr.Oyetola of the APC had come a close second (with
254,345 votes). However, the INEC Retuning Officer had
declared that Mr. Adeleke’s margin of lead (354 votes) was
lower than the total number of cancelled votes (which were
put at 3,498). This was what led to the Independent National
Electoral Commission’s (INEC’s) decision to conduct a re-run
election in the affected seven polling units. What the tribunal
did in its majority judgment of 22 March 2019 was to declare
that thererun election that was held on September 27, 2018
was illegal. The Tribunal consequently cancelled/deducted all
the votes scored by both the APC candidate and the PDP
Candidate at the areas affected by the rerun. With the
cancellation of the rerun election by the tribunal, the initial
ballot/result was recognized thus leading the Tribunal to
declare Mr. Adeleke of PDP the winner of the election.

ChristianNorth:
We have gone past Osun, we are focused squarely on retrieving Atiku's stolen mandate.

Adeleke will win.

APC Court of Nigeria despite admitting that INEC went beyond their powers and constitutional mandate in certain dealings at the Osun election erroneously granted the appeal of APC on one of the grounds that the the justice that read the lead judgment was absently during the course of the proceedings.

The APC justices forgot that the Tribunal is a superior court of records. I wonder what court of records means to them.

The appeal court that does review based on a day's sitting, is over ruling a tribunal that sat for about 180days. just cos a judge was alleged to have been absent on a single day.

Technicalities sef get limit nau. Abegi Supreme court should do justice by declaring Adeleke/PDP winners.

senatordave1:

You said this during the appeal court hearing.de ja vu

Clap for yourself