Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,198,459 members, 7,968,270 topics. Date: Sunday, 06 October 2024 at 10:42 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi (7175 Views)
Custom Officer Slumps, Dies During Probe Hearing By Reps Committee / We’ve Moved On From Supreme Court Judgment – LP / Odinkalu: Don't Expect Magic From Supreme Court, You Must Produce BVAS Machines (2) (3) (4)
Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by Johnnyessence(m): 11:46am On Jun 18, 2019 |
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/ 3 Likes
|
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by Johnnyessence(m): 11:53am On Jun 18, 2019 |
*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 3 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by Johnnyessence(m): 11:54am On Jun 18, 2019 |
*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* |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by engineerboat(m): 11:54am On Jun 18, 2019 |
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. 4 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by Johnnyessence(m): 11:57am On Jun 18, 2019 |
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/ 3 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by Johnnyessence(m): 11:59am On Jun 18, 2019 |
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/ 2 Likes |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by ChristianNorth: 12:06pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
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. 4 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by engineerboat(m): 12:12pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
ChristianNorth: 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 4 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by 9jahotblog: 12:18pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
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/ |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by tomakint: 12:19pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
ChristianNorth: It is a done deal these robbers called APC and INEC just shot themselves at the feet. 3 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by OAUTemitayo: 12:22pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
Bunch of miserable losers up there.
Your eyes will clear by July.
Just dream on 7 Likes 2 Shares |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by Cajal(m): 12:26pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
Johnnyessence:...this is it as it happened Not the take aways 1 Like |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by senatordave1(m): 12:34pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
engineerboat:The only propaganda i see here is from your boy johnny,a very desperate one. 3 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by senatordave1(m): 12:34pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
Cajal:Thank you.that his takeaway is a viewpoint of a pdp apologist 4 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by 9jahotblog: 12:35pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
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/ |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by senatordave1(m): 12:42pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
engineerboat:You said this during the appeal court hearing.de ja vu 4 Likes |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by ayokellany: 12:43pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
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: 7 Likes 3 Shares |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by Cajal(m): 12:44pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
engineerboat:....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 4 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by senatordave1(m): 12:46pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
Johnnyessence: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 2 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by 9jahotblog: 12:50pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
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.” |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by 9jahotblog: 12:53pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
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. |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by 9jahotblog: 12:55pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
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. |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by 9jahotblog: 12:56pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
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. |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by 9jahotblog: 12:58pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
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. |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by 9jahotblog: 12:59pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
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) .” |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by 9jahotblog: 1:04pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
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. |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by tuniski: 1:41pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
ChristianNorth: 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. |
Re: Osun Guber: 11 Takeaways From Supreme Court Hearing, By Adebiyi Adebisi by engineerboat(m): 1:45pm On Jun 18, 2019 |
senatordave1: Clap for yourself |
PDP Takes Campaign Rally To Shinkafi LGA, Zamfara State (Video) / We Will Do Our Best To Support Nigeria — DG WTO, Okonjo-Iweala / PDP Will Reclaim Kogi – Senator Dino Melaye
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 181 |