APC Begs
Appeal Court Not To Confirm Senator Adeleke's Victory As Osun Governor.
Sacked
Osun State Governor Adegboyega Oyetola, his party, the APC and the Independent
National Electoral Commission (INEC) have asked the Court of Appeal in Abuja
not to confirm the Tribunal victory of Senator Ademola Adeleke in the
governorship election held on September 22 and 27, 2018.
Their
request was contained in three separate appeals they filed against the majority
judgment
given
by the Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal on March 22, 2019. The
tribunal had, in the majority judgment, given by two of its three members
upheld the petition by the PDP and its candidate in the election, Senator
Adeleke and voided Oyetola and APC’s victory.
In
their appeals, argued yesterday, Oyetola, the APC and INEC prayed the five-man
panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Jummai Sankey, to set aside the
majority decision of the tribunal, uphold their appeals and dismiss the October
16, 2018 petition by Adeleke and the PDP.
They
urged the court to dismiss the cross-appeal by Adeleke, on the grounds that it
is unmeritorious.
In
the appeal by Oyetola, his lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), faulted the reasons
given by the tribunal in reaching the judgment appealed against, arguing that
the decision was not supported by the evidence led by the petitioners.
He
urged the court to void the judgment because the judge, Justice Peter Obiorah,
who wrote and delivered it, did not participate in all the proceedings of the
tribunal.
Olanipekun
noted that “the judge, who did not sit, came to write the lead judgment and
reviewed the evidence of February 6, 2019 proceedings, where he was absent”.
“Adjudication
is like video watching. It cannot be done by proxy. The judge cannot analyse
the evidence of a witness, whose demeanour he did not observe. The judgment
should be declared a nullity on this ground alone,” he said.
Olanipekun,
who said he and some named senior lawyers were at the tribunal on February 6,
2019, faulted the argument by lawyer to Adeleke and the PDP that it was not
clear from the record of proceedings, whether or not Justice Obiorah was absent
on the particular day.
He
argued that the judge’s failure to sign at the end of the proceedings on
February 6, 2019, was enough evidence to justify the appellant’s claim that
Justice Obiorah was absent on the day in question.
Olanipekun
also faulted the tribunal’s cancellation of results in 17 polling units in the
state, and noted that the petitioners did not tender any result of the election
before the tribunal.
He
argued that the tribunal went beyond its powers by annulling results in the 17
polling units to justify the judgment it gave in favour of the petitioners.
Lawyer
to the APC, Akin Olujinmi (SAN), while arguing the party’s appeal, contended
that the tribunal was wrong to have allowed the petition, which was incurably
incompetent.
“The
1st and 2nd respondents sought to be declared winner of the election, held on
September 22, 2018, which was declared inconclusive. They also asked the
tribunal to void the rerun election held on September 27, 2018, because they
believed it was unlawful.
“You
cannot say you should be declared a winner on the election that you said was
unlawful and void,” the senior lawyer said.
Olujinmi
accused the tribunal of exceeding its jurisdiction when it engaged in amending
the petitioners’ reliefs to make them grantable.
“No
tribunal has the jurisdiction to reframe, amend or formulate reliefs for the
petitioners. On realising that the reliefs could not be granted, they (members
of the tribunal) amended the reliefs and granted it by themselves.
“We
are saying the tribunal has no power to amend a petitioner’s reliefs. The much
they ought to do, on realising that the reliefs could not be granted, was to
have dismissed the petition.”
He
faulted the tribunal for holding that the petitioners proved its case of non-compliance
in respect of the polling units where it voided results.
Lawyer
to INEC Yusuf Ali (SAN), contended that the tribunal erred in the issue of
non-compliance.
He
noted that the tribunal, having found that accreditation was properly done and
that all witnesses agreed that the votes scored were not affected by the
omissions noted in some result sheets, ought not to have voided any results.
Citing
Section 134 (b) of the Electoral Act, Ali argued that non-compliance means not
compliance with the provision of the Act, not an act of omission on the part of
INEC officials, which are not contrary to the provision of the Act.
Ali
also argued that since the tribunal held that the petitioners did not prove
over-voting and non-compliance, it ought not to have turned around to void
votes in some polling units.
On
the question of why INEC did not call it witnesses at the tribunal, Ali said it
was unnecessary because the petitioners did not discharge the burden of proof
placed on them by the law to warrant INEC to call fresh witnesses.
Lawyer
to Adeleke and the PDP, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), faulted the three appeals and
the arguments proffered by Olanipekun, Olujinmi and Ali.
Ikpeazu
argued that the tribunal was right in its decision to have declared Adeleke and
his party as the winner of the election.
He
faulted the argument that Justice Obiorah did not participate in all the
proceedings of the tribunal, arguing that there was no sufficient evidence to
that effect.
Ikpeazu
urged the court to dismiss the three appeals and uphold the victory of Adeleke
as Governor.
At
the conclusion of proceedings that lasted over eight hours, the presiding
judge, Justice Sankey, said judgments would be reserved till a later date. She
told the parties that the date of the judgment would be communicated to them by
the court’s Registry.
Other
members of the court’s five-man panel are: Justices Abubakar Datti Yahaya, Ita
George Mbaba, Isaiah Olufemi Akeju and Bitrus Sanga.
what are your views , please drop your opinion on comment side .
Disclaimer:
Comments
expressed here do not reflect the opinion of samolusanjos.blogspot.com
Kindly Share This Story
No comments:
Post a Comment