The Osun State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Abuja, on Thursday, adjourned to deliver judgment on the petition seeking to nullify the election of Governor Adegboyega Oyetola of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The Justice Ibrahim Sirajo led three-man panel tribunal reserved judgment on the petition that was lodged before it by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its governorship candidate, Senator Ademola Adeleke, after all the parties in the matter adopted their final briefs of argument.
The petitioners, through their team of lawyers led by Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, prayed the tribunal to declare that Oyetola was not the valid winner of either the substantive poll that held on September 22, 2018, or the re-run election that took place on September 27, 2018.
Adeleke and his party alleged that the re-run poll was marred by manifest irregularities, even as they urged the court to nullify Oyetola’s election and declare Adeleke as the bona-fide winner of the governorship contest.
They told the tribunal that the election was characterized by massive rigging, vote buying and other forms of malpractices, claiming that PDP scored majority of the lawful votes in the election.
Adeleke told the tribunal that the total votes he garnered on September 22 was 245,698 while the 1st Respondent scored 245,345.
“That the 1st applicant was the winner of the election and ought to have been so declared by the 3rd Respondent (INEC). That the 3rd Respondent declared the election inconclusive hence a rerun was conducted on the 27th day of September 2018.
“That the rerun election was marred by electoral violence, vote-buying, stuffing of ballot papers, multiple thumb-printing and voting and allocation of votes by the 3rd Respondent. That by the total actual and valid votes cast on the 22nd and 27th days of September 2018 respectively, the elections were won by the applicants.
“That the 3rd Respondent wrongfully declared and returned the 1st Respondent as being duly elected and winner of the governorship election, Osun State held on 22nd day of September 2018 and the rerun election held on 27th day of September 2018 respectively.
“The 1st and 2nd applicants are dissatisfied with the said result of the election as announced by the returning officer of the governorship election, Osun State”, the Petitioners added.
The petitioners argued that INEC ought to have declared Adeleke as winner of the election, saying there was no need for the subsequent supplementary election.
“The 1st petitioner having satisfied the provisions of section 179(2) of the constitution, ought to have been declared duly elected.
“Aside non-compliance and irregularities that we have identified, the 1st petitioner clearly won the election based on overall votes”, Ikpeazu argued.
He told the tribunal that Adeleke merely participated in the supplementary election in view of section 285(13) of the Constitution, that stipulated that nobody should be declared elected except the person participated in all stages of the election.
PDP and Adeleke said they tendered certified copies of mutilated and altered result sheets the INEC relied upon to declare Oyetola as winner of the election.
The petitioners insisted that having tendered the documents, the onus was on INEC to call witnesses to justify those errors and mutilations, by presenting any other result sheet it used.
More so, they argued that INEC acted beyond its powers when it declared that the initial poll that took place on September 22, was inconclusive.
“A returning officer cannot act beyond section 69 and INEC cannot act outside the provision of section 179 of the Electoral Act.
“In this case, INEC on its own constituted an election petition tribunal and began to juxtapose and cancel election results”, Ikpeazu added.
He therefore urged the tribunal to allow the appeal and grant all the reliefs sought by the petitioners.
Meanwhile, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, governor Oyetola and the APC, who were cited as Respondents in the matter, urged the tribunal to dismiss the appeal on the premise that the petitioners failed to prove that the election was not free, fair and credible.
The Respondents were represented by Mr. Lasco Pwahomdi, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, and Chief Akin Olujimi, SAN, respectively.
INEC urged the tribunal to hold that the petitioners failed to establish the petition as required by law, saying it should be dismissed with substantial cost.
On his part, governor Oyetola’s lawyer, Chief Olanipekun, SAN, alleged that the petitioners had in their written address, not only admitted that they were complicit in the alleged electoral malpractices, but also presented a different case from what was contained in their pleadings and reliefs they sought before the tribunal.
“They admitted that they were involved in illegality and prayed the tribunal to quash even some of their own votes. It is a settled law that a self-confessed petitioner who have in writing, admitted to infringing the law, cannot be asked to be returned as winner of election.
“They want your Lordships to nullify the Certificate of Return issued to the 2nd Respondent, the question is, where is that certificate? Are my lords’ magicians to nullify what is not before them? Our answer is no! The certificate is with us.
We have cited several authorities in support of our position”. Olanipekun drew attention of the tribunal to Wednesday’s decision of the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal in the case of Atiku Abubakar Vs INEC&2 Ors, stressing that the ruling explained the extent to which a tribunal could go inline with section 151 of the Electoral Act.
“With most respect to the petitioners, law is not about sentiment, it is about proof in accordance with the law and in accordance with precedents”, Olanipekun submitted, insisting that the petitioners should not be allowed to take advantage of a wrong they committed.
Similarly, counsel to the APC, Chief Olujumi, SAN, maintained that evidence of witnesses the petitioners called before the tribunal were irrelevant and not sufficient to sustain the petition.
He argued that the petition lacked a cause of action since the 1st petitioner sought to be declared winner based on the election that held on September 22, 2018, but failed to prove that a return was made by INEC on that day.
Besides, he noted that the petitioners had earlier denounced the supplementary election that held September 27.
Consequently, all the Respondents urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition for want of legal competence.
Meantime, after the panel had listened to all the parties, it reserved judgement to a date it said would be communicated to all the parties.
