Buhari, Tinubu congratulate Adeleke

President-elect Asiwaju Bola Tinubu has congratulated Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke for his victory at the Supreme Court, urging him to move quickly to unite the state.

The President-elect said everyone must respect the Supreme Court’s judgment being the final court in the land giving its verdict on the Osun governorship election.

Tinubu also praised the immediate-past governor, Alhaji Adegboyega Oyetola, for discharging himself creditably during his first term.

A statement yesterday by his media office reads: “I congratulate Mr. Ademola Adeleke on his declaration by the Supreme Court as winner of the Osun governorship election. The apex court has spoken, and all of us must obey. It is the right thing to do for democracy and rule of law to thrive.

“I must also commend the immediate-past governor, Alhaji Adegboyega Oyetola, for exercising his democratic rights as the constitution allows him to do. Governor Oyetola discharged himself creditably in office. He lost the office but did not lose his integrity and reputation as the governor who brought efficiency, transparency and accountability to the business of governance.

“Now that the election matter has been brought to a close, I urge Governor Adeleke to settle down to work and continue from where the former governor left it. He should move to unite the state. I also urge all the people to work for peace and progress in the state.”

The Supreme Court yesterday upheld the election of Adeleke of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as winner of the July 16, 2022 governorship election in Osun State.

A five-man panel, led by Justice John Okoro, unanimously held that former Governor Adegboyega Oyetola and his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), who were petitioners at the tribunal, failed to lead relevant evidence in support of their case.

Justice Emmanuel Agim, in the lead judgment, held that the evidence relied on by the appellants (Oyetola and APC) were insufficient to ground their case.

The apex court also affirmed the March 25 judgment of the Appeal Court in Abuja which upheld Adeleke’s victory. The Appeal Court had set aside an earlier judgment by the tribunal which held in favour of Oyetola and sacked Adeleke.

Justice Agim held that since grounds two and three of the appellants’ petition was about non/improper accreditation and over-voting, they ought to tender primary evidence and not the ‘third hand’ evidence they relied on in the form of the report of INEC backend server or database.

He added: “Since the BVAS was the sole foundation and focal point of the appellants’ case, it was imperative they produce the BVAS from the 744 polling units or the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the content of the BVAS in evidence, and show that the record therein has established non-accreditation, improper accreditation of voters and over-voting in the 744 polling units.

“It is glaring that the appellants did not produce any BVAS from any of the 744 polling units and, rather, sought to prove their case of non and improper accreditation and over-voting by means of the report of the examination of the INEC database or backend server (Exhibit EVR) containing the number of accredited voters and the number of votes for each polling unit, transmitted from the BVAS in each polling unit.”

Justice Agim also held that the Form EC8A from the polling units; the expert report of the analysis of the Form EC8A and EVR, and the testimonies of two witnesses called by the appellants, were insufficient to prove their case.

He added: “It is not in dispute that the Form EC8A results were collated at the Ward Collation Centre and the Local Government Collation Centre. The collation raises the assumption that the number of accredited voters in Form EC8A and the number of votes therein agree with the number of accredited voters recorded in the BVAS and the result transmitted to the IRev.

“This is so by virtue of Regulation 48(a) of INEC Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections 2022. Without the BVAS, it is impossible to rebut this presumption created by Regulation 48 (a) of INEC Regulations and Guidelines. The EVR is a report or evidence of data transmitted by the BVAS to the backend server or database so that what is not transmitted at a particular time to the database cannot be contained therein and cannot be contained in the EVR, an extract of the records from the database.

“The EVR is neither the evidence of the accreditation process nor a direct record of the accredited voters. It is a third hand evidence derived from the database, which is a second hand evidence, derived from transmissions from the BVAS.”

He also added that the Electoral Act and INEC Regulations and Guidelines for the conduct of 2022 election do not require the Presiding Officers to transmit by BVAS the number or particulars of accredited voters, or the accreditation records of the poll to the database or backend server of INEC as calcined by the appellants.

“I hold that it is the record in the BVAS machines or accredited voters or a certified true copy of INEC certificate of the content of that record from each polling unit that can prove the number of accredited voters in a polling unit on the day of election and nothing else.”

He faulted the appellants ‘argument that voters register was no longer needed to prove over-voting, noting that it remains a major item in proving over-voting. Justice Agim also faulted the appellants’ claim that Adeleke tendered forged credentials to INEC. He held that in the face of two subsisting judgments of the Court of Appeal that Adeleke did not forge his academic certificates, the tribunal was wrong to have agreed with the petitioners on the issue.

He upheld the respondents’ contention that the tribunal conducted unfair trial breached their right to fair hearing when it failed to effectively hear and determine the preliminary objection raised against its jurisdiction to hear the petition

The judge held that having failed to first determine whether or not it possessed jurisdiction, the proceedings at the trial tribunal amounted to nullity.

He upheld the appellants ‘contention that the majority decision of the tribunal was valid even when the second member only appended her signature without referring her opinion.