The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has asked the Court of Appeal to nullify the judgment of the Osun State Election Tribunal alleging that it was rendered in gross violation of the provision of Section 294(1) & (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
PDP in the 43 grounds of appeal filed at the Court of Appeal Akure Division said the 3rd member of the Tribunal never expressed any opinion for either side in the open court or in writing.
It was the party’s contention that “only upon the release of the judgment that the name of the 3rd member appeared as having signed alongside the No. 1, the Chairman without expressing her opinion in writing.”
PDP then insists that “failure of the 3rd member to openly concur on either side and in writing rendered the judgment a nullity.”
The opposition party through its legal team led by Dr. Alex A. Izinyon, SAN, N. O.O. Oke, SAN, A.K. Ajibade, SAN, O.M. Atoyebi, SAN and a host of others said the Chairman and member of the Tribunal erred in law when they introduced an extraneous issue to the Judgment which shows a real likelihood of bias which caused miscarriage of Justice.
Below are some of the particulars of error pointed out by the PDP.
“The expression of the lyrics: ‘go, lo, lo, lo, lo” and “Buga Won’ with specific reference to the 4th Respondent is a real likelihood of bias that the 4th Respondent is not fit to occupy the exalted position of the Governorship seat of Osun State.
“Making ‘go, lo, lo, lo, lo’ and ‘Buga Won’ lyrics a conclusion of their Judgment and immediately thereafter making the pronouncement removing the 4th Respondent from the office shows that the learned Chairman and member disregarded all the defences of the 4th Respondent and the Appellant to the petition to be inconsequential and irrelevant.
“The lyrics and the staccato of ‘go, lo, lo, lo, lo’ and ‘Buga Won’ and the reference to the musician Kizz Daniel manifest a preconceived notion by the learned Chairman and the member against the 4th Respondent.
“The said lyrics as used by the learned Chairman and the member is an open condemnation of the personality of the 4th Respondent.
“The lyrics operated in the mind of the learned Chairman and the member of the learned Tribunal which led to the rejection of the 4th Respondent and Appellant defences as unacceptable.
“The 4th Respondent never danced before the learned tribunal to warrant such conclusion and inferences. The real likelihood as shown above led to miscarriage of Justice.
“The 1stand 2nd Respondents allegation is that there was non-use of the BVAs machines for accreditation of votes at the 749 polling units across the ten (10) Local Government Areas.
“The 1stand 2nd Respondents alleged that as a result of the said non-use of the BVAs machines for accreditation at the said 749 polling units, there was over voting at the said polling units as the number of accredited voters as recorded on the Form EC8A does not tally with the number of voters accredited with the BVAs machines.
“In the final address of counsel to the 1stand 2nd Respondents they made a summersault and stated that they are abandoning their pleading in respect of five (5) unspecified polling units, and that their final address will be predicated on 744 polling units which were also unspecified.
“There was no amendment to the petition as they went to trial with the petition as originally filed.
“There was no specific pleading by which the five (5) polling units abandoned vide the written address can be identified; and the 744 polling units purportedly relied upon at the final address stage were appropriately identified.
“The 1stand 2nd Respondents did not also lead evidence in line with any specific 744 polling units at the trial.
“The learned tribunal’s finding that the 1stand 2nd Respondents established that over voting took place in 744 polling units is not supported by the pleadings or evidence of the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
“There was no credible evidence led by the 1st and 2nd Respondents to establish the allegation that invalid votes were relied upon in the results declared at the election and the return of the 4th Respondent.
“There were no invalid votes in the scores returned for the 1st and 4th Respondent respectively at the election.
“The learned tribunal had no duty to deduct any vote from the scores or votes returned at the election as it did in its judgment.
“The holding of the learned tribunal that the 1st Respondent scored the majority of lawful votes at the election is not supported by the evidence on record.
“The learned tribunal wrongly relied on the various tables produced by the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ counsel in their written address.
“The said tables were not borne out of the 1st and 2nd Respondents evidence or demonstrated in open court.
“It was grave miscarriage of justice for the learned tribunal to rely on the untested tables in their findings.
“The learned tribunal failed to be guided by the margin of lead principle under the Electoral Act, 2022, and Exhibits 1 and 2 Manual after relying on the 1st and 2nd Respondents tables before declaring the 1st Respondent as the winner of the said election.
“The utterances as bias against the Appellant are replete in the judgment.
“At page 26 of the Judgment while reviewing the fact of the petition, the learned tribunal made finding on BVA machine only on 1st and 2nd Respondents’ submission without considering all arguments by Respondents.
Defendants in the appeal are Adegboyega Isiaka Oyetola, 1st defendant, All Progressives Congress (APC)2nd defendant, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) 3rd defendant and Governor Adeleke Ademola Jackson Nurudeen, 4th defendant.
