Reports of the Submissions of the Appeals between Governor Gboyega Oyetola and Senator Ademola Adeleke at Abuja on 24th April, 2019.
Reports of the Submissions of the Appeals between Governor Gboyega Oyetola and Senator Ademola Adeleke at Abuja on 24th April, 2019.
At the commencement of proceeding very early in the, Governor Gboyega Oyetola has taken his seat at the Court of Appeal, together with his learned counsel, where he requested that the Appeal Court should reverse the majority judgement of the Tribunal.
In the proceeding that lasted for almost Eight Hours, the appeals and cross appeals were examined. In their appeals, argued Wednesday, 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 equally urged the court to dismiss the cross-appeal filed by Adeleke, on the grounds that it is unmeritorious.
“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.
We highlight some of the submissions of the Appeals as follows;
1. Chief Wole Olanipekun representing Gov Oyetola has submitted that the majority judgment of the Tribunal should be nullified because Justice Obiora that did not sit throughout the proceedings wrote the judgment and reviewed evidence of witnesses he did not see.
2. He furthered submitted that it is clear from the record that Justice Obiora did not sign the record on the day he was absent but signed on all other days.
3. 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.
4. 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”.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Chief Olujinmi who represented All Progressives Congress submitted on behalf of APC that the judgment is a nullity because the Tribunal went out on its own to grant reliefs not sought by the Petitioners whereas it has no jurisdiction to do so.
11. Lawyer to the APC, Akin Olujimi (SAN), while arguing the party’s appeal, contended that the tribunal was wrong to have allowed the petition, which was incurably incompetent.
12. “You cannot say you should be declared a winner on the election that you said was unlawful and void,” the senior lawyer said. Chief Olujimi submitted.
13. Olujimi accused the tribunal of exceeding its jurisdiction when it engaged in amending the petitioners’ reliefs to make them grantable.
14. “No tribunal has the jurisdiction to reframe, amend or formulate reliefs for the petitioners.
15. “On realising that the reliefs could not be granted, they (members of the tribunal) amended the reliefs and granted it by themselves.
16. “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.”
17. 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.
18. Chief Olujinmi further submitted that the ground of the Petition stated by the Petitioner on non-compliance was restricted to 27 Sept 2018 election whereas the 17 units cancelled by the Tribunal relates to Sept. 22, 2018 election outside the purview of the ground of the Petition.
19. Chief also submitted that it was erroneous for the Tribunal to rely on certified true copies of Forms EC8A having held that the documents were dumped on the Tribunal.
20. Lawyer to INEC Yusuf Ali (SAN), who argued in a similar manner, contended that the tribunal erred in its majority judgment, particularly as regards the issue of non-compliance.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Yusuf Alli SAN who represented INEC held that the Tribunal held that INEC led evidence by way of cross-examination in line with pleadings and that INEC is not bound to cal a particular witness. That the Petitioners have not discharge the onus to show non-compliance was substantial.
26. Yusuf Alli SAN further submitted that Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act as amended has been held by a full panel of the Supreme Court to be applicable before Tribunals and Court of Appeal sitting as Presidential election Tribunal and not ordinary courts.
27. Yusuf Alli SAN submitted that the only mandatory requirement by Electoral Act to be recorded are votes of the parties.
28. Yusuf Alli SAN held that the Tribunal held that INEC led evidence by way of cross-examination in line with pleadings and that INEC is not bound to call a particular witness. That the Petitioners have not discharge the onus to show non-compliance was substantial
29. Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN moved the preliminary objection to the cross-appeal.
30. Chief Olanipekun submitted that the Cross Appeal is putting something on nothing as over-voting cannot be established without the voters register.
31. Ikpeazu argued that the tribunal was right in its decision to have declared Adeleke and his party as the winner of the election.
32. Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), who argued Adeleke’s cross-appeal, urged the court to allow his client’s appeal and reverse the portion of the judgment, where the tribunal rejected the evidence the petitioners lead in relation to six polling units.
33. Ogunwumiju argued that the tribunal wrongly excluded some of its evidence, because while it called 23 witnesses to prove it’s allegation of non-compliance in 23 polling units, the tribunal only upheld 17 where it voided elections.
34. Olanipekun, Olujimi and Ali argued that the cross-appeal was incompetent on several grounds and urged the tribunal to reject it.
35. After Appeals and cross Appeals arguments, The Court then adjourned the reserved the judgment and date will be communicated.
These were our findings, we shall report as event unfold.
Progressives e-Group Media Team
At the commencement of proceeding very early in the, Governor Gboyega Oyetola has taken his seat at the Court of Appeal, together with his learned counsel, where he requested that the Appeal Court should reverse the majority judgement of the Tribunal.
In the proceeding that lasted for almost Eight Hours, the appeals and cross appeals were examined. In their appeals, argued Wednesday, 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 equally urged the court to dismiss the cross-appeal filed by Adeleke, on the grounds that it is unmeritorious.
“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.
We highlight some of the submissions of the Appeals as follows;
1. Chief Wole Olanipekun representing Gov Oyetola has submitted that the majority judgment of the Tribunal should be nullified because Justice Obiora that did not sit throughout the proceedings wrote the judgment and reviewed evidence of witnesses he did not see.
2. He furthered submitted that it is clear from the record that Justice Obiora did not sign the record on the day he was absent but signed on all other days.
3. 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.
4. 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”.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Chief Olujinmi who represented All Progressives Congress submitted on behalf of APC that the judgment is a nullity because the Tribunal went out on its own to grant reliefs not sought by the Petitioners whereas it has no jurisdiction to do so.
11. Lawyer to the APC, Akin Olujimi (SAN), while arguing the party’s appeal, contended that the tribunal was wrong to have allowed the petition, which was incurably incompetent.
12. “You cannot say you should be declared a winner on the election that you said was unlawful and void,” the senior lawyer said. Chief Olujimi submitted.
13. Olujimi accused the tribunal of exceeding its jurisdiction when it engaged in amending the petitioners’ reliefs to make them grantable.
14. “No tribunal has the jurisdiction to reframe, amend or formulate reliefs for the petitioners.
15. “On realising that the reliefs could not be granted, they (members of the tribunal) amended the reliefs and granted it by themselves.
16. “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.”
17. 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.
18. Chief Olujinmi further submitted that the ground of the Petition stated by the Petitioner on non-compliance was restricted to 27 Sept 2018 election whereas the 17 units cancelled by the Tribunal relates to Sept. 22, 2018 election outside the purview of the ground of the Petition.
19. Chief also submitted that it was erroneous for the Tribunal to rely on certified true copies of Forms EC8A having held that the documents were dumped on the Tribunal.
20. Lawyer to INEC Yusuf Ali (SAN), who argued in a similar manner, contended that the tribunal erred in its majority judgment, particularly as regards the issue of non-compliance.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Yusuf Alli SAN who represented INEC held that the Tribunal held that INEC led evidence by way of cross-examination in line with pleadings and that INEC is not bound to cal a particular witness. That the Petitioners have not discharge the onus to show non-compliance was substantial.
26. Yusuf Alli SAN further submitted that Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act as amended has been held by a full panel of the Supreme Court to be applicable before Tribunals and Court of Appeal sitting as Presidential election Tribunal and not ordinary courts.
27. Yusuf Alli SAN submitted that the only mandatory requirement by Electoral Act to be recorded are votes of the parties.
28. Yusuf Alli SAN held that the Tribunal held that INEC led evidence by way of cross-examination in line with pleadings and that INEC is not bound to call a particular witness. That the Petitioners have not discharge the onus to show non-compliance was substantial
29. Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN moved the preliminary objection to the cross-appeal.
30. Chief Olanipekun submitted that the Cross Appeal is putting something on nothing as over-voting cannot be established without the voters register.
31. Ikpeazu argued that the tribunal was right in its decision to have declared Adeleke and his party as the winner of the election.
32. Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), who argued Adeleke’s cross-appeal, urged the court to allow his client’s appeal and reverse the portion of the judgment, where the tribunal rejected the evidence the petitioners lead in relation to six polling units.
33. Ogunwumiju argued that the tribunal wrongly excluded some of its evidence, because while it called 23 witnesses to prove it’s allegation of non-compliance in 23 polling units, the tribunal only upheld 17 where it voided elections.
34. Olanipekun, Olujimi and Ali argued that the cross-appeal was incompetent on several grounds and urged the tribunal to reject it.
35. After Appeals and cross Appeals arguments, The Court then adjourned the reserved the judgment and date will be communicated.
These were our findings, we shall report as event unfold.
Progressives e-Group Media Team
Comments
Post a Comment