Press Release - 20/04/2023

Osun: Desperate politicians move to upturn Adeleke's victory, Timi Frank warns

...Urges Supreme Court Judges to maintain integrity and resist inducement

Former Deputy National Publicity Secretary of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Comrade Timi Frank, has called on the Supreme Court Judges to maintain their integrity and resist any attempt of subversiveness through inducement as regards the Osun governorship matter.

He said some desperate politicians have began move to upturn Governor Ademola Adeleke's victory at Appeal Court at all cost.

Frank also raised the alarm that recent intelligence reports available suggest that the enemies of democracy and fascist elements operating in the ruling party are bent on truncating democracy by using every state apparatus available in perpetuating mischief and subversion of legitimacy, as evident in the just concluded Adamawa governorship rerun election.

In a statement released to newsmen Thursday in Abuja, the political activist opined that with an overwhelming Court of Appeal judgement, affirming the victory of Sennator Ademola Adeleke as the Osun state governor, and a previous Supreme Court judgment clearing all issues as regards his eligibility and certificates, "it is clear that any further judicial exercise is akin to witch hunt."

Frank, who is the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), Ambassador to East Africa and Middle East, alleged that some desperate politicians in the ruling APC have arisen once again to compromise the integrity of the judiciary by vowing to upturn the decision of the Court of Appeal by any means necessary in relation to the Osun state Supreme Court decision.

He alleged that monetary inducement, coercion and intimidation using state security agencies to influence the judgment of the Supreme Court are rife and underway.

"Howbeit, these same elements who've been operating without fear for consequences have once again arisen to compromise the integrity of the judiciary by vowing to upturn the decision of the Court of Appeal, by any means necessary in relation to the Osun state Supreme Court decision. Monetary inducement of $2million per JSC on this matter is the offer inherent as well as coercion and intimidation using state security agencies to greatly influence the judgment of the SC is in top gear and underway.

"The Supreme Court must be put on notice that Nigerians are very interested in the outcomes of judgement decisions from the SC and will continue to beam it's searchlights on the discreet activities of the Judges especially after the ridiculous decisions as regards Sen Ahmed Lawan and Sen Gods will Akabio. We are constrained to believe that indeed, recent decisions from the SC suggest that certain compromise may have been plausible by the outcomes of judicial matters.

"The hopes of many Nigerians is fast fading away as most Nigerians doubt the independence of the judiciary in the dispense of justice. The SC must not be seen going the way of the INEC chairman, who blatantly voided it's own rules to subvert the will of the people save for personal agradissment. The JSC must put the country first in its discharge of their constitutional duties. The 2023 Presidential Elections results are still rife in the minds of many and thus any attempt to deliver any controversial judgement may end up in anarchy.

"The SC must be reminded that the Osun State matter will be first litmus test for the JSC. The facts of the matterr are very clear, with the CA putting to rest the issues of overvoting and any other discrepancies. Therefore the minimum expectations for the SC is to stand by the truth and avoid any semblance of intimidation and coercion. The Right thing must be done, as it is clear that the Osun people are extremely pleased with the choice of their governor and are elated with his performance since his inception into office.

"In other to demonstrate independence and integrity the SC should as a matter of Public Opinion approve for the use of live telecast in broadcasting it's proceeding for the Presidential Elections matter. The Supreme Court must stand on what is right and just and endeavor to reclaim it's already batterd image," Frank stated.

Signed:

Comrade Timi Frank
ULMWP Ambassador to East Africa and Middle East.


https://www.thecable.ng/timi-frank-desperate-politicians-working-to-overturn-adelekes-victory

Check out the pictures of the justices of Supreme Court in Nigeria.

More pictures of the justices of the Supreme Court

I hate our style of politics

More photos of the justices of the Supreme Court

More photos of the Lordships of the Supreme Court of justice in Nigeria 🇳🇬 . I pray the God Almighty will give them the wisdom to dispense justice and fairness in all the cases on their table.

Timi Frank, where have u been?

Unanimous judgement in favour of the people’s Governor, Senator Ademola Nurudeen Jackson Adeleke in the Supreme Court of justice in Jesus Name. Amen 🙏

Supreme Court: Osun and The 2022 Electoral Act


By James Bamgbose

Electoral Act is a law that provides legal framework and regulations for the conduct of elections in Nigeria. It can be better described as an important framework for ensuring free and fair elections in Nigeria, although there have been criticisms of its implementation and enforcement in practice. The current version of the Electoral Act is the 2022 Electoral Act.

Among the states where this act was first applied to conduct election is Osun, where its application for the July 16 governorship poll has attracted more attention to the interpretation of the act. This is because of the introduction of electronic transmission of electoral results in the act. Now, two judgments have been passed concerning the outcome of the poll.

In accordance with Section 285(6) and (7) of the Constitution, as amended by Section 29 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (First Alteration Act, No 1) of 2010 and Section 9 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Second Alteration Act. No 2 of 2010), which limit the period of election cases at tribunals to 180 days and at the Appeal Court to 60 days.

About 60 days ago, precisely on January 27 of this year, the Justice T. A. Kume-led panel gave a judgment in favour of the petitioners, Gboyega Oyetola and APC, stating there was overvoting, thereby cancelling results in the 749 polling units affected across the 10 LGs in the state. The panel did not stop at that but went further to concur with the argument of the petitioners that Governor Adeleke forged his certificate, nevertheless, held that he is qualified to contest since he has an additional certificate aside from the forged one.

What is however confounding in the decision of Justice Kume is the fact that he went against an existing judgement of the Court of Appeal in 2019 that cleared Governor Adeleke of forgery. As a keen observer of the tenet of law and constitution, I cannot be wrong to state that the lower Tribunal acted outside its power. A lower court lacks the power to go against an appellate court ruling, “Stare Decisis” which means let the decision stand.

This error from the panel must have brought about more attention to the judgment, especially the overvoting verdict of the majority judgment. How did the majority judgment arrive at the overvoting conclusion?

There were three different reports tendered before the Tribunal panel. The interesting thing here is that, all the reports were obtained from the same source (server). The question that will now come to the mind of any objective observer is, “How did the Tribunal determine the authentic report among the three reports?” From my limited understanding of the documents, they are all sourced from a secondary source. So to get the authentic data of accreditation, the ideal thing to do is to look at the primary source, which in this case is the BVAS Machine.

So, was the primary source examined before writing the majority judgment? Can any of the server reports be reliable when Section 62(2) of the 2022 Electoral Act gives room for continuous updating of the National Electronic Register of Election Result?


https://affairstv.com/opinion/2023/03/29/supreme-court-osun-and-the-2022-electoral-act/

You can't proof over voting without BVAS/register Voters.

These two are the primary source.

Imole is here to stay. Congratulations to people’s Governor. Baba jeje oninu Dudu taking his dose😂😂😂😂😂

Copied

STEP BY STEP HOW ADELEKE WON

1. Resolved that the Tribunal was not right to have rejected the judgment of the Court of Appeal that cleared Adeleke of forgery.

In short issue of forgery has been settled by the Court of Appeal. The Tribunal was wrong to have held forgery against Adeleke.

2. Issues 5 & 7: Preference of server report for BVAS machines and the report of inspection. Also the issue of transmission of results by way of manual collation.

Resolved that BVAS machine is the primary source

3. Voters register is intrinsically part of accreditation. Section 137 of the Electoral Act, only lightens the burden of the petitioner not to totally remove the burden.

To prove overvoting, voters register must be tendered.

4. Oyetola's witness not an expert which he held himself out to be. PW 1 claimed to be an expert, he did not give evidence of his qualifications, he did not deny his membership of the APC.

His evidence was barren.

5. Further resolving the issue of over-voting, the Tribunal only relied on the Table provided by Oyetola and APC to give judgment in their favour.

The Tribunal was wrong because there was no evidence to support such claim of over-voting.

6. Voters register is intrinsically part of accreditation. Section 137 of the Electoral Act, only lightens the burden of the petitioner not to totally remove the burden.

To prove overvoting, voters register must be tendered.

7. FINAL VERDICT

The Appeal Court has set aside the Tribunal judgment of 27th January and affirmed the judgment of Gov. Ademola Adeleke.

Copied

It is the BVAS that will supply the details to the Server, BVAS is primary and Server is secondary.

The Appeal Court did not place Voters Register above the BVAS, the Court only said it is essential. As long the accreditation process follows both and they are both in our different laws, it is only okay that both go through same process.

It is not just the Court of Appeal saying, it is in our laws in the Evidence Act 2011.

In law, the Primary evidence is of supreme value (it is the best evidence).

1st report - server report given to Oyetola in July (unsynchronised)

2nd report - server report given to Adeleke (unsynchronised)

3rd report - BVAS Machines physically tendered before the Court with all the data in it (PRIMARY DATA)

4th report - Final Synchronisation gotten from (3) above.

The SC will not say otherwise, like I said in the morning as long as server reports are subject to human and network issue, it's a problem... See SC in Wike v Peterside .

Again, on what premise did the tribunal ignore the other three reports.

Primary Data.

The BVAS machines were physically tendered before the tribunal and reports accurately submitted by INEC (i.e. 4th report). Oyetola's lawyers didn't challenge it in their final written address.

Whatever data is on the BVAS machine is the primary data, anything that comes out of it, backend server or so is secondary.

There ordinarily shouldn't be, this is what the EC8A (Statement), Voters Register & BVAs is expected to fish out.

Hear Oyetola's expert witness:

Isiaka Olanrewaju testified that he is an expert, who had operated several electronic devices, including BVAS, before, and was aware that an electoral officer might fail to submit the data imputed into the machine or that if the network was bad, the data submitted would not be successful.

Has he not supported the INEC staff's position? Did this witness bolster Oyetola's case?

An expert should be able to furnish the court with scientific analysis that will allow the Court to form its independent judgement otherwise it is valueless and worthless. (SC in Ogiale v. SPDC, 1997)

The Court of Appeal restored the supremacy of the BVAS that's why it based its judgement on a completed and synchronised Report.

SC in Okereke v Umahi (2016) by Justice Chima C Nweze JSC

[u]Furthermore, PW8 an official of INEC who testified on subpoena on the application of the appellant admitted that Exhibit GP45 (the Card Reader Report) was an incomplete document, as data from some polling units had not been uploaded to the INEC data base as at the time the report was made. The document was therefore unreliable and lacking in any evidential value. Again the Tribunal rightly rejected the report and the Court below was right to have affirmed the rejection. On these findings alone, the petition was bound to fail.

It was for these and the more elaborate reasons well marshalled in the lead judgment that I dismissed this appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court below. (This was in 2016)

In this case, the INEC still testified that it was an incomplete document that was handed over to Oyetola, any difference?

The same Justice Nweze will be on the panel, so do you think it will make any difference?

It is improper for a court of law to enter judgment for a party on incomplete and inconclusive facts or evidence. A party ought to place all relevant facts before the court to assist it to arrive at a fair and reasonable conclusion (Justice Okoro in Adim v NBC).

1. Co-signing does not invalidate the tribunal judgement

2. Payment of fees late for the CTC doesn't either.

3. Adeleke did not forged certificate

4. BVAS machine report is the Primary Source, the tribunal erred by preferring the server report over BVAS machine report.

5. Voters register is an intrinsic part of proving over-voting. Section 137 of the Electoral Act only lightens the burden of the petitioner and does not entirely remove Voters Register.

The issue of Bvas machine being the primary source of evidence is ruled against Oyetola.

Court ruled that there was no overvoting

Copied