Connect with us

Breaking News

BREAKING: Supreme Court Upholds Adeleke’s Victory

Published

on

The Supreme Court has upheld the election of Governor Ademola Adeleke of Osun State, sealing his victory over then incumbent governor, Adegboyega Oyetola, in the keenly contested 16 July 2022 election in the state.

The judgement of a five-member panel, on Tuesday, upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal in Abuja which had earlier on 24 March affirmed Mr Adeleke’s victory.

It lays to rest the dispute over the outcome of the governorship election, and extinguishes Mr Oyetola’s hopes of coming back to office after his momentary victory at the Osun State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal gav in January.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had declared Mr Adeleke of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as the winner of the election in an upset that deprived Mr Oyetola of the All Progressives Congress (APC) a second term in office.

Displeased with INEC’s result, Mr Oyetola had approached the election petition tribunal in Osogbo, the state capital, to challenge the outcome of the poll.

The tribunal in its decision in January ruled in favour of Mr Oyetola by declaring him the winner of the election, and sacking Mr Adeleke who was just months in office.

Mr Adeleke, who remained in office to exhaust his right of appeal, had appealed against the decision of the tribunal.

His appeal was successful.

Upholding Mr Adeleke’s victory, the Court of Appeal in Abuja held that the tribunal was wrong in its conclusion that that the election in some parts of the state was marred by over-voting, the pivotal legal issue on which Mr Oyetola built his case.

The court held that “the burden of proving the allegations of over-voting lies squarely with the respondents (Mr Oyetola and the APC).”

“It is inconceivable to assume that the testimonies of the respondents’ witnesses had any probative value,” the appellate court held.

The Court of Appeal noted that Mr Oyetola and the APC “did not tender the voter registers and Bimodal Voters Accreditation System (BVAS machines,” which captured data of eligible voters at the Osun governorship election.

“Though the 1st and 2nd respondents (Oyetola and APC) relied on BVAS reports obtained from INEC to prove over-voting, they did not, nonetheless, call petitioner’s witness 1 to speak to the reports, that is, Exhibits BVR reports from INEC’s back-end server.

“In their pleadings,” Mr Oyetola and APC “alleged that the results recorded and transmitted directly from the polling units were not taken into account and therefore accredited voters recorded in Form EC8A from the disputed polling units do not tally with the number of BVAS for the same polling units.

“Strangely, the tribunal, in its judgment, only relied on the table set out in an address of counsel to hold that over voting occured in an election,” the Court of Appeal said.

Background

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had declared Mr Adeleke of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as the winner of the governorship election held in Osun State on 16 July 2022.

The INEC Chief Returning Officer for Osun, Oluwatoyin Ogundipe, who announced the result on the day after the election, said the PDP candidate scored 403,371 votes to emerge victorious.

Mr Adeleke defeated Mr Oyetola, who polled 375,027 votes to come second in the race.

But a three-member panel of the Osun State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal headed by Terste Kume set aside Mr Adeleke’s victory in its verdict delivered on 27 January.

In a two-to-one split judgement, the majority decision of the tribunal declared Mr Oyetola the winner of the election.

It also ordered INEC to issue the certificate of return to Mr Oyetola.

Mr Kume, in the lead majority judgement, held that INEC failed to conduct the Osun governorship election in compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022 (as amended).

The tribunal noted that the poll was marred by over-voting. It said after deducting the excessive votes that were cast, the figure Mr Adeleke scored came down to 290,666, which was lower than the 314,921 garnered by Mr Oyetola.

Consequently, the tribunal ordered that Mr Oyetola be returned as governor of Osun State.

However, in the minority decision, the second member of the tribunal, P. A Ogbuli, said the petitioners – Mr Oyetola and the APC – failed to prove that there were cases of over-voting in the governorship election.

Mr Ogbuli noted that the petitioners’ witnesses in their testimony before the panel did not convince him that there was over-voting.

He said the petitioners should have brought the total registered voters to court to claim that over-voting occurred.

Breaking News

Corruption Battle: Dangote Drags Ex-NMDPRA Boss To EFCC After ICPC Withdrawal

Published

on

By

Aliko Dangote, Chairman of Dangote Industries, through his legal representative, has formally submitted a corruption petition to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against Farouk Ahmed, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA).

 

This was disclosed in a statement made available to our correspondent by the Dangote Group media team on Friday.

 

Recall that Dangote had earlier petitioned the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to investigate Ahmed for allegedly spending $5 million on his children’s secondary education in Switzerland. He withdrew the petition a few days ago, even as the ICPC vowed to continue with its investigation.

 

The statement on Friday said Dangote’s petition to the EFCC followed “The withdrawal of the same petition from the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, a strategic decision aimed at accelerating the prosecution process.”

 

In the petition, signed by Lead Counsel Dr O.J. Onoja, Dangote urged the EFCC to investigate allegations of abuse of office and corrupt enrichment against Ahmed, and to prosecute him if found culpable.

 

The petition further stated that Dangote would provide evidence to substantiate claims of financial misconduct and impunity.

 

“We make bold to state that the commission is strategically positioned, along with sister agencies, to prosecute financial crimes and corruption-related offences, and upon establishing a prima facie case, the courts do not hesitate to punish offenders. See Lawan v. F.R.N (2024) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1953) 501 and Shema v. F.R.N. (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt.1624) 337,” the petition read.

 

Onoja further urged the commission, under the leadership of Mr Olanipekun Olukoyede, “To investigate the complaint of abuse of office and corruption against Engr. Farouk Ahmed and to accordingly prosecute him if found wanting.”

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Breaking News

Rivers Assembly Reopens Impeachment Push Against Gov. Fubara, Deputy

Published

on

By

The Rivers State House of Assembly formally recommenced impeachment proceedings against Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his deputy, Prof. Ngozi Odu.

 

This marks the second time within ten months that the state legislature has initiated such a move.

 

At a plenary session presided over by the Speaker, Martins Amaewhule, the Majority Leader of the House, Major Jack, formally read the notice detailing allegations of gross misconduct against Governor Fubara.

 

The notice, which was endorsed by 26 lawmakers, accused the governor of actions allegedly in violation of the Nigerian Constitution.

 

Amaewhule announced that the notice would be served on the governor within the next seven days.

 

During the same sitting, the Deputy Majority Leader, Linda Stewart, read the notice of allegations and gross misconduct leveled against Deputy Governor Ngozi Oduh.

 

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Breaking News

Supreme Court: President Has Power To Declare Emergency Rule, Remove Elected Officials

Published

on

By

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the President holds the constitutional power to declare a state of emergency in any state where circumstances threaten public safety or governance.

According to the ruling, this authority may be exercised to prevent a serious breakdown of law and order or to stop conditions from deteriorating into chaos or anarchy.

The court emphasized that such powers are intended to safeguard national stability and ensure the continued functioning of democratic institutions when extraordinary situations arise.

It noted that emergency measures are justified only in exceptional cases where normal governance mechanisms are unable to effectively address escalating crises.

More details later…

Continue Reading

Trending