news
Oyetola, APC, INEC urge Appeal Court to uphold Osun election
….Court reserves judgments on four appeals
The Osun State Governor, Adegboyega Oyetola, his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) have asked the Court of Appeal in Abuja to uphold the victory of Oyetola and APC in the governorship election held in the state on September 22 and 27, 2018.
Their request is contained in three separate appeals they filed against the majority judgment given by the Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal on March 22, 2019.
The tribunal had, in the majority judgment, given by two of its three members upheld the petition by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate in the election, Senator Ademola Adeleke and voided Oyetola and APC’s victory.
In their appeals, argued on 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.
In the appeal by Oyetola, his lawyer, 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.
He urged the court to void the judgment because the judge, Justice Peter Obiorah who wrote and delivered it, did not participate in all the proceedings of the tribunal.
Olanipekun noted that “the judge, who did not sit, came to write the leading judgment and reviewed the evidence of the February 6, 2019 proceedings where he was absent.
“Adjudication is like video watching. It cannot be done by proxy. The judge cannot analyse the evidence of a witness, whose demeanor he did not observe. The judgement should be declared a nullity on this ground alone”
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.
He argued that the judge’s failure to sigh 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.
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.
“If there was no result before the tribunal, the tribunal could not have cancelled what was not before it. Since no single result was submitted and could not have been cancelled,” he said.
He argued that the tribunal went beyond its powers by annulling results in the 17 polling units in order to justify its the judgement it gave in favour of the petitioners.
Read Also: Easter: Oyetola okays free train transport for Osun citizens
Lawyer to the APC, Akin Olujinmi (SAN), while arguing the party’s appeal, contended that the tribunal was wrong to have allowed the petition, which was incurably incompetent.
“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.
“You cannot say you should be declared a winner on the election that you said was unlawful and void,” he said.
Olujinmi accused the tribunal of exceeding its jurisdiction when it engaged in amending the petitioners’ reliefs to make them grantable.
“No tribunal has the jurisdiction to reframe, amend or formulate reliefs for the petitioners.
“On realising that the reliefs could not be granted, they (members of the tribunal) amended the reliefs and granted it by themselves.
“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.”
He further faulted the tribunal for holding that the petitioners proved its case of non-compliance in respect of the polling units where it voided results.
Olujinmi added: “The tribunal was wrong. They cannot use the allegation of non-compliance directed at the election of September 27 against the election of September 22.
“The tribunal relied on certified true copy of Form EC8A, which they said were dumped on the tribunal. This was what they still relied on to nullify results in the polling units in which they said malpractices were proved. The so called non-complaince did not affect the result of the election,” Olujinmi said.
He argued that the tribunal went outside its powers and contravened Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act when it engaged in the deduction of votes from the outcome of the election to arrive at the decision it gave.
Lawyer to INEC, Yusuf Ali (SAN) who argued in similar manner, contended that the tribunal erred in its majority judgment, particularly as regards the issue of non-compliance.
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.
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.
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.
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 prove placed on them by the law to warrant INEC to call fresh witnesses.
Ali added: “There is no law that said INEC most call witnesses, since the petitioners could not discharge the responsibility of proving their declarative reliefs, there was no need for INEC to have called its own witnesses.”
Lawyer to Adeleke and the PDP, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN) faulted the three appeals and the arguments proffered by Olanipekun, Olujinmi and Ali.
Ikpeazu argued that the tribunal was right in its decision to have declared Adeleke and his party as the winner of the election.
He faulted the argument that Justice Obiorah did not participate in all the proceedings of the tribunal, arguing that there was no sufficient evidence to that effect.
Ikpeazu urged the court to dismiss the three appeals and uphold the judgment of the tribunal.
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.
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.
Olanipekun, Olujinmi and Ali argued that the cross appeal was incompetent on several grounds and urged the tribunal to reject it.
At the conclusion of proceedings that lasted over eight hours, the presiding judge, Justice Sankey said judgments would be reserved till a later date.
She told parties that the date of the judgment would be communicated to them by the court’s Registry.
Other members of the court’s five-man panel are: Justices Abubakar Datti Yahaya, Ita George Mbaba, Isaiah Olufemi Akeju and Bitrus Sanga.
The United Kingdom (UK) has commended the economic reforms being implemented by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration, describing Nigeria’s ongoing recovery as a success story that other countries can draw inspiration from.
The UK National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, made the remarks on Tuesday at the opening of the 4th UK-Nigeria Security and Defence Partnership Dialogue, held at Nigeria’s Office of the National Security Adviser in Abuja.
Powell said the reforms had required difficult decisions but were beginning to yield tangible results in economic growth and recovery.
“The economic reforms undertaken by the government have not been easy, but the remarkable progress Nigeria is making today in terms of growth and economic recovery demonstrates that difficult decisions can produce significant results. It is a success story from which many can draw inspiration,” he said.
The UK official described Nigeria as an “African superpower” whose influence and strategic importance would continue to grow as its population, capabilities and economic strength expand.
“For the United Kingdom, Nigeria is a vital partner—our foremost partner in Africa. Nigeria is an African superpower, a nation that is already influential and one whose importance will continue to grow,” he said.
According to Powell, the UK has strong confidence in Nigeria’s future and remains committed to deepening bilateral relations through a partnership founded on mutual respect, shared objectives and practical outcomes.
“We want that relationship to be a mature and equal partnership, one in which we share strategic objectives and work together to deliver tangible outcomes.
“We have immense respect for Nigeria’s leadership role within the country, across the region and throughout Africa, and we are committed to supporting that leadership,” he added.
Powell also acknowledged the professionalism and dedication of Nigeria’s security services in addressing the country’s security challenges, stressing that Nigeria remains indispensable to regional stability and collective security.
“Nigeria remains central and indispensable to regional stability and collective security. There is simply no substitute for Nigeria’s role in promoting peace and stability across West Africa and beyond,” he said.
He expressed satisfaction with the continued success of the UK-Nigeria Security and Defence Partnership Dialogue, describing it as a cornerstone of the two countries’ growing security cooperation.
A Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday heard that former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai admitted, in a television interview, that he intercepted the phone conversations of the National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu.
The second prosecution witness in El-Rufai’s ongoing trial, Deji Adeyanju, told the court that he was at the same television station, awaiting his turn to be interviewed on February 16, the day El-Rufai allegedly made the administration on the same station.
Led in evidence by the prosecution’s lawyer, Oluwole Aladedoye (SAN), the witness quoted El-Rufai as saying in the course of the television interview: “We listened to the conversations of the NSA.”
El-Rufai is being prosecuted by the Department of State Services (DSS) over his alleged contravention of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Amendment Act (2024) and the Nigerian Communications Act (2003) following his alleged interception of Ribadu’s phone conversations and compromising public safety, national security and instilling reasonable apprehension of insecurity among Nigerians.
Adeyanju, a subpoenaed witness, said he knew El-Rufai as a former governor of Kaduna State, adding that he issued a statement following reports that the former governor was to be arrested by security operatives.
Shortly after the television interview in which El-Rufai featured was played in the open court, Adeyanju confirmed it to be the one he saw in which the ex-governor allegedly admitted to the act.
Aladedoye also tendered a video recording of the interview featuring Adeyanju, which the court admitted.
Adeyanju said the DSS invited him after television interview and was asked to explain what happened while he was at the television studio.
The witness said he told investigators that he was present when El-Rufai made the statements on air and that when pressed further, in the course of the interview, the ex-governor said someone did the phone tapping and passed the information to him.
During cross-examination by El-Rufai’s lawyer, Paul Erokoro (SAN), Adeyanju said he did not hear El-Rufai specifically say he hacked Ribadu’s phone lines but that he heard him say, “We listened to the conversations of the NSA.”
When asked whether or not he knew the means through which the NSA makes calls and if he would be surprised to learn that DSS investigators did not ask the NSA which of his devices was allegedly compromised, the witness said those were not his business.
The prosecution tendered an official gazette without objection from the defence. Following this, the court admitted it in evidence.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik has adjourned further hearing till today.
El-Rufai is facing a three-count charge.
* That you, Mallam Nasir El Rufai, adult, male, on February 13, 2026, while appearing as a guest on Arise TV station’s “Prime Time” programme in Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this court, did admit during the interview that you and your cohorts unlawfully intercepted the phone communications of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 12(1) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Amendment, Act, 2024.
* That you, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, adult, male, on February 13, 2026, while appearing as a guest on Arise TV station’s “Prime Time” programme in Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this court, did state during the interview that you know and relate with certain individual, who unlawfully intercepted the phone communications of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, without reporting the said individual to relevant security agencies and thereby committed an offence, contrary to and punishable under Section 27 (b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Amendment, Act, 2024.
* That you, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, adult, male, and other still at large, sometime in 2026, in Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this court, with others still at large did use technical equipment or systems which compromised public safety, national security and instilling reasonable apprehension of insecurity among Nigerians by unlawfully intercepting the phone communications of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, to which you admitted during an interview on February 13, 2026, on Arise TV station’s “Prime Time” programme in Abuja and thereby committed an offence, contrary to and punishable under Section 131(2) Nigerian Communications Act 2003.
The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four other political parties.
The other political parties the court directed the electoral body to deregister are the Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (AP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).
The court order followed a judgment delivered by Justice Peter Lifu.
The National Forum of Former Legislators had, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, prayed the court to determine whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to remove political parties that fail to meet the electoral performance thresholds set out in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s regulations.
It was the position of the plaintiff that the five political parties listed as defendants in the matter had persistently failed to meet the constitutional benchmarks required to retain their registration.
The former legislators stressed that the requirements include winning at least 25 per cent of votes in a state during a presidential election or securing at least one elective seat at the national, state, or local government level.
They told the court that the ADC and the four other parties performed poorly in both the 2023 general elections and by-elections conducted by INEC, thereby failing to win seats across key tiers of government.
The litigants insisted that the continued existence of the ADC and the other defendants as recognised political parties is unlawful and undermines the integrity of the country’s electoral system.
Among other reliefs, the plaintiff urged the court to declare that INEC is duty-bound to deregister such parties.
It further urged the court to compel the commission to deregister the five political parties before preparations for the 2027 elections advance further.
Beyond declaratory reliefs, the plaintiff prayed the court to restrain the five affected parties from participating in general elections or engaging in political activities such as campaigns, rallies, and primaries.
It also sought a court injunction restraining INEC from recognising or dealing with the parties in any official capacity unless and until they strictly comply with constitutional provisions.
The judgment may affect the chances of candidates of the affected political parties, including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, to contest the 2027 presidential poll.
-
news6 years agoUPDATE: #ENDSARS: CCTV footage of Lekki shootings intact – Says Sanwo – Olu
-
lifestyle6 years agoFormer Miss World: Mixed reactions trail Agbani Darego’s looks
-
health5 years agoChairman Agege LG, Ganiyu Egunjobi Receives Covid-19 Vaccines
-
lifestyle5 years agoObateru: Celebrating a Quintessential PR Man at 60
-
health6 years agoUPDATE : Nigeria Records 790 new cases of COVID-19
-
health6 years agoBREAKING: Nigeria confirms 663 new cases of COVID-19
-
news1 year agoBREAKING: Tinubu swears in new NNPCL Board
-
entertainment1 year agoAshny Set for Valentine Special and new Album ‘ Femme Fatale’