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 Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) has shared a total of N1.894 trillion among the three tiers of government as federation allocation for February 2026.
According to a statement issued on Friday by the Federal Ministry of Finance, the distribution was made from a gross revenue of N2.230 trillion generated during the month.
From the amount shared, the Federal Government received N675.086 billion, the 36 states received N651.525 billion, while the 774 local government councils got N456.467 billion. Oil-producing states also received an additional N110.949 billion as derivation revenue, representing 13 per cent of mineral proceeds.
The statement further disclosed that N77.302 billion was paid to revenue-generating agencies as the cost of collection, while N259.078 billion was allocated for transfers, interventions and refunds.
The ministry explained that gross revenue from Value Added Tax (VAT) for February stood at N668.450 billion, compared to N1.083 trillion distributed in the preceding month, indicating a decline of N414.710 billion.
From the VAT revenue, N26.738 billion was deducted as cost of collection, while N22.593 billion was set aside for transfers, interventions and refunds.
The remaining N619.119 billion was shared among the three tiers of government, with the Federal Government receiving N61.912 billion, the states N340.515 billion and local government councils N216.692 billion.
Similarly, the gross statutory revenue of N1.561 trillion recorded in February was lower than the N1.957 trillion received in the previous month, representing a decrease of N395.138 billion.
From the statutory revenue, N50.564 billion was deducted as cost of collection, while N236.485 billion was allocated for transfers, interventions and refunds.
The balance of N1.274 trillion was distributed as follows: the Federal Government received N613.174 billion, states got N311.010 billion, and local governments received N239.776 billion, while N110.949 billion was allocated as derivation revenue to oil-producing states.
New tax regime designed to boost growth, ease burden on Nigerians — Experts
The ministry noted that revenue from oil and gas royalty as well as excise duty recorded significant increases during the period.
However, it added that collections from Petroleum Profit Tax (PPT), Hydrocarbon Tax (HT), Companies Income Tax (CIT), Capital Gains Tax (CGT), Stamp Duties (SDT) and Value Added Tax (VAT) declined substantially during the month under review.
In what looked like a syndicate, a Lagos Lanlord, Mr. Lawrence Onwukwem and his gang, who specialise in swindling innocent Nigerians through properties in their care, have run into trouble and earned jail terms for fraud and illegal eviction of a couple, Mr. Olusola Alabi and his wife, Mrs. Olufunmilola Alabi, who rented an apartment from them and were summarily frustrated.
Like a thief whose time of reckoning has come, Onwukwem, alongside his accomplice; Mr. Davies Ijele, Mr. Sodiq Kazeem, and Ms. Peace Igbo, who operates under Green Birch Tech Ltd, was recently jailed for six months each by a Lagos Chief Magistrates’ Court, sitting in Eti-Osa for contempt of court.
The imprisonment of the defendants is due to the contemptuous order of the court. The court held them in contempt, which they displayed all through the court proceedings.
In the charges, marked MISC/MCE/07/2023, the court invoked Section 44(1)(a) of the Tenancy Law of Lagos State 2011 as amended against the Defendants by convicting the Directors of the 1st Defendant (including the 2nd Defendant, Mr. Lawrence Onwukwem (Managing Director) and Mr. Isaiah Davies ljele) and one Sodiq Kazeem, the Estate Manager and one Ms. Chidinmma Igbo, all of the 1st Defendant, for forceful ejection of the Claimant/Applicant for the three (3) Bedroom flat and one (1) Room Boys Quarters with appurtenances situate, lying and being at Block A, Flat 3, No. 96B, Ladipo Omotosho Cole Street, Lekki I, Eti-Osa, Lagos State held by the Claimant/Applicant as a yearly tenant of the 1st Defendant/Respondent by unlawfully trespassing into the said Apartment, forcing the door open, and removing the Claimant’s furniture and electronics, beddings, refrigerator, air conditioners and gas cooker with gas cylinder, etc. and changing the keys to the entrance door, without any Lawful authority of any Order of any Court of competent jurisdiction, whilst the Claimant’s Suit No: MISC/MCE/07/2023: and the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s Suit No: MCE165/CIV/2024 were pending before the Court.
Delivering the judgement, the Chief Magistrate, Kikelomo Olaiya Doja-Ojo, on June 5, 2025, said that Lawrence Onwukwem, Hon. Davies Ijele, Mr Sodiq Kazeem and Ms Peace Chidinma Igbo, were to be sentenced to six months in correctional centre for continuously flaunting the order of the court while also mandated to pay the sum of N250,000 each to the court.
“The claimant is to be restored back to possession. All her belongings removed are to be returned to her immediately,” the CTC read.
Meanwhile, since the court judgement, the couple claimed that only Kazeem is already serving the jail term at Ikoyi Correctional Centre, while the other three have since gone into hiding.
Reacting to the judgement, the couple said that disputes arose following an alleged breach of the tenancy agreement by the landlord, prompting Mrs. Alabi to seek legal redress in court.
The couple said that while the tenancy matter was still pending in court, Mr. Onwukwem and his partners unlawfully broke into the apartment, removed their properties valued at N25million, and subsequently rented out the flat to another tenant.
When this reporter reached out to Mr Lawrence and Ijele for comments, their telephone lines were unreachable.
However, Igbo denied allegations that she was arrested and charged to court for failing to produce Mr Kazeem.
She refuted claims that she stood as surety for Kaeem , insisting that she never signed any legal documents in that capacity.
“They have spoilt my name and career. I don’t know how to reach them. They have issue with a particular person and why involving me instead of meeting those concerned directly. I know nothing about it,” she said.
“For the record, I didn’t sign in as a surety…I was working as a secretary and HR for the firm. I was not a lawyer in that instance. I was in law school in 2021”
She, however, acknowledged that steps have been taken to address the matter, including efforts to obtain a remand order.
Britain will impose airspace restrictions and deploy armed police officers in Windsor next week as President Bola Tinubu arrives for a state visit hosted by King Charles III.
Tinubu is expected to begin the visit in the company of his wife Oluremi Tinubu on Wednesday, March 18, with a reception at Windsor Castle.
Thames Valley Police in a statement on its website on Wednesday, said it is working with the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, the Royal Household and other security partners.
The force said airspace restrictions over Windsor Castle, which are in place permanently throughout the year, would be extended on Wednesday, March 18, to cover the period from 7am to 11.59pm.
Chief Superintendent Adrian Hall of Thames Valley Police’s Joint Operations Unit said the air restrictions formed part of a broader security operation for the visit.
“The air restrictions are just one part of our robust security operation for the state visit of Nigerian President Tinubu next week, with many measures you will see and others you will not..
“As a force, we have a vast amount of experience in policing Royal events in Windsor and significant planning, and preparation has gone into this event,” Hall said.
He said the force would take a strong stance in enforcing the restrictions, warning that any breach would constitute a criminal offence under the Air Navigation Order and could lead to arrest.
“We will be taking a strong stance in enforcing the restrictions; anyone who breaches them will be committing a criminal offence under the Air Navigation Order and could be arrested.”
The police chief said officers with specialist capabilities, including search teams, the Mounted Section, road policing, and armed units, would be deployed across Windsor, alongside neighbourhood policing and Project Servator resources.
“We will also be deploying numerous police officers to Windsor with specialist capabilities, including our search teams, Mounted Section, Roads Policing and armed units, while our neighbourhood and Project Servator resources will also be on the ground engaging with the public,” he said.
The authorities will also deploy an extensive closed-circuit television network, hostile vehicle mitigation barriers, and other undisclosed security measures for the event.
Hall said, “We will also be using the extensive CCTV network in Windsor, Hostile Vehicle Mitigation barriers, and many other security measures that you may not be able to see to make sure the event runs safely.”
He urged members of the public to support the security operation by remaining vigilant.
“The public plays a critical role to support us so we encourage them to report any suspicious activity or anything that does not seem quite right by calling 101 or speaking to one of our officers. If there is an immediate threat or emergency, then call 999,” Hall added.
Road closures and parking restrictions will take effect from Tuesday, March 17, with possible temporary disruption to roads in and around Windsor during the visit.
Thames Valley Police said it was being supported by the Civil Aviation Authority and National Air Traffic Services to enforce the flight restrictions. Persons with legitimate reasons for drone flying were directed to email [email protected].
-
news5 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
-
lifestyle4 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
-
entertainment1 year agoAshny Set for Valentine Special and new Album ‘ Femme Fatale’
-
news10 months agoBREAKING: Tinubu swears in new NNPCL Board