La Written Address FINAL Before The Tribunal

IN THE GOVERNORSHIP AND LEGISLATIVE
HOUSES ELECTION TRIBUNALS

OSUN STATE
HOLDEN AT OSOGBO
PETITION NO. GOV/EPT/OS/01/07
THE ELECTION TO THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR OF OSUN STATE

HELD ON THE 14 T H DAY OF APRIL, 2007
BETWEEN
RAUF ADESOJI AREGBESOLA & 2 ORS - PETITIONERS
AND
OLAGUNSOYE OYINLOLA & ORS - RESPONDENTS
P ETITIONERS ‟ F INAL A DDRESS & R EPLY T O T HE

A DDRESS OF ALL T HE R ESPONDENTS
S ET T L ED B Y :
______________________
Ebun Sofunde, SAN
Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN,
Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, SA N
Kola Awodein, SAN
Charles Uwensuyi-Edosomwan, SAN
Professor „Yemi Osinbajo, SAN
Deji Sasegbon, SAN
Mutiu B. Ganiyu Esq
Ajibola Basiru Esq
Petitioners‟/Applicants‟ Counsel,
Address within Jurisdiction:
C/o Wale Afolabi & Co.
20C Ajegunle Street, Osogbo.
1
1. I N T R O D UC T I O N
1.1 On 14 t h April 2007, the 4 t h Respondent conducted an election
for the office of the Governor of Osun State. Action Congress,
the 3 r d Petitioner sponsored the 1 s t and 2 n d Petitioners,
Engineer Rauf Aregbesola and Grace T itilayo Laoye-Tomori as
its governorship and deputy governorship candidates,
respectively, in the said election while the 3 r d Respondent, the
Peoples Democratic party sponsored the 1 st and 2nd
Respondents as its governorship and deputy governorship
candidates, respectively. At the end of the exercise, the 4 t h
Respondent (INEC) announced that the 1 s t Respondent scored
a total of 426,666 votes as against the 1 s t Petitioner‟s 240,722
and consequently declared the 1 s t Respondent duly elected and
returned as the gov ernor of Osun State.
1.2 Dissatisfied with the conduct and result of the elec tion, the
Petitioners, on 11/5/2007, presented this Petition at the
Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Petition
Tribunal holden at Oshogbo, Osun State. It is the prayer of t he
Petitioners, inter alia:
1.2.1 that votes recorded and/or returned in the following Local
Government Areas, namely, Atakumosa West Local
Government, Ayadaade Local Government, Boluwaduro Local
Government, Boripe Local Government, Ede North Local
Government, Ife Central Local Government, Ife East Local
Government, Ife South Local Government, Ifedayo Local
Government, Isokan Local Government, Odo - Otin Local
Government and Ola Oluwa Local Government , do not
represent lawful votes cast in the said Local Governme nt
Areas in the Osun State Governorship election held on 14
April, 2007 and as having been obtained in vitiating
circumstances of substantial non -compliance with mandatory
provisions of Electoral Act, 2006, violence and malpractices
which substantially aff ected the validity of the said elections
2
that none of the candidates in the said elections can be validly
returned as having validly won in the said affected Local
Government Areas;
1.2.2 That the said Prince Olagunsoye Oyinlola was not duly elected
by majority of lawful votes cast in the Osun State
Governorship election held on April 14, 2007 and that his
election is void;
1.2.3 That Rauf Adesoji Aregbesola was elected and ought to have
been returned having scored the highest number of votes cast
in the Osun State Gov ernorship Election held on April 14,
2007, and satisfied the requirements of the Section 179
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and the
Electoral Act, 2006;
1.2.4 That the 1 s t petitioners be declared validly elected or returned.
1.3 In the Petitio ners‟ alternative prayers, the Petitioners prays as
follows:
1.3.1 That the Osun State Governorship Election held on April 14,
2007 is void on the ground that the election was not conducted
substantially in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of
the Electoral Act, 2006;
1.3.2 That the said election was vitiated by substantial non
compliance with the mandatory statutory requirements which
substantially affected the validity of the said elections that
none of the candidates in the said election can be validly
returned as having validly won the said election;
1.3.3 That the Osun state Governorship Election held on the 14 t h of
April 2007 is nullified or cancelled and the 4 t h Respondent is
to conduct fresh elections for the office of the Governor of
Osun State.
1.4 The 1 s t Respondent opposed the Petition by filing a Reply
praying the Honourable Tribunal to dismiss the said Petition.
The 4th– 1365 Respondents also filed a reply. In the same vein,
3
the 1366 t h and 1367 t h Respondents also filed its reply wherein
they denied the alleg ations of the Petitioners.
1.5 At trial, the Petitioner called a total of 82 witnesses while the
1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents called 62 witnesses. The 4th –
1365th Respondents as well as the 1366th and 1367th
Respondents called no witness .
1.6 In line with Paragra ph 5(12) of the Election Tribunal and Court
Practice Directions, 2007 and the direction of this Honourable
Tribunal that counsel should file writ ten addresses upon close
of the 1366th – 1367th Respondents case the Petitioners hereby
present their final add ress in respect thereof.
2. Preliminary Response to The 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents

On the Reason and Substratum for Retrial
2.1 The 1 s t to 3 r d Respondent had argued that the only reason for
the order of retrial of this petition is refusal to admit Police
Security Report.
2.2 It is submitted that nothing can be father from truth,
adroitness and candour than the submissions in paragraphs
1.01, 1.02 and 1.03 of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents that the only
and sole reason for order of retrial of this Petition by the
Court of Appeal in Aregbesola v. Oyinlola [2009] 14 NWLR (pt
1162) 429 was only on the so -called Police Report.
2.3 For the avoidance of the confusion sought to be created by the
1 s t to 3 r d Respondents, we find it pertinent to immediately
state that there are many grou nds for which the Court of
Appeal decided to order a re -trial in the case. At page 480 of
the Report, Omage, J.C.A., who read the lead Judgment, held
thus:
“The rejection of documenta ry evidence to wit: Police
Security Report, Forms EC8D, EC8E and the Ruli ngs of the
Tribunal on 18/2/2008 and 28/4/2008 wherein the
petitioner/appellant was denied the use of vital documents
4
to support the petitioner‟s case amounts to a miscarriage of
justice.”
2.4 Without more, from the judgment it was clear that the Court of
Appeal held that the trial before Justices T.D. Naron, S.
Mohammed, J.N. Akpughunum, A.T. Bademasi and J.E. Ekanem
amounted to a miscarriage of justice on the following grounds:the
rejection of Forms EC8D and EC8E which are the results of the
April 14, 2007 Gubernatorial Election in Osun State; the ruling of
18/2/2008 wherein the Tribunal refused the application to call
Adrian Forty, the forensic expert, to give evidence of his findings
upon forensically examining and analysing the thumb
impressions on the ballot papers used for the election as provided
by INEC; the ruling of 28/4/2008 wherein the Tribunal refused
the application to call Tunde Yadeka, the information technology
expert, to give evidence of his findings upon examining and
analysing the INEC do cuments used for the election; and the
rejection of Police security report;
2.5 As a matter of fact, in considering the propriety of the Naron‟s
Tribunal‟s decision to refuse the Petitioners‟ applications for
calling Adrian Forty and Tunde Yadeka (18/2/200 8 and
28/4/2008 respectively), the Court of Appeal, on page 478 of the
Report, noted that it would ordinarily not interfere with the way
a trial judge exercises his discretion “ but will be quick to
interfere if the Court is satisfied that the discretion wa s wrongly
exercised or the exercise was tainted with some illegality or
substantive irregularity or that it is in the interest of justice to
do so.”
2.6 It was on this basis that the Court of Appeal found that the
Naron-led Tribunal‟s exercise of its dis cretion in the rulings of
18/2/2008 and 28/4/2008 wrong and tainted with illegality and
substantive irregulari ty. On this, Omage, J.C.A. held , on page 478
of the Report, that:
5
“My Lords, in this Appeal, I find I am compelled to
interfere in the way the Tribunal exercised its discretion. It
is necessary to avoid a perverse judgment. All the
documents that the Petitioner/Appellant sought to bring to
the Tribunal were refused by the dismissal of applications,
which ought to have been allowed in to enable the
petitioner/appellant support the Petition. ”
2.7 Therefore, it is false to state that the substratum of the order of
retrial has been removed. The order of retrial is general in nature
not in any way qualified. According to the Court of Appeal in
making the order of retrial at page 480 of the Report :
“In the light of all that has been said in this Judgment, the
President of the Court of Appeal is hereby directed to
constitute a fresh Osun State Governorship Election
Petition Tribunal for the purpose of hearin g this petition
afresh”. (underlinig ours)
2.8 With the order of retrial granted, that puts the parties under a
duty to prove their case anew. In Fadiora v Gbadebo (1978) 3 S.C
219, the Supreme Court held:
“… . We think that in trials de novo the case must be
proved anew or rather re -proved de novo, and therefore,
the evidence and verdict given as well as the judge‟s
findings, at the first trial are completely inadmissible on
the basis that prima facie they have been discarded or got
rid of. The court of sec ond trial, therefore, is entitled to
and, indeed, must look at the pleadings before it in order
to ascertain and decide the issues joined by the parties
before it on their pleadings. This is the reason why it is a
fundamental principle of the doctrine of r es judicata that
„no finding of the court or of a jury which has proved
abortive, a new trial having been directed, will give rise
to a valid plea of estoppel‟; and over the years this
principle has been hallowed by a number of important
decisions ……………”
6
See also Ogbuehi v Governor, Imo State (No.2) [2001] 17 NWLR
(pt 743) 569 at 582.
2.9 It is also on record that the Petitioners applied for a subpoena for
the relevant police officers to come over to tender the police
report but that the bailiffs of this Tribunal was unable to effect
service of the subpoena not to talk of sanctioning the
disobedience of the subpoena .
3. General Comme nt on Introductory Par agraphs of the

Respondents Written Address
3.1 Contrary to paragraph 2.00 of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents‟
Written Address elections was held in all the states including
Anambra State but the election for Anambra State was only
subsequently nullified by the Supreme Court.
3.2 Contrary to paragraph 2.06 of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents‟
Written Address there are two grounds of the petition, the
main ground in paragraph 15 of the Petition and the further
and alternative ground in paragraph 156 of the Petition.
3.3 In reference to paragraph 2.08 of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents‟
written address, it is submitted that although the Petitioners
pleading relates to twelve local governments but the
Petitioners concede that they have abandoned their case only
as it concerned Ola Oluwa Local Government and Ede North
Local Government.
3.4 The reliefs sought by the Petitioners are clear and lucid and
set out in paragraphs 158 and 159 of the Petition.
4. The Validity of the Ground of Petition

4.1 The 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents had argued in paragraph 3.01 to
paragraph 3.08 of their address that the first issue formulated
by the Tribunal in the pre -trial report is unsustainable having
regard to the ground of the petition . They then proceeded to
argue that the ground of the petition in paragraph 15 of the
7
petition make complaint on the provision of the constitution
and relying on Ojukwu v Yaradua [2009] 12 NWL R (pt 1154) 50
at 121 para C-D.
4.2 The petitioner s‟ response to this contention will be predicated
on three grounds, viz:
4.2.1 That the ground of the petition is within Section 145(1)(c) of
the Electoral Act 2006
4.2.2 The case of Ojukwu v. Yar‟Adua did not decide what the
respondents cited it for.
4.2.3 The contention being a chal lenge to the competence of the
petition has been waived by the respondents
We shall now proceed to treat the three grounds.
4.3 Petition is within Section 145(1)(c) of Electoral Act 2006

4.3.1 Contrary to the submissions of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents, the
petitioners ground of the petition in paragraph 15 of the Petition
clearly is within the confines of Section 145(1)(c) of the Electoral
Act 2006 provides as follows:
An Election may be questioned on any of the following
grounds:
“(c) That the respondent was not duly elected by majority of
lawful votes cast at the election”
4.3.2 In fact these words “The 1 s t respondents was not duly elected by
majority of lawful votes cast at the election” in paragr aph 15 of
the Petition was lifted from section 145(1)(c) of the Electoral Act.
4.3.4 Furthermore, in an application filed by the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents
on 8 June, 2009, the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents unequivocally stated in
paragraph (2) of the ground of the ir application that: “The
ground for challenging the election is that the 1 s t respondent was
not elected by majority of lawful votes or in the alternative that
there was non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral
Act, 2006”. Also, in paragraph 3 of the Affidavit in Support of the
said application of 8 June, 2009, the deponent, Muraina Adetunji,
8
one of the Counsel to the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents in the firm of
Kunle Kalejaiye & Co, deposed as follows: “That I have carefully
perused the Petition filed by the petitioners/Respondents
herein and I observed as follows: (a) that the petition is
premised on two grounds: (i) that the 1 s t respondent was not
elected by majority of lawful votes. (ii) that there was non -
compliance with the provisions of the Electo ral Act, 2006.
4.3.5 Ruling on that application on 30 t h day of June, 2009, this
Honourable Tribunal held: “In the instant case as admitted by
the applicants, the petition is founded on two alternative
grounds recognized under section 145(1) of the Electora l Act,
2006”.
4.3.6 The 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents were not only estopped on this issue
but there was thus no substance in the present contentions of the
1 s t to 3 r d respondents.
4.4 Decision in Ojukwu v. Yar‟Adua

4.4.1 The case of Ojukwu v Yar‟Adua [2009] 1 2 NWLR (pt 1154) 50
does not support the contention of the Respondents. Apart from
the fact that the grounds objected to in Ojukwu v. Yar‟Adua were
differently framed from the way the petitioners framed their own
ground at paragraph 15 of the petition, th e Supreme Court in the
leading judgment of the court in which four justices concurred
still upheld those grounds. It is helpful to quote here the three
grounds (without their particulars) objected to in the Ojukwu
case.
“(1) The election in which the 1 s t and 2 n d respondents were
declared winners was not conducted in compliance with the
1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act, 2006.
Particulars…………………………………..
(2) The said election did not meet the minimal requirement of
Electoral democracy and the la w and the Electoral Act,
2006
Particulars……………………………………….”
9
(3) Rudimentary requirements of fairness and equal treatment
provided by the Constitution and the Electoral Act were
not extended to the petitioner and to potential voters in
Anambra, Imo, Abia, Enugu and Ebonyi States.
Particulars……………………………………..”
4.4.2 The Court of Appeal upheld ground (1) above as valid but still
struck out the ground because there was no averment that the
alleged non-compliance affected the results of the election. The
Court held that grounds (2) and (3 ) did not come within Section
145(1) of the Electoral Act and struck them out as well as the
petition. In the appeal to the Supreme Court by the petitioner,
the court in its leading judgment per Tabai J.S.C. held as follow s
at page 109 D-F in upholding grounds (2) and (3 ):
“The court below held that grounds 2 and 3 do not
conform with or relate to any of the four grounds set out
in section 145(1) of the Electoral Act and were struck o ut.
No reasons were given for this conclusion. The appellant
proffered sustained arguments to fault the finding of the
court below. There is force in the arguments of Mr. Ezike
of counsel for the appellant particularly having regard to
the particulars of the said grounds 2 and 3. Looking at
the two grounds in the abstract and without reference to
their particulars one is tempted to conclude that they do
not convey any complaint which falls within the grounds
in section 145(a)-b of the Electoral Act. They are vague.
But a careful reading of the two grounds together with
their particulars clearly shows that the petitioner alleges a
number of non-compliances and/or corrupt practices. No
doubt the two grounds contain some assertions of non -
compliances. That however is not the end of the matter. ”
4.4.3 The court however still dismissed the appeal because there was
no allegation in the pleading that the non -compliances alleged
affected the results of the election contrary to the provision of
Section 146 of the Electoral Act. Now , four of their Lor dships
10
concurred in the judgment while three dissented. It is important
to add that the passages from the judgment relied upon by the 1 s t
to 3 r d respondents were lifted from the contribution of Hon.
Justice Tobi J.S.C. who also concurred in the leading ju dgment.
Even in his Lordship‟s contribution and notwithstanding the fact
that there was no appeal against the finding of the Court of
Appeal that ground one of the petition quoted above was valid,
Hon. Justice Tobi still disagreed with the Court of Appeal. He
expressed the view that the ground was not valid. It was that
view that the 1 s t to 3 r d respondents now relied upon in their
arguments.
4.4.4 Now it is settled that the leading judgment is the judgment of the
court and any opinion expressed in a contr ibution which is not
contained in the leading judgment is only o biter. Refer to
Supreme Court decision in Idise v. Williams (1995) 1 NWLR
(Pt.370) where the Supreme Court held as follows:
“As for issues 3, 4 and 5, these were based on the concurring
judgment of Uche Omo, J.C.A., (as he then was) which is
not the lead judgment, whatever Uche Omo, J.C.A., said in
his concurring judgment, which differs from the lead
judgment, with which he agreed, can only be Obiter dicta,
and therefore it will be a mere acade mic exercise to
consider them”.
4.4.5 It follows therefore from this decision that the view of Tobi J.S.C.
which the 1 s t – 3 r d respondents relied upon is o biter which does
not bind this court not being the leading judgment. The same
thing goes for the oth er concurring judgments. Anything therein
which is not in the leading judgment is obiter.
4.4.6 It is important to also point out that the leading judgment and
the contribution s emphasise the point that the ground formulated
and the facts in support must be read together to make a sense of
the ground of petition. Where there are no facts to predicate the
ground of the petition the ground or grounds will be ambiguous,
11
vague and incompre hensible. Even Tobi J.S.C. in his contribution
agreed that once the ground of the petition comes within the
provisions of section 145 of the electoral Act , it would not matter
that additional words were used in cou ching the ground. Further,
the ground of the petition that was considered in that case was a
ground purportedly predicated on section 145(1)(b) of the
Electoral Act unlike here where the ground is based on section
145(1)(c) of the Electoral Act.
4.4.7 The case of Ogboru v Ibori [2004] 7 NWLR (pt 871) 192 at 223 -224
is also irrelevant here as the case relate to pred icating a ground
on petition on “irregularities” in the context of section 134(1)(b)
of the Electoral Act 2002 which is identical with section 145(1)(b)
of the Electoral Act, 2006. Ground 1 of the present petition is
predicated on section 145(1)(c) of the Electoral Act, 2006 and this
much has been admitted by the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents.
4.5 Waiver of Right to Raise O bjection

4.5.1 The objection now raised by the 1 s t – 3 r d respondents is a
challenge to the competence of the petition. It is submitted that
it is too late in the day for the respondent s to raise this objection.
Paragraph 49 of the Electoral Act, 2006 requires that any
objection to any perceived defect in a petition must be raised
timeously and when the party making the application has not
taken any fresh step in the proceeding after knowledge of the
defect. The Court of Appeal in Agagu v. Mimiko (2009) 7 NWLR
(Pt. 1140) 342 at 391 held at page 389 H-A on the point as follows:
“The appellant filed its reply to the petition on 13 t h June,
2007. Prior to the filing of the appellant‟s reply, no
objection was taken to the competence or otherwise of the
petition. The issue of competence of the petition was
raised for the first time by the appellant in his final
address. There is substance in the subm ission of learned
senior counsel for the first respondent that at the time the
12
appellant raised the issue of the competence of ground 1 of
the petition for the first time, the tribunal had become
bereft of the jurisdiction to entertain such issue having
regard to the provisions of paragraph 49(2) of the First
Schedule to the Electoral Act, No. 2 of 2006 ”.
4.5.2 The Court of Appeal had earlier held in the same vein in its
decision in Nyako v. Action Congress (2009) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1126)
524 where the Court held as follows:
“I concur. There is no merit in the submission of the learned
senior counsel for sixth respondent/appellant that even if the
objection were raised at the close of the trial, paragraph 49(2)
and (5) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act d o not shut
out the appellants from raising objection against the petition
after the close of trial. The provision s do not merely enjoin that
an objection should be brought timeously, but also mandated
that they should be heard and determined before any further
steps are taken in the proceedings”…………….A reading of the
two sub- paragraphs recit ed above together shows that the
objection must be brought within reasonable time and when the
party making the application had not taken any fresh step in the
proceedings since acquiring knowledge of the defect. The tribunal
is enjoined to hear and determine the objection before any further
step in the proceedings provided the application is brought
timeously.”
4.5.3 The need for timeous raising of an issue concer ning a perceived
defect in an election peti tion was also emphasised by the
Supreme Court in Ojukwu v. Yar‟Adua (supra) at page 106 where
the court held as follows:
“If a respondent in an election petition feels strongly that
on the face of it, the petition is patently unsustainable in
the sense that if does not meet the requirements of the
Electoral Act or the First Schedule to the Act or that it is
lacking in materials to sustain it and therefore
incompetent, he is at liberty to raise it and timeously
too. And because it is an issue of jurisdiction which
determination can be decisive of the whole litigation, the
13
Election Tribunal or Court has the jurisdiction to
entertain it.”
4.5.4 The Supreme Court found that the objection in the Ojukwu case
was raised timeously and also timeously decided by the tribunal.
See also INEC v. Action Congress (2009) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1126) 524
at 602 C-H.
4.5.5 In the foregoing premises, it is submitted that this tribunal is at
this stage bereft of the jurisdiction to enterta in this issue now
raised by the 1 s t to 3 r d respondents and the same should be
dismissed.
5. The Issue of Bindingness and Abandonment of Pleadings

5.1 In paragraphs 3.09 to 3.21, the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents had
raised the issue of the need for evidence to be in li ne with
pleadings and the issue of abandonment of pleadings. The
Petitioners concede that evidence must be in line with
pleadings and that where evidence is not led on a matter not
pleaded such amounts to abandonment of pleading .
5.2 However, the Petitioners submit that the evidence led by them
are in line with the ir pleadings but concede that they have not
led evidence in the whole of Ede North Local Government and
Ola-Oluwa Local Government and thereby agreed that t hey
have abandoned their pleadings as far a s only these two Local
Governments are concerned leaving only ten local
governments in dispute.
5.3 Further, the Petitioners have led evidence, oral and
documentary in respect of all the Ward s in the following ten
local governments to wit: Atakumosa West Loca l
Government, Boripe Local Government, Ife Central Local
Government, Ife East Local Government, Ife South Local
Government, Ifedayo Local Government, Isokan Local
Government, and Odo - Otin Local Government. This is clear
14
from the evidence of PW80, PW81 and PW82 and a host of
documentary evidence tendered covering all the ten local
governments. See paragraphs 31.1 to 34.4 of this Address for
the evidence of PW80, PW81 and PW82 covering the whole of
the ten local governments.
5.4 Further, as will be demonstrated, the pleading and evidence of
the Petitioners are sufficient to nullify the votes recorded for
the 1 s t Respondents in the ten local governments as unlawful
votes.
IMPORTANT POINTS DESERVING SPECIAL MENTION
6.1 Before embarking on a treatment of the two issues formulated by
the tribunal, the petitioners propose to address some important
points which arise from this petition and which deserve special
mention. They are as follows:
(i) Scanty evidence c alled by the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents
(ii) Legal effect of failure of 4 t h to 1367 t h Respondents to
testify in support of their pleadings
(iii) Legal effect of failure of the 1 s t Respondent to plead
in his reply the votes objected to as require d by
Paragraph 12(2) and 15 of the First Schedule to the
Electoral Act, 2006
(iv) Absence of Voters Registers
We shall now proceed to treat the points separately.
(i) The Scanty Evidence Called by The 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents

6.2 In paragraph 3.22 of the Written Address, the 1st to 3rd
Respondents have sought to justify why it called only 62
witnesses. It is imperative to note that the evidence of each of
PW1 to PW60 are restricted to a polling unit as all the witnesses
claimed that they did not know what happened in any other unit
apart from his/her own, whereas the Petitioners called evidence
15
in respect of the several units in the wards in the ten local
governments.
6.3 Whereas, the Petitioners had called evidence covering the several
polling units in each of the Wards, the Respondents had not
called evidence that is as widespread as that called by the
Petitioners, it is submitted that the effect is that there is no
rebuttal evidence for the evidence of the Petitioners.
6.4 While, it is true that the Petitioners will su cceed on the strength
of its case, the case of the Petitioners herein is strong because the
Respondents, for the most part did not lead evidence to
controvert the evidence of the Petitioners‟ witnesses; See Ajadi v
Ajibola [2004] 16 NWLR (pt 898) 91 and the scanty evidence led
were incredible and totally discredited under cross -examination.
6.5 It is also on the record that the other two sets of Respondents did
not call any rebuttal evidence. It is submitted that contrary to
paragraph 2.14 of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents written address, the
4 t h to 1365 t h Respondents and the 1366 t h and 1367 t h Respondents
the effect of failure to so adduce evidenceis that they have
thereby abandoned their pleadings: See Alhaji Muhammadu
Maigari Dingyadi & Anor. v. Aliyu Magatak arda Wamako [2008]
17 NWLR (pt 1116) 395 at 431 G -H. It is not for a respondent to
claim that it is not calling evidence because the petitioners failed
to make out a case. In any, event the 4 t h to 1365 t h Respondents
and the 1366 t h and 1367 t h Respondents have decided to take a risk
because failure to call rebuttal evidence it is a strategy that
would turn out to be disastrous as the Petitioners have made out
a good case on the evidence: See Akanbi v Alao [1998] 3 NWLR
(pt 108) 118 at 140, 143. See also Estat e of General Sanni Abacha
v Eke-Spiff [2009] 7 NWLR (pt 1139) 97, 131 where .
(ii) Legal Effect of failure of 4 t h to 1367 t h Respondents to testify
16
6.6 It is also on the record that the other two sets of Respondents did
not call any rebuttal evidence. It is submitted that contrary to
paragraph 2.14 of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents written address, the
4 t h to 1365 t h Respondents and the 1366 t h and 1367 t h Respondents
the effect of failure to so adduce evidence is that they have
thereby abandoned their pleadings: See Alhaji Muhammadu
Maigari Dingyadi & Anor. v. Aliyu Magatakarda Wamako [2008]
17 NWLR (pt 1116) 395 at 431 G -H. The Court of Appeal in this
case stated the law on the point as follows:
“In the instant case, the tribunal ought to have struck out
the 3 r d to 43 r d respondents reply having rightly found that
no evidence was led in respect therefore. If th at has been
done, the tribunal would have discovere d that the
evidence led by the appellant in respect of the allegation
against those respondents stand unchallenged,
uncontradicted and uncontroverted. In the premises, the
tribunal would hav e found for the appellants in respect
thereof.”
6.7 See also FCDA v. Alhaji Musa Naibi (1990 3 NWLR (Pt. 138) 270
where the Supreme Court held as follows:
“Pleadings cannot constitute evidence and a defendant
who does not give evidence in support of his pleadings
or in challenge of the evidence of the plaintiff is deemed
to have accepted the facts adduced by the plaintiff
notwithstanding his general traverse.”………If the
defendant does not give evidence in support of his
pleadings, the averments therein are taken as having been
abandoned for they stand as no more than mere averments
which have not been supported.”
6.8 See also Fayemi v. Oni (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1140) 223 at 28 9 E-F
where the Court of Appeal held as follows:
“In our circumstance, appellant h ad made available to the court
the various voters registers whe refrom the fact whether or not
voters whose names appear t herein and who were accredited
17
before they voted cou ld be deduced. The 2 n d -16 t h respondents
had the onus of proving that in sp[ite of the various “tickings”
on the registers rather rthan a ticking in blue as provided for
by the manual, the registered voters had in fact been accredited
before they voted. Having failed to lead in that wise, the
appellant by the combined operation of sectio n 137 as well as
149(d) of the Evidence Act is entitled to judgment.”
6.9 In this case it was for the 4 t h to 1365 t h respondents to give
rebuttal evidence against the eviden ce of the petitioners on the
various instances of non -compliances but they failed to. They
preferred to withhold evidence. This tribunal is therefore under
a duty to accept the evidence of the petitioners as unchallenged.
6.10 It is not for a respondent t o claim that it is not calling evidence
because the petitioners failed to make out a case. In any, event
the 4th to 1365 t h Respondents and the 1366 t h and 1367 t h
Respondents have decided to take a risk because failure to call
rebuttal evidence it is a strat egy that would turn out to be
disastrous as the Petitioners have made out a good case on the
evidence: See Akanbi v Alao [1998] 3 NWLR (pt 108) 118 at 140,
143. See also Estate of General Sanni Abacha v Eke -Spiff [2009] 7
NWLR (pt 1139) 97, 131 where. The arguments under this heading
will be further elaborated later in this address.
(iii) Legal Effect of failure of 1 s t respondent to plead in their Reply
particulars of Votes objected to required by paragraphs 12(2)
and 15 of the First Schedule to the Elector al Act, 2006
6.11 The pleadings of the petitioners in this case particularly at
paragraphs 12 and 13 allege that the 1 s t petitioner scored the
highest number of lawful votes cast at the election and that he
ought to have been returned. This pleading cast a duty on the 1 s t
respondent to comply in their Reply with the provisions of
paragraphs 12(2) and 15 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act,
2006. The 1 s t respondent however failed or omitted to comply
with this mandatory requirement of the Electoral law. The effect
18
of such failure was recently discussed by the Court of Appeal in
the case of Agagu v. Mimiko (1009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1140) 342 at 413
H to 414 A and H. The court held as follows:
“..it is incumbent on me to examin e whether or not the
appellant as the first respondent to the petition or the
person who was declared winner and therefore returned as
the Governor of Ondo State at the election held on 14 t h
April, 2007 complied with the provisions of paragraphs 12
and 15 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2006.
Where the petitioner/first respondent herein claimed that
he scored the highest number of lawf ul or valid votes cast
at the election, as in the instant appeal, the first
respondent, that is, the party decl ared the winner is
required to comply with the mandatory pro visions of
paragraph 12 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act No.
2 of 2006. It requires the respondent to set out clearly in
his reply particulars of the votes which he intends to bject
to demonstrating how to prove at t he hearing that the
petitioner is not entitled to be returned…………..Thus
the respondent is required to spe cifically put down
(i) The particulars of the votes he objects to;
(ii) The reason or reasons for his objection against such votes;
and
(iii) Show how he intends to establish at the trial that the
petitioner was not entitled to succeed or to be returned.
The consequence of neglect or failure of the respondent to
comply with the provisions of paragraph 15 of the First
Schedule to the Electoral Act is that the result tendered by the
petitioner is deemed not challenged or controverted. See
Hassan v. Tumu (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 624) 700 at 710 and 712. I
have carefully examined the respondent‟s reply , which is in
Vol. V1 at pages 2541-2620 of the printed record of proceeding
and cannot locate any averment satisfying the conditi ons set out
in paragraph 15 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, No. 2
19
of 2006. The refusal, neglect or failure of the appellant to
satisfy the pro visions of the said paragraph has the effect t hat
the result tendered by the petitioners/first responde nt herein, is
unchallenged and uncontroverted.”
6.12 In the premises, it is submitted that the failure of the 1 s t
respondent to comply with paragraphs 12 and 15 of the Fir st
Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2006 means that the results
tendered by the petitioners remain unchallenged and
uncontroverted. In other words the evidence of the petitioners as
to what represents the lawful votes in the election remains
unchallenged. The same should be accepted by this tribunal.
6.13 Without prejudice to the foregoing position of the law which is in
fact sufficient to give the petitioners judgment, we shall now
proceed to address other aspects of the case.
(iv) Absence of Voters Regis ters

6.14 One variety of non-compliance with the Electoral Act which
forms a major plank of the petitioners‟s case is that voters
registers were not made available at many polling units (see, for
instance, paragraphs 27.3 and 62 of the Petition) and even where
they were, an examination of them will show as we have
demonstrated in a review of the evidence of the witnesses that
the names of many of the witnesses of the respondents who
claimed to have voted are not borne out by the registers. Their
names were not ticked and the only conclusion from this is th at
they did not vote.
6.15 The evidence concerning Boripe Local Government is even very
grim. PW9 under cross -examination by the 1 s t – 3 r d respondents‟
counsel inter alia maintained that there was no a ccreditation
before voting in his ward due to the absenc e of voters register.
He is from Ward 1 of Boripe Local Government. He stated that
the INEC office was burnt prior to the elections, and names of
voters were merely written on pieces of paper during the election
20
which aided multiple voting. PW12 testified in the same vein as
PW9. He is from Ward 6.
6.16 Now, the 4 t h to 1365 t h respondents who have custody of Voters
Registers did not testify to debunk the evidence of PW9 or
produce the voters‟ registers for most of the ward s of Boripe
Local Government. The importance of voters‟ registers to a valid
election has been pronounced upon in several cases.
6.17 The Court of Appeal per Akaahs JCA in Uweke v. Ejims (1999) 11
NWLR (Pt. 625) 39 at 53 stated the l aw as follows:
“I also agree that a person cannot vote until he has been
accredited and it is the stamping of the voter‟s card and
the marking of the electoral register that proves that
the accreditation did in fact ta ke place. Where the
electoral register is not so marked but votes are returned
for the particular voting unit it will be safe to
conclude that such votes were not obtained throu gh the
due electoral process. Where therefore the voters register
had no marking but Forms EC8A or EC8A(1) are
produced showing scores, such scores can be excluded
from the valid votes scored by a candidate at the election.”
6.18 Recently again in the case of Fayemi v. Oni (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt.
1140) 223 at 287 C -E where the same non -compliance was relied
upon the Court of Appeal restated the law in the following
words:
“Unlike other species of non -compliance whic h effect on the
results of the election must be separately proved by the
petitioner, non-compliance arising from non accreditation of
voters is so fundamental and the effect it has on the result of
the election lies in the facts of its occurrence. You must have an
election lawfully so -called to be able to talk of the results of
that election. Election results ensue from lawful votes cast
by voters in a manner recognised by the law. The appellant in
the instance case had pleaded at paragraph 37(1) thus:
21
“That the 1 s t respondent was not duly elected by a majority of
lawful votes cast at the election.”
An election that proceeded without accreditation of vot ers does
not allow for the casting of lawful votes and any person
elected on the basis of votes cast by voters who had not been
accredited cannot be said to have been duly elected. The
election is voided ab initio and does not allow for the
emergence o f any result.”
6.19 The petitioners herein , just as the petitioner in the Fayemi case
(supra), relying on the pleading at paragraph 15.1 of their
petition, “that the 1 s t respondents was not duly elected by
majority of lawful votes cast at the election .” Obviously, a
situation where the voters registers were not produced by the
respondents to counter the evidence of PW9 the tribunal has only
one option open to it and that is to accept the evidence of PW9
that in the absence of voters registers only pieces of papers were
used for the election. An election in which pieces of papers
rather than voters registers were used or where voters names
were not ticked in voters register cannot on these authorities be
held to be lawful election. In other words, the 1 s t respondent
cannot be said to have been elected by a majority of lawful votes.
6. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

7.1 In the pre-hearing report issued at the close of the pre -hearing
session, the followings are the issues formulated for
determination by this Honour able Tribunal:
Issue No 1
7.1.1 Whether the 1 s t respondent was duly elected as Governor of
Osun State in the April 14, 2007 gubernatorial election in Osun
State is substantial compliance with the provisions of the
Electoral Act, 2006 and the manual for Ele ction, having regard
to the totality of the evidence adduced at the trial (both oral
and documentary).
22
Issue No. 2
7.1.2 Whether from the facts before the Tribunal the Governorship
election held in Osun State on the 14 t h day of April, 2007 was
vitiated by any form of irregularities and/or corrupt practices
and in the circumstances warranting ordering a fresh election.
ARGUMENT
Issue No 1
Whether the 1 s t respondent was duly elected as Governor of Osun
State in the April 14, 2007 gubernatorial election in O sun State is
substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2006
and the manual for Election, having regard to the totality of the
evidence adduced at the trial (both oral and documentary).
8.1 In arguing the first issue for determination , it is pertinent to
point out that the Petitioners called oral evidence and tendered
documentary evidence in respect of the following ten local
governments: Atakumosa West Local Government, Ayadaade
Local Government, Boluwaduro Local Government, Boripe Lo cal
Government, Ife Central Local Government, Ife East Local
Government, Ife South Local Government, Ifedayo Local
Government, Isokan Local Government, and Odo - Otin Local
Government.
8.2 While it is conceded that there is presumption of regularity in
favour of a declared result, it is submitted that the presumption
is rebuttable and and it has been effectively rebutted by the
Petitioners in the instant case by leading credible oral and
documentary evidence showing that the 1 s t Respondent ought not
to have been declared.
8.3 As can be seen from Exhibit 91 and Exhibit 92(1-2) the 1 s t
Respondent was announced as having scored a total of 426,669
number of votes whilst the Petitioner was announced as having
scored 240,722 number of votes (See also paragraph 14 of the
Petition which was admitted) .
23
8.4 Further, from Exhibit 92(1 -2), the votes as announce d by the 4 t h
and 5 t h Respondents as having been scored by the 1 s t Petitioner
and the 1 s t Respondent in the following ten Local Government
Areas are;
S/ N on Local Governments Votes recorded Votes recorded

Ex h
for the 1 s t for the 1st
9 2 (1 )
Petitioner Respondent
2 Atakumosa 2,489 15,471
West
3 Aiyedaade 3,096 33,805
5 Boluwaduro 1,784 7,902
6 Boripe 328 14,497
11 Ife Central 4,866 62,257
12 Ife East 13,746 35,574
14 Ife South 5226 16,312
15 Ifedayo 2041 8122
22 Isokan 3249 16,243
25 Odo Otin 5098 43606
Total for the 10 41,923 253,789
LGs
8.5 This is consistent with the petitioners pleading in paragraph 17 of

its Petition.
8.6 Thus, in the ten local go vernments in respect of which the
Petitioners led oral and documentary evidence in respect of the
allegations in the Petition, by Exhibit 92(1) , the 1 s t Respondent
was announced as having scored 253,789 votes, while the 1st
Petitioner was announced as havi ng scored 41,923 votes.
8.7 We submit that it is in respect of the said 253,789 votes
announced as having been scored by the 1 s t Respondent in the ten
24
Local Governments that the Petitioners pleaded contending that
they are not lawful votes.
8.8 Section 145(1)(c) of the Electoral Act 2006 provides as follows:
An Election may be questioned on any of the following
grounds:
“(c) That the respondent was not duly elected by majority
of lawful votes cast at the election”
8.9 The pertinent issue that should be care fully considered by the
Tribunal in determining this Issue No.1 is the important question
what would make certain votes not qualify as lawful for the
purpose of Section 145(1)(c) of the Electoral Act 2006 .
8.10 It is submitted that what will make a vote to qualify as lawful
votes would be that there has been valid election conducted in
compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2006.
8.11 The word election has been defined to mean ....." a process
including, voting, counting, collation and return o r declaration of
result.,...... see the cases of Ojukwu vs Obasanjo & others [2004]
EPR 626 at 653 G see also chief Ojukwu vs Obasanjo & others
[2004] 12 NWLR pt 886 169 at 227. It was also held in the case of
INEC vs Ray [2004] 14 NWLR pt 892 92 at 123 F -G.......' it is trite
law that the concept of election denotes a process constituting
accreditation, voting, recording on all relevant INEC forms and the
declaration of results. The collation of results of the polling units,
making up the ward and the decl aration of results are therefore
constituent element of an election as know to law'
NON-COUNTING, ANNOUNCEMEMT, RECORDING OF RESULTS

ON RELEVANT FORMS AT UNITS, WARD AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT LEVELS
8.12 A major plank of the case of the petitioners i s that ele ctions were
not conclusive and votes were not counted and results were not
recorded in Form EC8A and were not announced and/or declared
in most polling stations and wards in the aforementioned local
governments; See paragraph 19.3, 22, 23, and 24 of the Pe tition.
25
8.13 In paragraph 27.2 the Petitioner allege that the election and the
declared results in the said Governorship election for the
disputed Local Government Areas of Osun State are invalid and
ought to be cancelled on the ground inter alia that the re were no
counting and announcement of result at the polling stations and
there were also no collation of election results at the ward level.
8.14 Specifically in relations to Atakun mosa West LGA: Paragraphs
32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41; in relations to Ayeed adee LGA: Paragraphs
42d, 43, 44, 45 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51; in relations to Boluwaduro
LGA Paragraph 52d, 53, 57, 59, 61; in relations to Boripe LGA:
Paragraphs 64, 65, 66, 69, 70.6, 71; Ife Central LGA: Paragraphs
88.f (where it was specifically pleaded that votes were not
counted in the Polling Units and collated at the LGA Level), 89a,
86.3, 87.2, 88.2, 89, 91, 92.1, 95, 96; in relations to Ife East LGA:
Paragraphs 97.d, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104; in relations to Ife
South LGA: Paragraphs 105d, 10 6, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112,
115; in relations to Ifedayo LGA: Paragraphs 116e, 117, 119; in
relations to Isokan LGA: Paragraphs 122, 123, 124, 131, 132; and
Odo Otin LGA: Paragraphs 133, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142,
143, 145, 146, and 148.
8.15 The Petitioners led cogent evidence in respect of these
allegations.
8.16 Section 28(1) 0f the Electoral Act 2006 provides thus:
“The Electoral Officer shall act as Returning Officer for election
to the office of Chairman of Area Council.
8.17 Section 28(2) provides that results of all elections shall be
announced by:
The Presiding Officer at the Polling Station;
The Ward Returning Officer at the ward Collation Centre;
The Returning Officer at the Local Government or Area Council;
The Returning Officer at the State Constituency Collation Centre;
The Returning Officer at the Federal Constituency Collation
Centre;
26
The Resident Electoral Commissioner who shall be the Returning
Officer at the Governorship election; and
The Chief Electoral Commissioner who shal l be the Returning
Officer at the Presidential election
8.18 In paragraphs 5.22 and 5.23 of their written address, the 1st to
3rd respondents, have argued that the petitioners failed to tender
fictitious and authentic result and this is fatal to the case o f the
petitioners. It is submitted that this contention clearly
misconceived the case made out by the petitioners in the
pleadings and on the evidence. The case of the petitioners from
the pleadings was that all the results purportedly emanating from
INEC were not recorded at the relevant Polling units /wards and
local government collation centres and that they were not
product of a legally concluded elections.
8.19 Therefore, it is not the case of the petitioners that the re were two
set of results – one fake and the other original and as such there
is no such obligation on the petitioners to lead evidence in that
direction. In fact, in support of the allegations of the petitioners
that votes were not counted and results not announced and vote
note recorded at the relevant Polling units, majority of the
witnesses called by the 1 s t to 3 r d respondents admitted under
cross examination that they did not have personal knowledge of
counting, announcement and recording of results.
8.20 It is submitted that the case of Ezeazodo Siako vs Okeke [2005]
16 NWLR (pt 952) 612 is irrelevant in the context of this case. In
that case, the allegations of Adazinnukwu was that the election
results were forged and falsified and this was not made out in the
petition and evidence. The petitioners in this case ha ve called
both oral evidence and tendered relevant electoral forms in prove
of his case and unlike in the case of Buhari and INEC (2008) 4
NWLR pt 1078 516 at 665.
8.21 It is submitted that the evidence before the Tribunal su pports the
case of the Petitioners. Whereas the Petitioners through PW1 -
27
PW66 and PW71 -79 led cogent evidence that votes were not
counted at any of the polling units, scores were not recorded on
the electoral form at any of the polling units, results were n ot
announced at any of the polling units and there was no
collation of results at the Ward level, there is no cogent and
credible rebuttal evidence .
8.22 Even though RW1, RW2, RW3, RW4, and RW 5 called by the 1 s t to
3 r d respondents claimed in their evidenc e-in-chief that elections
were concluded, votes counted, recorded and subsequently
announced, they admitted under cross -examination that they
went home immediately after voting and that therefore they did
not have personal knowledge whether elections were concluded,
votes counted, recorded and subsequently announced.
8.23 Also, RW6, RW8, RW9, RW10, RW11, RW13, RW14, RW15,
RW17, RW18, RW19, RW20, RW21, RW22, RW23, RW25, RW26,
RW47, RW48, RW51, RW52, RW53, RW55, RW56, and RW58 called
by the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents merely stated in their evidence in
chief and under cross -examination that they went home after
voting and as such were in no position to pe rsonally give direct
and positive evidence if elections were actually concluded, votes
counted, recorded and subsequently announced.
8.24 Even RW7, RW12, RW16, RW24, RW37, RW 49, R50, RW57, RW58,
RW59, and RW60 who claimed that they were party agents of th e
PDP and claimed in their evidence -in-chief that elections were
concluded, votes counted, recorded and subsequently announced
had their testimony on this issue totally discredited under cross -
examination. An evaluation of the evidence of RW7, RW 12, RW16,
RW24, RW37, RW49, R50, RW 57, RW58, RW59, and RW60 on this
issue will be undertaken herein for its immediate relevance.
8.25 RW7 who did not state his occupation in his evidence -in chief
stated under cross-examination that he was a businessman.
28
However, the registration particulars in the voters register,
Exhibit 362D Item 156, read Olusayo David, male 27, civil public
servant. RW7 also stated that he did not know the time it takes
for verification and voting, even though he claimed to be a party
agent. Also, the witness who claimed that the election was free
and fair was shown Exhibit 132 D – result of Polling Unit page 4,
Unit 4, Ward 8 which he said he signed as agent and that in
column 7 therein, the total number of used ballot papers was 411.
He was also shown Exhibit 360D – ballot papers used in the unit,
C.T.C. 1-416 which showed that the ballot papers returned as
used was 416 contrary to what was recorded on Exhibit 132 D.
The witness then said that even though he signed 411 in Exhibit
132D, it was for INEC to explain the discrepancies. When asked
for the difference between 411 and 416, the witness gave an
incredible answer that he had told the court that he had res eat in
English and Mathematics.
8.26 RW12- In paragraph 10 of the witness deposition the witness
claimed that the party agent of AC and NDP signed for EC8A but
under cross-examination the witness stated that what he said was
that only himself and AC Party Agent signed and that he did not
know about NDP Agent. He emphatically stated that it is not
correct that other party agent signed form EC8A. Apart from the
contradictory testimony, on Exhibit 176, EC8A for Alafe Okero
Polling unit, where the witness said he was a polling agent
showed that no agent of NDP signed the form EC8A contrary to
paragraph 10 of the witness deposition. Also, there is AA agent
on Exhibit 176. The witness also gave contradictory testimony as
to where the counting of the votes was carried out. In paragraphs
9 of the witness deposition the witness stated th at at the end of
the election, INEC officials took the ballot boxes to the collation
center at the court hall and votes were counted. Also in
paragraph 10, the witness said that the party agent to AC and
NDP signed form EC8A and the result of the election was
29
announced at the town hall. Also, under cross -examination, the
witness stated that the votes were not counted at the polling unit
but that the boxes were taken to collation center for counting.
However, under re -examination, the witness stated that after the
voting exercise they counted the votes in my Unit.
8.27 RW16 Alfa Saka Dada ; The testimony of RW16 is that he was the
PDP party agent in Ward I, in Unit 03, located at Isale -Obanla, in
Otan Ayegbaju in Boluwaduro Local Government . He claimed
that votes were cast pea cefully in his polling unit and votes
counted at about 3.00 pm without any disturbance. Under cross -
examination, the witness insisted that he signed his witness
statement and his specimen signature taken was admitted marked
Exhibit 463. The witness claimed that the signature on Exhibit 463
and the signature on his deposition are the same. The witness
also said that the signature in Exhibit 175(2) , the EC8A for Isale
Obaala Unit , is his own. However, a comparison of the signature
on Exhibit 463 and Exhibit 175(2) show they are clearly different.
Your Lordships are hereby urged to compare the signatures
under section 108 of the Evidence Act.
8.28 Even though RW16 claimed that he did not make any deposition
apart from the one he adopted, the witness was late r shown
another witness statement on pages 150 -151 of Record of court
and the witness confirmed that the contents are the same, that the
name same but different signature. The witness then admitted
that it was his deposition but different signature. Your L ordships
are also invited to compare the s ignature on Exhibit 463, Exhibit
175(2) and that on the witness statement on pages 150 and 151 of
Record. See, Jegede vs. Citicon (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt. 702) 112 at
134.
8.29 RW24: Ajayi Folorunso of Unit 1, Ward 9, A takumosa West. The
testimony of RW24 is that he was the party agent for PDP at
Muroko polling unit in the election. He claimed that he was at his
polling unit from the beginning to the end of election. He further
30
claimed that votes were c ounted, recorded and announced in the
presence of the party agents present in his unit and that the
election was peaceful and orderly in his unit and was not
disrupted by anyone.
8.30 Under cross-examination by 4 t h to 1365 t h Respondents, RW24
categorically stated that “ the result form was signed by I and AC
Party Agent”. However, the lack of credibility of RW24 became
glaring under cross -examination by Petitioners‟ Counsel when
RW24 initially stated that “AC Agent and I signed the result
sheet” but later stated that there we re two party agents of PDP at
the Polling Unit and it was one of them that signed the result
sheet. RW24 also contradicted his earlier test imony by stating
that he cannot remember if he signed but that the AC Agent
signed. Still contradicting himself, whe n the witness was
confronted with paragraph 7 of his witness statement where the
witness claimed that the election result was signed “by the party
agent of PDP and AC”, the witness then said what he meant was
that PDP Agent signed and AC Agent also went th ere but that he
cannot say whether the AC Agent signed.
8.31 Also, contrary to the statement in paragraph 7 of the witness
statement, RW24 said under further cross -examination that he did
not say AC Agent did not sign and that what he said was that he
did not know if the AC agent signed. In clear contradiction of
paragraph 7 of the witness statement is Exhibit 13 3(1), the
Certified True Copy of Form EC8A for Muroko unit which clearly
showed that party agen t of AC did not sign the result sheet .
Another area of contradiction is that RW24 under cross-
examination had initially stated that PDP and AC scored votes in
the unit but later under further cross examination when he was
confronted with Exhibit 133(1) that no vote was recorded for AC
in the unit.
8.32 The falsehood of paragraph 6 of the witness statement became
clear as RW24 could not assert what happened about
31
announcement and scores of the parties as RW24 stated that he
went to PDP side and AC agent went to AC side after the
announcement and we both col lected the result of our respective
Parties. That he did not know the votes scored, that when PDP
votes was announced, PDP signed, that is mean one of us signed
but its along time he can‟t recollect who signed. And after the
announcement of AC votes the Party Agent of AC went to their
side, but he did not know how he signed. Incidentally , no votes
were recorded for AC on Exhibit 13(1), the Certified True Copy of
Form EC8A for Muroko unit. There is evidence in support of the
case of the Petitioners that t he result was not announced, counted
and recorded on the Form EC8A at the unit. As can be seen for
example the votes recorded on Exhibit 133(1) for PDP is 327
whereas the number of voters on the register was 315. Incredibly
the witness claimed he cannot su btract or add figures of 315 – 327
and that he did not know which is higher.
8.33 RW37 claimed to be a PDP party agent in ward 14, Unit 9 located
at Obitikun-Oluoko and that AC also had a Party Agent called
Samuel Adedeji and that both of them were on grou nd
throughout the election period. Contrary to his assertion that he
was on ground throughout the election, under cross examination
by the Petitioner‟s Counsel he said he voted at Onile‟s compound
an entirely different unit from where he claimed to have ac ted as
polling agent. However, contrary to the claim of RW37, Exhibit
385(C) the voters register for Onile‟s compound debunked his
claim that he voted as his name was neither accredited nor ticked
as having voted on the register. He is certainly not a cred ible
witness.
8.34 RW49 is Oyewunmi Musliyu of Unit 03, Ward 5 in Odo Otin Local
Government. The testimony of RW49 is that he served as party
agent of the PDP at Unit 03, Ward 5 at St. Paul‟s Primary School,
Ekosin, for the Gubernatorial and House of Assem bly Elections
held on the 14 t h April, 2007. He further claimed that votes were
32
counted publicly and entered into the INEC forms which all party
agents signed after which copies were given to them. He finally
stated that he submitted the copy of the result given to him to his
party. There is however, no support for the testimony of RW49
because, as among the Forms EC8A, result sheet s certified by
INEC as used in the entire Odo Otin Local government, which
were mostly blank , there is none for the polling unit of RW49. See
Exhibits 217(1 – 73) and R18 tendered by the Petitioners and the
Respondents respectively. In the absence of producing the results
that he claimed that he signed and received, the testimony is
worthless and most unreliable.
8.35 RW50 claimed that he was the party agent of the PDP at Oke -Asa
polling Unit at Ward 9, Iree, Boripe Local Government. He stated
that throughout the voting period from 8.00 am to around 3.00
pm he was at the polling unit monitoring the election. He stated
at the conclusion of voting he went to the collation centre at
Baptist High School Iree from where he left for his house after the
collation of result at around 6.00 pm.
8.36 Contrary to the assertion by RW50 that he stayed throughout the
election period in the unit wh ere he acted as polling agent , under
cross examination by counsel to the 1366 t h – 1367 t h respondent he
claimed to have gone back home upon collection of his own copy
of the result after election, we submit that this is a clear
contradiction of paragraph 6 of his deposition on oath where he
claimed to have gone to the collation centre and left for his home
at around 6.00 pm.
8.37 RW50 initially claimed to have signed below the Form EC8A but
when confronted that the signature ought to be at the right side
and not below, he then claimed that he did not know whether he
signed below or in the right. The veracity of his claims as to the
conduct of the election was punctured when he was confronted
with the fact that most of the units in Boripe had no EC8A, this
he denied but when asked for his own copy, he claimed to have
33
taken it to their party‟s collation agent at the collation centre and
neither his party nor INEC produced the same. In the absence of
producing the results that he claimed that he signed and
received, the testimony is worthless and most unreliable. See
Amgbare v. Sylva [2009] 1 NWLR (pt 1121) 1 . Further, t he
witness who also claimed to have voted was confronted with the
voters register for the unit and his name was not even on the
register for the unit as shown in Exhibit 398(B).
8.38 RW57: The testimony of RW57 is that he was the PDP party agent
at ward 12, Unit 6 located at Jawo‟s Compound, Inisa. Under
cross examination, this witness claimed to be a party agent for
PDP. He claimed election was pe aceful and further claim that one
Bode Abioye stood in for AC and that Bode refuse d to sign result
sheet at the end of the election without any reason. Under cross
examination he agreed to stand by the integrity of what he signed
but when his attention was however drawn to the discrepancy on
EC8A i.e R18(7) and voters register i.e. 373(E) he then attempted
to deny the result saying that it is INEC that should explain the
discrepancy . Unfortunately INEC never came to clear the issue of
discrepancies. Your Lordships are also invited to invoke Section
108 in observing the difference between the signature on the
deposition of the witness as contained in his deposition, Exhibit
R18(7), the alleged result sheet and Exhibit 468.
8.39 RW58, Elder Soji Ojuade; The te stimony of RW58 is that he was
the Party Agent for Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) at St. Peters
School Akiriboto polling unit . He claimed that the Baale of
Akiriboto I came to vote at his unit after which he went back to
his house. He stated that the Baale Akiriboto I, or any other Baale
neither lay siege at his polling unit nor intimidate d any voters to
vote for PDP in his unit. He claimed that votes were counted,
recorded and result announced at his unit in the presence of
Party Agents of PDP and AC after which himself and the AC
agent - Ademola Olatidoye went together to Ward 7 collation
34
centre at Oju Court, Gbongan. He stated that there was collation
at Ward 7 and the results were announced at the centre, Oju
Court, Gbongan and both he and the AC Agent s igned INEC
Forms at Collation Centre. Under cross examination, contrary to
paragraph 5 of his statement he admitted that he did not know
the destination of Baaale of Akiriboto. His signature on his
witness statement is clearly different from the signature of the
PDP agent on the EC8A [Exhibit 117(8)] . We humbly urge your
Lordship to invoke Section 108 of the Evidence Act. Further, Exh
117(8), the EC8A form did not contain the details of the P residing
Officer and neither was it stamped nor signed by the Presiding
Officer.
8.40 RW59: The testimony of RW59 is that he was the PDP party agent
for Ward 11, Unit 007 located at St. Peter Anglican Church
premises Inisa He stated that he was at the polling unit until one
party agent, namely Odebunmi Tunji for Action Congress and
Awoniyi Gomez for Alliance for Democracy (AD). He claimed
that he duly signed Form EC8A as PDP party agent while
Awoniyi Gomez AD party Agent equally signed but the Action
Congress, Odebunmi Tunji refused to sign . Under cross
examination by I NEC he reiterate d the authenticity of his
Parapraph 2 but contrary to paragraph 2 of PW59‟s deposition,
Exhibit R18 (65) showed that Awoniyi Gomez did not sign the
result sheet for AD.
8.41 RW60: His name was Adeyemi Najeem. The testimony of RW60 is
that he was the PDP Party Agent at Ward 6, Unit 01 located at St
Gabriel Primary School, Oore in Odo Otin Local Government. He
further claimed that the result was recorded in Form EC8A which
was signed by the AC party agent and himself. He finally stated
that he followed the INEC officials and the security agent to the
collating centre. Under cross examination, reiterated that he was
the party Agent but contrary to the entire testimony of PW60,
Exhibit R18(35), the CTC for St Gabriel Primary School, Oore in
35
Odo Otin Local Government tendered by the 1 s t Respondent
showed that the witness name did not appear on the Exhibit as
PDP agent. Rather, it was one Adebiyi F.A that was on Exhibit
R18(35). This evidence clearly supports the claim of the
Petitioners
8.42 In view of the foregoing, i t is submitted that there is no rebuttal
evidence against cogent evidence of petitioners‟ witnesses that
elections were disrupted and there was no counting and
announcement of results at the Polling units and wards. See
Olusola Adeyeye v Simeon Oduoye & 711 Ors Petition No:
NA/EPT/OS/12/2007 delivered on Friday the 23 r d of May, 2008
page 24 -25 on this issue.
8.43 Further evidence in support of the allegations of non -counting,
announcement and recording of the votes can be illustrated b y
some other evidence.
8.44 There is the testimony of RW44, Taofeek Abioye Makinde from
Isokan Local Governmemt who claimed in his evidence -in-chief
that he was at the collation center at 6.00p.m and under cross -
examination RW44 claimed that he was the col lation agent for the
PDP at the Local Government and that he signed the result of the
election for Isokan Local Government but Exhibit 142, Form EC8C
the result for Isokan Local Government, showed that the witness
did not sign the result for the Local Gove rnment. The name of
PDP collation agent for the PDP on Exhibit 142 is Alh Olaniyi
Alabi.
8.45 Also, in the case of Odo Otin Local Government, as can be seen
from Exhibit 217 and RW18 tendered by the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents
most of the forms EC8A certified b y INEC are blank containing
no results. In Odo Otin Local Government, Your Lordships will
find that Exhibits 217 certified by INEC as results forms EC8A for
Odo Otin Local Governments are blank. Also, in Exhibit R18
tendered by the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents a s certified true copies of
EC8A for the same Odo Otin Local Government. Your Lordships
36
will find that many of the so -called results forms in Exhibit R18
are blank, partially clear and some that are clear are not stamped
by the Presiding Officer.
8.46 For examples of unreadable and blank result Forms EC8A from
Exhibits R18 tendered by the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents, we humbly
refer to Exhibit R18(2), R18(11), R18(17), R18(19), R18(20),
R18(22), R18(24), R18(36), R18(39), R18,(42), R18(43), R18(49),
R18(56), R18(57), R18(58), R18(59) R18(73), R18(76), R18(81),
R18(82), R18(101), R18(105), R18(106) and R18(108).
8.47 Many of the forms EC8A were also not stamped and these include
Exhibit R18(9), R18(12), R18(14), R18(15), R18(16), R18(18),
R18(21), R18(23), R18( 25), R18(26), R18(27), R18(28), R18(29),
R18(30), R18(31), R18(32), R18(33), R18(34), R18(35), R18(36),
R18(37), R18(38), R18(39), R18(40), R18(41), R18(42), R18(43),
R18(45), R18(46), R18(47), R18(48), R18(51), R18(52), R18(53),
R18(54), R18(55), R18(56), R18(61), R18(62), R18(63), R18(64),
R18(61), R18(72), R18(72), R18(74), R18(75), R18(77), R18(78),
R18(79), R18(80), R18(84), R18(86), R18(87), R18(88), R18(89),
R18(90), R18(93), R18(94), R18(107) and R18(107).
8.48 In Ife Central Local Government, in l ine with the pleading that
votes were not counted in the Polling Units and collated at the
wards and LGA Level, it was clear from Exhibit 97(1), 97(3),
97(4),97(4),97(7),97(8),97(9),97(10), 97(11) being the forms EC8B
for different 9(nine) Wards out of el even wards in Ife Central
Local Government that it was one “Alhaji S.O.A. Nofiu” signed as
PDP agent for the nine wards. The same “Alhaji S.O.A. Nofiu”
also signed Exhibit 96, the form EC8C, the Ife Central Local
Government result. Under cross -examination, both RW29 and RW
42 stated that Alhaji S.O.A. Nofiu was the Secretary of the 3 r d
Respondent at Ife Central Local Government during the election.
There could not have been proper collation of results: Section
28(2)(b) of the Electoral Act, 2006; Agagu v Mimiko [2009] 7
NWLR (pt 1140) 342, 409 -410.
37
8.49 In Agagu v Mimiko [2009] 7 NWLR (pt 1140) 342, 409 -410, the
Court have held that by virtue of section 74(1)(g) of the Evidence
Act, the court has the power to take judicial notice of
geographical division of the world and that in that case, the
tribunal rightly, without pleadings and evidence took judicial
notice of the boundary lines of wards and the distance between
one collation center and another and found that one of the
polling agents of the appellant‟s political party who signed Form
EC8B for three electoral wards that are several kilometers apart
could not have signed the forms at the ward collation centers
because the collation of results of electoral units into Form EC8B
was supposed to be done at the same time at different ward
collation centers. The Court of Appeal therefore held that the
Tribunal rightly nullified the results in the three wards.
8.50 Your Lordships are hereby urged to nullif ied the elections in the
following Wards; Ilare 1, Ilare II I, Ilare IV, Iremo/Ajebandele,
Iremo III, Iremo IV, Iremo V, Akarabata and Moore Ojaja and Ife
Central Local Government affected by the serious irregularities:
Agagu v Mimiko [2009] 7 NWLR (pt 1140) 342, 409 -410.
8.51 Also, from PW81 which emanated from t he orders of inspection
granted by the Tribunal there is unrebutted evidence to the effect
that:
“Upon demand by us, Electoral Officers of the following
seven local governments said there were no forms EC8A in
the custody of INEC and no such Forms EC8A w ere
produced by INEC for inspection and certification for a
total of 114 polling units across Seven of the Local
Government Areas to wit: Atakunmosa West Local
Government - 6 Polling Units; Boluwaduro Local
Government- 3 Polling Units; Boripe Local Governm ent -
72 Polling Units - Ife Central Local Government - 11
Polling Units; Ifedayo Local Government - 4 Polling Units
38
- Ife East Local Government - 4 Polling Units; Ife South
Local Government - 14 Polling Units.
8.52 Exhibit 451 contained the breakdown of his findings.
8.53 It is further submitted that massive discrepancies between the
total votes recorded on the forms EC8A relative to the actual
ballot papers counted in court and tendered as Exhibits support
the case of the Petitioners that the result did not emanate from
the process of a concluded and credible election. Some
illustrations will be given here:
8.54 Atakunmosa Local Government: In Methodist Primary Sch ool,
Oke Oja – Osu Polling Unit , 550 ballot papers were recorded as
used on form EC8A (Exhib it 126(1)) but 596 ballots papers were
tendered for the same unit (Exhibit 304A (1 – 596)) leaving an
excess of 46 ballot papers.
8.55 In Atakunmosa Local Government: Comm Grammar School, Ibodi
Polling Unit , 719 ballot papers were recorded as used on for m
EC8A (Exhibit 129(1)) but 454 ballots papers were tendered for
the same unit (Exhibit 303(a) (1 – 454)) leaving a deficit of 265
ballot papers.
8.56 In Ayedaade Local Government: St Peter School, Oke Apata,
GbonganPolling Unit , 500 ballot papers were recorded as used on
form EC8A (Exhibit 112(1)) but 335 ballots papers were tendered
for the same unit (Exhibit 291(a) (1– 335)) leaving a deficit of 135
ballot papers.
8.57 In Ayedaade Local Government: Court Hall, Customary Court
Polling Unit , 428 ballot papers were recorded as used on form
the same unit (Exhibit 293(a) (1 – 960)) leaving an
excess of 532 ballot papers.
8.58 In Ife East Local Government: Ife City College II, Ilesha Road
Polling Unit, 400 ballot papers were recorded as used on form
EC8A (Exhibit 201) but 355 ballots papers were tendered for the
39
same unit (Exhibit 334(b) (1 – 400)) leaving a deficit of 45 ballot
papers.
8.59 In Ife East Local Government : St Gabriel Primary School II, Moore
EC8A (Exhibit 201) but 811 ballots papers were tend ered for the
same unit (Exhibit 334(d) leaving a deficit of 89 ballot papers.
8.60 In Ife South Local Government: St Luke Pry School, Boluwaduro
the same unit (Exhibit 324(e) leaving a deficit of 79 ballot papers.
8.61 In Boluwaduro Local Government: Town Hall
EC8A (Exhibit 184(1) but 198 ballots papers were tendered fo r the
same unit (Exhibit 345(a) leaving a deficit ballot papers.
8.62 In Boluwaduro Local Government: Obada Market Square Polling
Unit, 260 ballot papers were recorded as used on form EC8A
(Exhibit 184(2)) but 138 ballots papers were tendered for the same
unit (Exhibit 345(b) leaving a deficit of 122 ballot papers.
8.63 In Ife Central Local Government: Moremi High School
EC8A (Exhibit 98(4) but 481 ballots papers were tendered for the
same unit (Exhibit 284(d) leaving an excess of 49 ballot papers.
8.64 In Ife Central Local Government; Sijuade Nursery and Primary
School Polling Unit , 485ballot papers were recorded as used on
form EC8A (Exhibit 98(6) but 314 ballots papers were tendered
for the same unit (Exhibit 284(f) leaving a deficit of ballot papers.
8.65 In Odo Otin Local Government; In Front of Adebomi Family
House, Okuku Polling Unit , 500 ballot papers were recorded as
used on form EC8 B (Exhibit 216(2) but 63 ballots papers were
tendered for the same unit (Exhibit 274(a) leaving a deficit
of 437 ballot papers.
8.66 In Ifedayo Local Government; Asaoye Village Polling units
40
EC8A (Exhibit 188) but 30 ballots papers were tendered for the
same unit (Exhibit 346(d) leaving a deficit of 120 ballot papers.
8.67 These discrepancies ocuured in about 511 polling units in the ten
local governments. See ANNEXURE BD1 which is part of this
address for polling units by polling units‟ evidence of the
discrepancies in the quantity of ballot papers counted in court
and tendered as Exhibits and the total number of ballot pape rs
recorded as used on Forms EC8A.
8.58 Further, no ballot papers were count ed and tendered as exhibits
about 124 polling units. See ANNEXURE BD2 which is part of
this address for polling units by polling units‟ list of these units.
8.59 It is pertinent to submit that in INEC v Oshiomole [2009] 4
NWLR (pt 1132) 607 at 662 -665, one of the main reasons for
holding that Senator (Prof) Osunbor was not elected by lawful
majority vote was because the ballot papers brought by INEC
before the Tribunal did no tally with the figures on the result
sheet.
8.60 It is also important to note that the 4 t h to 1365 t h respondents who
are the electoral officers that ought to count and announce the
results at the units, wards and collation centres, chose not to call
any rebuttal evidence.
Discrepancies in Votes Recorded for 1 s t Respondent on EC8A relative
to votes recorded in EC8B
8.61 There is also evidence of discrepancies in the votes recorded on
the EC8A for the 1 s t Respondent and the corresponding votes
recorded of the EC8B . Some illustrations are as follows:
IFE CENTRAL Local Government:
8.62 ILARE 1: On Form EC8A (EXH 98(1))for Oluorogbo High School
Unit, 394 votes were recorded for PDP but on EXH 97(1) the Form
EC8B for the Ward, 700 votes were recorded for PDP. On Form
EC8A (EXH 98(2)) for Idi -Obi polling Unit, 453 votes were
recorded for PDP but on EXH 97(1) the Form EC8B for the Ward,
520 votes were recorded for PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH 98(3)) for
41
Ope-Olu Hospital Unit, 151 votes were recorded for PDP but on
EXH 97(1) the Form EC8B for the Ward, 260 votes were recorded
for PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH 98(4)) for Moremi High School
EC8A (EXH 98(7)) for the Frontage of Adeyera House Unit, 142
votes were recorded for PDP but on EXH 97(1) the Form EC8B for
the Ward, 300 votes were recorded for PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH
98(8)) for Open space Igboya (opp. Catholic Church)
EC8A (EXH 98(12)) for Open space Adedeji Street Unit, 242 votes
were recorded for PDP but on EXH 97(1) the Form EC8B for the
Ward, 272 votes wer e recorded for PDP.
8.63 ILARE II: On Form EC8A (EXH 99(3)) for Irebami Line 1 Unit, 200
99(4)) for Irebami Line 1A Unit, 272 votes were recorded for PDP
but on EXH 97(2) the Form EC8B for the Ward, 28 votes were
recorded for PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH 99(9)) for Ajegunle Line
1(back of Arewa House) Unit, 162 votes were recorded for PDP
but on EXH 97(2) the Form EC8B for the Ward, 624 vot es were
recorded for PDP.
8.64 ILARE III: On Form EC8A (EXH 100(2)) for Akodi Wakesin Unit,
200 votes were recorded for PDP but on EXH 97(3) the Form EC8B
for the Ward, 307 votes were recorded for PDP. On Form EC8A
(EXH 100(3)) for Ooni Ilare 1 Unit, 54 vo tes were recorded for
PDP but on EXH 97(3) the Form EC8B for the Ward, 69 votes were
recorded for PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH 100(4)) for Ooni Ilare II
EC8B for the Ward, 390 votes were recorded fo r PDP. On Form
EC8A (EXH 100(5)) for Akodi Akeran Unit, 702 votes were
42
Akodi Gbuede Unit, 335 votes were recorded for PDP but on E XH
97(3) the Form EC8B for the Ward, 375 votes were recorded for
PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH 100(7)) for Akodi Olubuse Unit, 670
100(8)) for Akodi Obadio Unit, 165 votes were recorded for PDP
recorded for PDP.
8.65 ILARE IV: On Form EC8A (EXH 101(8)) for A.U.I. Pry. Sch.
Olaolu Unit, 181 votes were recorded for PDP but on EXH 97(4)
the Form EC8B for the Ward, 240 votes were recorded for PDP.
On Form EC8A (EXH 101(14)) for Open Space Igbo -Agbo Unit,
245 votes were recorded for PDP but on EXH 97(4) the Form EC8B
for the Ward, 250 votes were recorded for PDP.
8.66 IREMO AJEBANDELE: On Form EC8A (EXH 101()) for Awolowo
Hall, O.A.U. Unit, 229 votes were recorded for PDP but on EXH
PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH 101()) for O.A.U. Quarters (2 n d Bus-
stop) Unit, 970 votes were recorded fo r PDP but on EXH 97(5) the
Form EC8B for the Ward, 972 votes were recorded for PDP.
8.67 IREMO III: On Form EC8A (EXH 103(1)) for Akodi Obalaye
Ajupepe Unit, 355 votes were recorded for PDP but on EXH 97(7)
the Form EC8B for the Ward, 407 votes were record ed for PDP.
On Form EC8A (EXH 103(3)) for Recreation Club Unit, 231 votes
were recorded for PDP but on EXH 97 (7) the Form EC8B for the
Ward 301 votes were recorded for PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH
103(14)) for Open space London Street Unit, 455 votes were
479 votes were recorded for PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH 103(15))
for Akodi Latale Unit, 264 votes were recorded for PDP but on
EXH 97(7) the Form EC8B for the Ward 284 votes were recorded
for PDP.
43
8.68 IREMO IV: On Form EC8A (EXH 104(2))for Akodi Akui Unit,
1352 votes were recorded for PDP but on EXH 97(8) the Form
EC8A (EXH 104(9)) for Open space (opp. Sule Amao‟s House)
EC8B for the Ward, 177 votes were recorded for PDP.
8.69 IREMO V: On Form EC8A (EXH 105(2)) for Akodi Asarogun Unit,
107 votes were recorded for PDP but on EXH 97(9) the Form EC 8B
(EXH 105(5))for Akodi Abewela Unit, 148 votes were recorded
for PDP but on EXH 97(9) the Form EC8B for the Ward 178 votes
were recorded for PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH 105(8)) for St.
Michael Pry. Sch. Ogbonagbara Unit, 23 votes were recorded for
PDP but on EXH 97(9) the Form EC8B for the Ward, 223
votes were recorded for PDP.
8.70 AKARABATA: On Form EC8A (EXH 106(1))forAkarabata Line 1
Unit 445 votes were recorded for PDP but on EX H 97(10) the
Form EC8B for the Ward, 821 votes were recorded for PDP. On
Form EC8A (EXH 106(2)) for Akarabata Line 2 Unit, 289 votes
Ward, 389 votes were recorded for PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH
106(4)) for the Frontage of L.I.E. Unit, 387 votes were recorded
for PDP but on EXH 97(1) the Form EC8B for the Ward, 955 votes
were recorded for PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH 106(6)) for L/G
Mini Market Unit, 197 votes were recorded for PDP but on EXH
97(10) the For m EC8B for the Ward, 200 votes were recorded for
PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH 106(8)) for the Frontage of Isawunmi
Unit, 169 votes were recorded for PDP but on EXH 97(1) the
Form EC8A (EXH 106(9)) fo r the Frontage of Lennards Unit, 281
votes were recorded for PDP but on EXH 97(10) the Form EC8B
(EXH 106(10)) for the Frontage of Little by Little Unit, 300 votes
44
Ward, 356 votes were recorded for PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH
106(11)) for S.D.A. Pry. Sch. Unit, 141 votes were recorded for
PDP but on EXH 97(10) the Form EC8B for the Ward 441 votes
were recorded for PDP.
8.72 MOORE OJAJA: On Form EC8A (EXH 107(16)) for Ido Street
Unit, 306 votes were recorded for PDP but on EXH 97(11) the
Form EC8A (EXH 107(18)) for Moore Unit, 339 votes were
for King Solomon Unit, 6 votes were recorded for PDP but on
EXH 97(11) the Form EC8B for the Ward, 20 votes were recorded
for PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH 107(14)) for Ereola Club Un it, 104
(EXH 107(13)) for Alakowe Open Space Unit, 90 votes were
for Opa Area Unit, 459 votes were recorded for PDP but on EXH
PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH 107(10)) for Ikoyi Quarters (St. Gabriel
Pry. Sch.) Unit , 189 votes were recorded for PDP but on EXH
PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH 107(11)) for Ife City Bus -stop Unit, 33
for the Ward, 405 votes w ere recorded for PDP. On Form EC8A
(EXH 107(9)) for Ifedapo Unit, 191 votes were recorded for PDP
recorded for PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH (107)(8))for open space
Alaba-nla Beside Total Filling Stati on Unit, 1074 votes were
recorded for PDP but on EXH 97(11) the Form EC8B fo r the Ward,
45
for Fajuyi Road (Coca -cola bus-stop) Unit, 937
votes were recorded for PDP but on EX H 97(11) the Form EC8B
(EXH 107(6)) for Opp. Papa Owoyomi Unit, 149 votes were
310 votes were recorded for PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH 10 7(5))for
Opp. Police Station, Moore ojaja line 1 Unit, 252 votes were
Ido Osun Unit, 194 votes were recorded for PDP but on EXH
PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH 107(3)) for Moore street (Akodi Luga)
EC8A (EXH 107(2)) for Agbedegbede Unit, 20 votes were recorded
for PDP but on EXH 97(11) the Form EC8B for the Ward, 220 votes
were recorded for PDP. On Form EC8A (EXH 107(1)) for Ife City
Hall Area (Ile Araba Agbaye) Unit, 173 votes were recorded for
PDP but on EXH 97(11) the Form EC8B for the Ward, 310
votes were recorded for PDP.
8.73 IFE SOUTH L/G: IKIJA: On Form EC8A (EXH 98(1)) for Ikija -
Ifetedo Unit, 29 votes were recorded for PDP but on EXH 159(2)
the Form EC8B for the Ward, 89 votes were re corded for PDP.
8.74 AYEDAADE L/G: OTUN OLUFI WARD: On Form EC8A (EXH
98(1))for Maternity Centre, Ajegunle Oke - Elutu Unit, 33 votes
Ward, 133 votes were recorded for PDP. GBONGAN RURAL
WARD: On Form EC8A (EXH 98(1)) for Akinjepo Village Unit,
130 votes were recorded for PDP but on EXH 110(7) the Form
EC8B for the Ward, 136 votes were recorded for PDP.
8.75 ISOKAN L/G: OLUKOYI (OJA-OSUN): On Form EC8A (EXH
144(4)) for Olode ori -oke Unit, 342 vo tes were recorded for PDP
46
recorded for PDP. AWALA 1 On Form EC8A (EXH 153(6) for ADC
school Orita marun Unit, 226 votes were recorded for PDP but on
EXH 143(10) the Form EC8B for the Ward, 232 vo tes were
recorded for PDP. Fom this illustrative documentary evidence of
illegal recording of votes on Forms EC8B, Your Lordships will
have no difficulty in finding that the alleged results posted in
favour of the 1 s t Respondent are unlawful votes.
Absence of Voters Register

8.76 One variety of non-compliance with the Electoral Act which
forms a major plank of the petitioners‟ case is that voters
registers were not made available at many polling units and even
where they were, an examination of them will show as we have
demonstrated in a review of the evidence of the witnesses that
the names of many of the witnesses of the respondents who
claimed to have voted are not borne out by the registers. Their
names were not ticked and the only conclusion from th is is that
they did not vote.
8.77 The evidence concerning Boripe Local Government is even very
grim. PW9 under cross -examination by the 1 s t – 3 r d respondents‟
counsel inter alia maintained that there was no accreditation
before voting in his ward due to the absence of v oters‟ register.
He is from Ward 1 of Boripe Local Government. He stated that
the INEC office was burnt prior to the elections, and names of
voters were merely written on pieces of paper during the election
which aided multiple voting. PW12 testified in the same vein as
PW9. He is from Ward 6.
8.78 Your lordship would take judicial notice of the order inspection
granted the petitioners to inspect all electoral documents
purportedly used for the conduct of the April 14 t h 2007
Governorship election. In furtherance of these order, the
petitioners deployed enough manpower to carry out the court
order. The petitioners also obtained Certified True Copies of all
47
documents made available by INEC all of which were tendered
and admitted as Exhibit .
8.79 However, as your lordships record will show, INEC never made
available Voters Register for the entire unit in 7 Wards Boripe Local
Governments and the 4th respondent has not come to lead
contradictory eviden ce that the documen ts were made available to the
petitioners and this goes to support the pleadings of the petitioners in
paragraph 27.3 and 62 where the petitioners specifically alleges that in
Boripe Local Govern ment there were no voters register upon which a
credible election could hold.
8.80 The 7 Wards in Boripe Local Government where no voters register
were not produce f or the entire units are as f ollows; Oloti Iragbiji
Ward (7 Units), Oja Oba Ward (6 Units), College/Egbeda Road Ward
(10 Units), Isale -Oyo Ward (6 Units), A gba Ward ( 8 Units) , Ororuwo
Ward (5 Units), Ada I Ward (6 Units), and Ada II Ward (8 Units).
Another crucial evidence in support of the case of the P etitioners
pleaded in paragraph 27.3 and 62 is in Exhibit 92(1 -2), Form EC8D. On
Exhibit 92(1), the total number of registere rd recorded for Boripe
Local Government is 12, 631 but the vote recorded for the 1 s t
Respondent alone on Exhibit 92(1) is 14, 497 and the total vote cast
recorded on Exhibit 92(1) is 14, 839. This evidence also support the
case of the Petitioners that resu lt were just arbitrarily recorded.
8.81 Now, the 4 t h to 1365 t h respondents who have custody of Voters
Registers did not testify to debunk the evidence of PW9 or produce the
voters‟ registers for most of the ward s of Boripe Local Government.
The importance of voters registers to a valid election has been
pronounced upon in several cases.
8.82 The Court of Appeal per Akaahs JCA in Uweke v. Ejims (1999) 11
NWLR (Pt. 625) 39 at 53 stated the law as follows:
“I also agree that a person cannot vote until he has b een
accredited and it is the stamping of the voter‟s card and the
marking of the el ect oral register that proves that the
accreditation did i n fact ta ke place. Where the elect oral
register is not so marked but votes are returned for the
particular voting unit it will be safe to conclude that such
votes were not obt ained through t he due electoral process.
Where therefore t he vot ers register had no marking but
Forms EC8A or EC8A(1) are
48
produced showing scores, such scores can be excluded
from the valid vot es scored by a candidate at the election.”
8.83 Recently again in the case of Fayemi v. Oni (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt.
1140) 223 at 287 C -E where the same non-compliance was relied
upon the Court of Appeal restated the law in the following
words:
“Unlike other species of non-compliance which effect on the
results of the election must be separately proved by the
petitioner, non-compliance arising from non accreditation
of voters is so fundamental and the effect it has on the result of
the election lies in the fa cts of its occurrence. You must have an
election lawfully so -called to be able to talk of the results of
that election. Election results ensue from lawful votes cast by
voters in a manner recognised by the law. The appellant in the
instance case had pleaded at paragraph 37(1) thus:
“That the 1 s t respondent was not duly elected by a majority of
lawful votes cast at the election.”
An election that proceeded without accreditatio n of voters does
not allow for the casting of lawful votes and any person elec ted
on the basis of votes cast by voters who had not been
accredited cannot be said to have been duly elected. The
election is voided ab initio and does not allow for the
emergence of any result.”
8.84 The petitioners herein just as the petitioner in t he Fayemi case
(supra) rely on the pleading at paragraph s 15 of their petition
“that the 1 s t respondent was not duly elected by a majority of
lawful votes.” An election in which pieces of papers rather than
voters registers were used or where voters na mes were not ticked
in voters register cannot on these authorities be held to be lawful
election. In other words, the 1 s t respondent cannot be said to
have been elected by a majority of lawful votes.
8.85 It is submitted further that with the cogent evide nce called by the
petitioners, the burden shifted to the 4 t h to 1365 t h respondents to
establish that contrary to the petitioner‟s case, the ir presiding
49
officers, ward returning officers and LGA returning officers did
carry out their lawful duty of counting and announcing results at
the Unit, ward collation level and LGA level.
8.86 It is trite that burden of proof is not static and once a party has
led credible evidence in respect of a matter, the burden shifts to
the other party and failure by that party to call rebuttal evidence
will lead to judgment against it: See Amgbare v. Sylva [2009] 1
NWLR (pt 1121) 1.
8.87 It is submitted that all these allegations in the paragraphs
mentioned above were made against INEC (i.e. 3 r d – 148 t h
Respondents) presupposin g that elections were not properly held
in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2006 and
consequently, the Petitioner led evidence (both oral and
documentary) in proof of the said allegations mentioned in the
said paragraphs thereby shiftin g the onus of proof to INEC: Ukpo
v Imoke [2009] 1 NWLR (pt 1121) 90 at 175 .
8.88 The fact that INEC failed to adduce evidence in proof of its
pleadings (in which they denied the allegations made against it
by the Petitioner) obviously shows that there is sufficient basis
for the nullification of the results in the ten local governments as
was done in the case of Amgbare v. Sylva [2009] 1 NWLR (pt
1121) 1.
8.89 We therefore submit that INEC must be deemed to have ad mitted
the Petitioners pleadings, namely:
8.89.1 that there was no counting of votes and non
announcement of results at the polling units in the 10
contested local government areas
8.89.2 that election were not conclusive, votes were not
counted, result were not recorded in most polling
stations.
9.89.3 Electoral materia ls such as ballot papers and ballot
boxes were snatched, seized and later stuffed with
50
illegal ballot papers thumb printed in favour of the 1 s t
Respondent ;
8.89.4 Such ballot boxes with already thumb printed ballot
papers were later returned and forcefully d eposited at
the collation centers and counted as valid votes;
8.89.5 that those ballot/scores were illegally recorded on Form
EC8A and eventually announced in favour of the 1 s t
Respondent outside the polling units
8.89.6 that elections were held without recourse to voters register
and proper accreditation particularly in Boripe Local
Government Area.
8.91 We submit that the counting of votes cast and the announcement
of the results by the presiding officers at the pollin g stations is a
fundamental rule in the process of election and its principles.
8.92 If as in this case, there is uncontradicted, unchallenged and
unrebutted evidence that the votes were not counted nor results
announced at the polling station by the 4 t h – 1365 t h Respondents,
there can be no doubt that this failure and non -compliance has
substantially affected the result of the election in the affected
ten local governments.
8.93 The pertinent question to ask is what then is the effect of the
breach of the provision of the Act resulting in an election not
been conducted substantially in accordance with the principle s of
the Act?
8.94 Or put in another way what option is open to an election tribunal
where a petitioner has put before it unrebutted evidence of non-
compliance?
8.95 The answer to this all important question has been answered by
the Court of Appeal in Ajadi v Ajibola (supra) in the following
words:
“Once an election tribunal finds that there is non -compliance
with the law in respect of election in certain areas, votes cast in
such areas are to be cancelled” ( Emphasis supplied)”
51
Further Acts Constituting Unlawful Votes
8.96 In the case of Iwu v Nwugo (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 877) 54 at 57 , the
Court of Appeal held that a case would have been made by virtue
of (Section 134(1)(c) of the Electoral Act 2002) (which is in pari
materia with Section 145(1)(c) of the Electoral Act 2006) for the
application of this section where it is established that an election
was tainted with alleged wanton acts of cheating, imp ersonation,
violence, obstruction and cancellation of election.
8.97 In other words, where it is established as required by law that an
election is tainted with acts of cheating, violence, obstruction,
gross irregularities or impersonation etc a Petitioner would have
made a case that the votes cast at such an election are not lawful
votes. Adeniji, JCA illuminated the matter as follows:
“With regards to paragraph 4(a) of the petition that is that
the 1 s t Respondent was not duly elected by a majority of
lawful votes cast at the election… the Appellant hinged his
claim on paragraph 7(a) i -v and (b) of the petition. The said
paragraph reads: (7) the entire purported election of 3 r d
May, 2003 in Ihile/Uboma was substantially marred by
gross electoral irregularit ies and violence”
8.98 The Court of Appeal then went ahead at page 70 per Adeniji JCA
to pronounce on the nexus between unlawful votes and votes
obtained amid violence and/or cheating in these words:
“One would see at a glance that if the facts supplied i n
those paragraphs are true, then a case would have been
made for the application of section 134(1)(c) of the
Electoral Act, 2002 (now section 145(1)(c) of the Electoral
Act, 2006) for such election would have been tainted with
the alleged wanton acts of c heating, obstruction,
cancellation of election etc … ”
8.99 Also, in the case of Onoh v Okey (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt 602) 240 at
248 the Court of Appeal held as follows:
“With the evidence of massive electoral malpractices and
offences that characterized the elec tion in this case, can it
52
be safely said that the election was so conducted as to be
substantially in accordance with the Local Government
(Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provisions) Decree
No. 36 of 1998? I think not. There is evidence of an ugly
incident at 3 corner polling unit in Effraya Ward where
one Ebuta Ojong fired a gun in the air and carried away
the voting materials including the ballot boxes in his car.
Voting thereat was completely disrupted. The story of the
incident at Ayork 1 polling unit in Bendeghe Ekiem Ward
was not different. There one Awunghe Agbor, an agent of
the All Peoples Party to which the 1 s t Appellant belongs
hijacked the ballot box and gave it to Ayuk Ntui, the APP
Vice Chairman candidate and running mate of the 1 s t
Appellant, who broke the same on the floor. Voting
materials were vandalized. The same thing happened at
Agbor Oru polling unit of Bendeghe Ekiem Ward. There
was indeed widespread violence and intimidation in most
of the wards in the Local Government Area that made the
election not fair and free and in accordance with Decree
No. 36 of 1998”.
8.100 The recent decision of the Court of the Court of Appeal in Agagu
v Mimiko (2009) 7 NWLR (pt 1140) 342 at 401 FGH is very
instructive. The Court held as follows:
“On the complaint of allegations of violence, rigging and
other malpractices, which learned senior counsel said
were criminal in nature, and which needed to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt, the petitioner who makes
criminal allegations in an election petition but claims he
won the majority of lawful votes in that election will still
be entitled to his relief even when he fails to prove the
crime alleged beyond reasonable doubt, as long as he
succeeds in proving civil, allegations, which amount to
non-compliance with the Electoral Act. See Omoboriowo v
Ajasin (1984) 1 SCNLR 108 at 152 -153.
53
8.101 In line with the above judicial authorities, it is the Petitioners‟
case that the 1 s t Respondent was not duly elected by majority of
lawful votes cast at the election; t hat the results announced by
the 4 t h Respondent for 10 local governments namely: Atakumosa
West, Ayedaade, Boluwaduro, Boripe, Ife Central, Ife East, Ife
South, Ifedayo, Isokan and Odo -Otin Local Government Areas are
not and do not represent results of the lawful and valid votes
cast thereat and that the purported elections in the said local
government areas were vitiated by substantial non -compliance
with the mandatory requirements of the Electoral Act, 2006.
8.102 It was also the Petitioners‟ case that no election was conducted in
several polling stations and wards in the said local government
areas and that in few areas where elections were held, the
elections were marred by violence; that the elections were
inconclusive, votes were not counted and resu lts were not
recorded in Forms EC8A and were not announced in most polling
stations and wards. Also that already multiple thumb printed
ballot papers were forcefully deposited at collation centers and
counted as valid votes and were illegally recorded on Form EC8A
and eventually announced in favour of the 1 s t Respondent.
8.103 The Petitioners also allege that there were general cases of
multiple thumb printing of ballot papers, ballot -snatching and
stuffing by agents of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents, and tha t all the
widespread disruptions, irregularities and/or malpractices
referred to in the petition were done with the express and/or
implied consent, authority or instruction of the 1 s t , 2 n d and 3 r d
Respondents acting severally or in concert.
8.104 We urge the Tribunal to hold itself bound by the said reasoning
and judgment of the Court of Appeal and to use same in
considering and determining the issue of cancellation of the votes
and nullification of the election in the said ten local government
areas.
54
Burden and Standard of Proof
9.1 It is trite by virtue of the provisions of Sections 135 and 136 of
the Evidence Act that the burden of proving the existence of any
fact is on the party who asserts it. This is because he who asserts
must prove. In a civil case such as this case, the petitioner has the
primary burden of establishing the facts he relies upon in support
of his case.
9.2 Also in Section 137 of the Evidence Act the burden of first
proving the existence of a fact in a civil case lies on the party
against whom the judgment of the court would be given if no
evidence at all or no further evidence is produced on either side,
regard being had to any presumption that may arise from
pleadings. If such a party adduces evidence which is acceptable
and establishes a prima facie case; then the burden shifts on to
the other party against whom judgment would be given if no
more evidence is adduced and so on until all the issues in the
pleadings are dealt with. That essentially is what is meant when a
civil suit is said to be decided on preponderance of evidence or
balance of probabilities.
9.3 It is also submitted that allegations bordering on criminal
allegation is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt; Section 138
of the Evidence Act . However, it has been held in Agagu v
Mimiko [2009] 7 NWLR (pt 1140) 342 at page 401, where a
petitioner makes criminal allegations in his election petition but
claims that he won majority of lawful votes in the election, he
will still be entitled to his relief even when he fails to pro ve the
crime beyond reasonable doubt as lon g as he succeeds in proving
civil allegations which amounts to non -compliance with Electoral
Act.
9.4 Furthermore, contrary to the contentions of the Respondents (Se e
paragraph 5.04 to 5.08 and paragraph 5.44, to 5.47 of the Written
Address of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents and paragraph 12 -15 of the
Written Address of the 4 t h to 1365 t h Respondents), it is not true
55
that all the allegations in th is Petition are criminal in nature for
which the standard of proof is beyon d reasonable doubt.
9.5 There are two kinds of allegation s arising from the Petition. One,
are allegations that are civil in nature as they complain about
non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Electoral
Act, 2006 on the conduct of a valid el ection while the second set
of allegations are those that may be said to involve criminal acts.
9.6 For the first set of allegations that are civil in nature as they
relate to complain ing on non-compliance with the mandatory
provisions of the Electoral Act , 2006 in the conduct of a valid
election, see paragraphs 18, 20, 23, 24, 27.2,27.3, 29.d, 41, 42.d, 51,
, 52.d, 71, 59, 61, 62.d, 88.d &f, 95, 96, 97.d, 104, 105.d, 115,119,
116.e, 131, 132, 133.d, 148, and 151.2. of the Petition.
9.7 The allegations in the said paragraphs of the Petition bothering
on non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act like
non-counting of votes, non announcement of results and non -
recording of election results on the relevant electoral forms at the
unit, ward and local government levels, absence of voters
register, failure to dec lare end of poll and that Conduct of the
election was marred by widespread irregularity resulting in
substantial non -compliance with the mandatory provisions of the
Electoral Act in particular Sections 28, 63(1) -(2), 64 (1)-(4), 66 and
75 (See also paragraph 151.2 of the Petition), are allegations
which require prove on the balance of probabilities: See Section
137 of the Evidence Act .
9.8 In INEC v Oshiomole [2009] 4 NWLR (pt 1132) 607 at 670 -671, it
was held that the standard of proof of a petitioner who alleg e
that there has been non -compliance with Electoral Act is on the
preponderance of evidence. This is because an election petition
being a specie of civil suit, is only required to be prov ed on
balance of probabilities and all that the petitioner needs to
establish is that the story of the Petitioners is more likely to be
true than that of the respondent s.
56
9.99 My Lords, the weight of oral and documentary evidence led by
the Petitioners in this case and which has not been discredited by
the Respondents support the submission that the Petitioner s have
discharge the burden on the m to the required standard.
9.10 The case of the Petitioner s is particularly strong with the
documentary evidence, as will be seen from the evaluation of
documentary evidence led, corroborating the oral testimony
called. In I NEC v Oshiomole [2009] 4 NWLR (pt 1132) 607 at 671,
it was held that where documentary evidence supports the oral
testimony, such oral testimony becomes more credible as
documentary evidence serves as a hanger from which to assess
oral testimony.
9.11 It is submitted that it is only in relation to the second set of
allegations that proof beyond reasonable doubt is required .
9.12 The Petitioners shall demonstrate that it has discharged the
burden of proof in respect of both the civil and criminal aspects
of the allegations in the Petition.
9.13 It is our submission that the Petitioners have duly established by
oral and documentary evidence that t he votes credited to the 1 s t
Respondent are not lawful votes in the ten local governments . An
evaluation of the evidence shall be done on local government
basis so as to show a clear picture of the case made out on the
evidence in each of the ten local gov ernments:
9.14 The next segment of this Address is devoted to evaluation of
evidence.
GENERAL EVALUATION OF ORAL EVIDENCE

Evaluation of Evidence i n Respect Ife Central Local Government
Evidence of the Petitioners in Ife Central Local Government
10.1 In respect of Ife Central Local Government, the Petitioners
witnesses were Alfa Ibraheem (PW17), Deacon Kayode Ojo
(PW18), Adeoye Akeem Adewale (PW19), Ayo Adesakin (PW20),
Elubode Ademola (PW21), Towogbola Oluwaseyi (PW22),
57
Dabisiyu Olaobaju (PW28), Adedeji Taofeek (PW29), Akinnuga
Olusoga (PW39) and Ademiju Nasiru (PW40) and their
testimonies are as follows :
PW17
10.2 PW17 is Alfa Ibraheem who gave testimony for MOORE/OJAJA
Ward and his evidence -in-chief was that on the day of election, at
Agbedegbede polling unit, at about 11 a. m, Chief Obalufe of Ile
Ife arrived to intimidate and influence the voting. That When
Chief Obalufe was challenged he claimed the voting pattern was
ordered by the Ooni of Ife. That Upon a continuous protest
against him, he requested through his mobile phone for the
deployment of armed thugs and hoodlums who arrived led by
Wale Ojo, PDP Chairman for Ife Central Local Government, Chief
Atoferu, past PDP Chairman, Ife Central Local Government,
together with Honourable Taiwo Adebusola, o ne Muyiwa
Odikunrin, a PDP Councillorship aspirant in Moore Ojaja Ward
and Dayo Eleyemi. That these hoodlums made regular voting
impossible when they invaded the Agbedegbede Polling Unit,
Agbede Polling Unit, Ido Polling Unit, Ereola Polling Unit,
Obalogun, Seminary Opa Polling Unit, K. K Blocks Polling Unit,
Oke Itase Polling Unit, Eyiowukawi Polling Unit, Temi Pemi
Polling Unit and Alakowe – Opa Polling Unit, all at different
times. That they unleashed untold terror on the voting populace
and AC and other political party agents, and shot sporadically
into the air to scare away everybody at these various units, that
these individuals carted away the ballot boxes and ballot papers
to an unknown destination. That a lot of people sustained various
levels of injuries one being AC party agent Miss Saida Bello who
had her ankle dislocated and another party member who also had
his ankle twisted, both of them had to have P.O.P. casts on their
ankles and are yet to be discharged from the hospital. That as a
result of the activities of the aforementioned people Votes were
58
not counted and results were not announced at any of the polling
units.
10.3 Under cross examination, PW17 stated that on the day of the
elections, he arrived at his polling unit at 8:00 am, and did n ot
meet any INEC officials there. He stated that he followed
hoodlums who disrupted the elections from unit to unit, saying
they shot into the air scaring voters who ran away. He further
stated that he knows all the AC polling agents who gave him
agents reports because they are all fro Ife. These reports were
received immediately after the elections and the day after. He
was unshaken during cross examination, and his evidence was
not contradicted.
10.4 In view of the foregoing, the observation of the respo ndents that
this witness contradicted himself under cross -examination cannot
therefore be correct. There is no contradiction in the witness‟s
testimony when he said voting was disrupted. It is also a total
misrepresentation of this witness‟s testimonies un der cross-
examination that this witness said that he wrote his report based
on the reports of agents as he said clearly that his report was
based on both what he saw and what he received from party
agents. We refer this honourable tribunal to the proceedin gs of
the 6 t h day of August, 2009, most especially the answer of this
witness to the cross-examination questions of Adelodun SAN who
was one of the counsel for the 1 s t -3 r d respondents on that day.
PW18
10.5 PW18 is Deacon Kayode Ojo who gave testimony for Iremo Ward
II, and his testimony is that on the day of election voting was
marred with intimidating violence and act of thuggery
perpetrated by thugs led by notable PDP stalwarts in the person
of Ropo Oyewole, the majority leader of the Osun State Hous e of
Assembly and the PDP candidate for the House of Assembly
elections in Osun State; Mr. Obafemi Fagbola, a commissioner in
the Osun State cabinet and Mr. Dele Awofisayo, a former
59
commissioner with the respondent. That these armed thugs
invaded, attacked and completely disrupted voting activities on
the day of the election. That this disruption was carried out with
the active connivance of the police men attached to the various
units while many others even followed them about executing this
inglorious ass ignment. That at Ife Girls High School Polling Unit,
fully armed PDP thugs under the command of one Ropo Oyewole,
Osun State House of Assembly member representing Ife Central,
one Adegbola Akeredolu pounced on and beat mercilessly the AC
polling unit agent s, namely, Kunle Ojo and Michael Awosanmi
who refused them the opportunity of multiple voting. That at Lati
Eluyera Residence Polling Unit, one Biyi Odunlade, a PDP
aspirant for Chairmanship, Ife Central Local Government led
thugs to invade the Polling Uni t where they massively did lots of
multiple voting after scaring away the electorates. That these
thugs took over the polling unit and conducted the election to
their satisfaction by dumping already thumb -printed ballot
papers in the box. That at Akintibu Polling Unit, PDP thugs
continued their invasion, scared people away and engaged in
multiple voting. That similar act was done at Living Hope,
Eleyele Polling Unit, by some other fully armed thugs led by one
Prince Femi Adewuyi, Sunday Aaye, and one man si mply known
as Layiwole. That in all the units, those thugs carted away the
ballot boxes and subsequently, results of their misdeeds were
announced by INEC. That votes were not counted at the polling
units and results were not announced.
10.6 Under cross examination, PW18 stated that he registered to vote
at L.A Primary School Iremo Ward 2. He stated that his ward is a
small community of 17 polling units, and it takes only 20 minutes
to move through all the units in the ward. He stated that after
visiting all the units in his ward, he went home to eat. By the
time he returned to the polling unit, PDP thugs had disrupted the
elections. He further stated that the deputy speaker of the Osun
60
State House of Assembly led thugs who beat up Kunle Ojo and
Michael Oriyemi. He confirmed that he personally witnessed
everything contained in his witness statement.
10.7 This witness, contrary to the position of the respondents in their
written address was unshaken during cross examination, and his
evidence was not contradic ted. As for why this witness though
literate would swear to a witness statement on Oath which carries
a jurat, this witness explained under cross -examination by Mr.
Niyi Owolade counsel to the 1366 t h -1367 t h respondents that, that
had to be the case becaus e he demanded that the content of the
document should be explained to him as he is not a lawyer. We
refer this Tribunal to the proceedings of the 6 t h of August, 2009 in
this matter.
PW19
10.8 PW19 is Adeoye Akeem Adewale an agent of the 3 r d petitioner
who gave testimony as to what transpired at INEC Office in Ife
Central Local Government during the distribution of electoral
material on April 13, 2007 for the gubernatorial and House of
Assembly Election, held on 14 t h of April, 2007. His testimony is
that allocation commenced at about 12 midnight, and one
Obafemi Fagbola, the Osun State Commissioner for water
Resources (a.k.a Obaf) sought the permission of the Electoral
Officer that he wanted to see him privately, a request which the
Electoral Officer and hims elf acceded to.
10.9 That when himself and the said commissioner were alone, the
commissioner called one Adedotun Adebowale (a.k.a Mere) a
staunch PDP member in the Local Government to see him, that he
was informed by Mere that they would remove ten thous and
bundles of ballot papers allocated to the Local Government Area
with a promise to give him Two Million Naira and send him to
London the next day if he acceded to the proposal. That he turned
down the offer and at that point someone informed him that th ey
had started allocating the voting materials inside. That on getting
61
there he discovered truly that allocation had started and
protested to the Electoral officer and the said Commissioner on
the ground that it was the Electoral officer that gave the
Commissioner permission to see him. That he immediately
resumed protest, and the thugs that came with the said
Commissioner suddenly started beating him mercilessly while
one of them popularly called Artillery tried to strangulate him
and saying that despite t he fact that he refused to take the money
they offered him, he still had the effrontery to argue with their
boss, the said commissioner. That the said Artillery kept on
asking him to choose between acceding to their proposal and
losing his life. That he wa s rescued by Segun Omoworare and
Taiwo Olaiya who came in at this point and pleaded that he
should be left alone.
10.10 That after the allocation, he observed that the said Commissioner
went to meet about ten INEC supervisors in a separate office.
That he could see and hear what was going on because he was
looking through the window. That there, he saw the said
Commissioner share money to the INEC supervisors and told
them that they should not allocate voting materials to certain
units some of which are: 1 s t Bus-stop, OAU; 2 n d Bus-stop, OAU;
Sport Complex, OAU; Obagbile quarters; L. A, Elefon Village;
Slaughter Slab, PG Hall, OAU. That he further told them that they
should be ready that he would come and take them with his
vehicle at a certain location.
10.11 That at about 4 a. m on 14 April, 2007, he left INEC office for
Omoworare‟s house which was very close to the INEC office. That
he returned to INEC office at about 6 a. m. only to find out that
about nine INEC supervisors, the Commissioner‟s boys that
earlier attacked him were in a mini bus with the said
Commissioner sitting in the front seat of the bus. That he then
saw some persons whom he took to be presiding officers
62
struggling for the available voting materials without any
supervisor to allocate th ese materials to them.
10.12 That the next morning, during the voting period, he personally
visited the aforementioned polling units and found out that no
material was taken to the aforementioned polling units. That no
voting took place in all of the pol ling units: 1 s t Bus-stop, OAU;
2 n d Bus-stop, OAU; Sport Complex, OAU; Obagbile quarters; L. A,
Elefon Village; Slaughter Slab, PG Hall, OAU.
10.13 Under cross examination, PW19 stated that he was the Local
Government Supervisor representing the AC, who was mandated
to monitor the dispersal or distribution of electoral materials on
13/4/07. He reiterated what was contained in his deposition that
he was offered inducement namely a trip to London to ignore any
irregularities that may be perpetrated. He further stated that
because he refused he was severely beaten up. He confirmed that
electoral materials were dispatched in his absence on the guise
that the electoral commissioner wanted to have a word with him.
Under cross examination, PW 19 stated that despite t he fact that
he can read and write in English, his lawyer interpreted the
content of his deposition to him, as that was the lawyer‟s duty.
He stated that he registered to vote at Akarabata polling unit,
and arrived there to vote at 8:00 am on the day of th e elections.
He confirmed paragraph 7 of his witness statement on oath that
thugs beat up his party agents. He was unshaken during cross
examination, and his evidence was not contradicted.
10.14 The 1 s t -3 r d respondents‟ observation in their written addres s that
this witness could not answer a question put to him as to whether
he knew that electoral materials were meant to be distributed to
Electoral officers rather than party agent is irrelevant as t he
witness gave evidence that his role was to monitor the
distribution of electoral materials.
PW20
63
10.15 PW20 is Ayo Adesakin who gave testimony for AKARABATA
Ward and his testimony is that all the polling units in Akarabata
Ward are concentrated in Open Space, Lagere Motor Park. That at
about 11.30 a. m. on El ection day PDP thugs loaded with two
eighteen-passenger buses led by one Kingsley Awosiya PDP
councillorship aspirant, Barrister Rotimi Adeyenuwo, Alhaji
Nafiu PDP party secretary in Ife Central Local Government to
invade the polling units in the ward, tha t these thugs were
wielding cutlasses and brandishing guns as well as other lethal
weapons. That these thugs sacked the polling units, beat all the
3 r d Petitioner‟s and other parties‟ agents except PDP, that these
thugs thumb-printed ballot papers massivel y in favour of PDP,
and stuffed same into the ballot boxes in the other 18 seater bus
packed full of fierce looking armed thugs. That these thugs later
held the agents hostage and released them at about 7.30 pm that
same evening.
10.16 Under cross examina tion, PW20 stated that despite the fact that
he can read and write in English, his lawyer interpreted the
content of his deposition to him, as that was the lawyer‟s duty.
He stated that he registered to vote at Akarabata polling unit,
and arrived there to vote at 8:00 am on the day of the elections.
He confirmed paragraph 7 of his witness statement on oath that
thugs beat up his party agents, despite the fact that there is no
agents report alleging same. He was unshaken during cross
examination, and his evi dence was not contradicted.
10.17 There is no basis for the arguments of the respondents in their
written address for urging the contention that this witness‟
answer to a cross -examination question to the effect that he
would not be surprised by any agent that there is no statement by
any agent that was beaten up.
PW21
10.18 PW21 is Elubode Ademola who gave testimony for ILARE Ward 2
and his testimony is that on the day of election all the various
64
polling units in the ward were sacked by armed thugs led by one
Kunle Jimson, the PDP Chairman for Ife Central Local
Government and one Jide Awoyemi, a PDP leader in the Local
Government Area in quick succession and at different times. That
the 3 r d Petitioners‟ polling agents at Arubiewe Polling Unit,
Ajegunle Middle Polling Unit, Ajegunle Olowo Idi Agbon Polling
Unit, Irebami and Orafidodo Polling Units were brutalised by
these thugs. That at Olowo Idi Agbon Polling Unit, one Mr.
Obafemi Fagbola the Osun State Commissioner for Water
Resources was the one who led t he attacking squad that caused
heavy melee in the polling unit. That at the INEC office, the said
Fagbola and many other thugs were seen thumb -printing the
ballot papers meant for the general voters. That the hoodlums
carted away ballot boxes and ballot pa pers to unknown
destination. That as a result of the activities of these hoodlums
there was no counting of votes and no declaration of result at all
the polling units in the ward.
10.19 Under cross examination, PW21 confirmed paragraph 10 of his
witness statement on oath, re -iterating that there was no counting
of votes or announcement of results at his polling unit. He stated
that he voted at Olowo Idiagbon unit, but his vote was voided in
his presence. Upon being confronted with exhibits 18m and 18n
agent‟s reports prepared by Fayoola Rafiu and Awofadeju Jide, he
confirmed that those reports were prepared by two separate
individuals. He concluded by stating that although paragraph 6
of his deposition mentions only 5 polling units marred by
violence and ir regularities, the violence was not limited to those
polling units. He was unshaken during cross examination, and his
evidence was not contradicted.
10.20 Since the witness has informed this honourable tribunal clearly
that the exhibits 18 M and N have been prepared by different
individuals, the insistence of the respondents in their written
address that the exhibits were prepared by the same person is
65
totally baseless as the respondents‟ position is not supported by
any evidence. This is very clear from the answer given by this
witness to the questions of Mr. Famakin -Johnson, counsel to the
4 t h -1365 t h respondents during the proceedings of the 4 t h of
August, 2009.
PW22
10.21 PW22 is Towogbola Oluwaseyi who gave testimony for ILARE,
Ward and his testimony is that on the day of election voting
started at 10 a. m and at about 11 a. m agents of the PDP were
preventing voters from voting at Methodist Primary School. That
when he challenged them, the PDP agents called Albert Adeogun,
the PDP House of Representative s candidate who is from the
ward. That the said Albert Adeogun later arrived the place with
armed thugs, that these thugs shot into the air, chased away
everybody and carted away the ballot papers and ballot boxes.
That same act of violence was repeated in all the other Polling
Units in the ward except at Central Primary School Polling Unit
where voting was duly conducted. That in all the other polling
units, voting were completely disrupted and voting was
inconclusive. That as a result of these votes were not counted and
results were not announced at any of these polling units.
10.22 Under cross examination, PW22 confirmed that elections were
conducted peacefully in only 1 unit out of the 17 units in his
ward. He stated that elections were held in only on e unit Central
Primary School Unit. He further stated that no results were
announced in other units because of disruptions caused by PDP
thugs who did not allow him to vote on the day of the election.
He stated that PDP thugs compelled voters to vote for t he PDP
which he objected to, and voting was further disrupted when
Prince Adeogun , a PDP stalwart, arrived with thugs to cause
mayhem. He was unshaken during cross examination, and his
66
10.23 The 1 s t -3 r d respondents‟ argumen ts that this witness‟ evidence
lacks credibility because his evidence that elections were
disrupted and yet results were declared amount s to “blowing hot
and cold” cannot be correct. We say this because the evidence of
this witness both in chief and under cross examination was that
INEC still announced results in spite of the disruptions. We refer
to the proceedings of the 6 t h day of August, 2009 and the answer
of this witness to the questions put to him by N.O. Oke SAN.
PW28
10.24 PW28 is Dabisiyu Olaobaj u who gave testimony for ILARE, Ward
1 and his testimony is that on the day of election no proper
election was conducted in the Ward. That at the OAU Staff
Quarters, instead of six ballot boxes that were supposed to be
delivered thereat, only two boxes was delivered by the INEC
officials. That further to the foregoing, one Ropo Oyewole,
Majority leader of Osun State House of Assembly and a known
leader of the 3 r d Respondent, Rasheed Adebisi, immediate past
councillor of the Ward, Obafemi Fagbola, Commission er for
Water Resources and Bonfo Idowu led armed thugs, took over the
polling units in the ward and snatched the ballot boxes and took
them away. That votes were not counted and results were not
announced at any of the polling units in the Ward.
10.25 Under cross examination, PW28 stated that he only visited 6 out
of the 15 polling units in his ward. He confirmed paragraph 7 of
his deposition that one Idowu led thugs armed with guns,
cutlasses and other dangerous weapons to disrupt the elections.
He concluded his testimony by stating that the policemen saw the
atrocities being committed, and assisted the thugs in thumb
printing the ballot papers. He was unshaken during cross
10.26 It is submitted that the respondents‟ observation about this
witness that the admission by him that some of the polling units
are located on different roads makes his evidence unreliable is
67
misconceived as the witness gave evidence of the facts that he
moved around the units of t he ward.
PW29
10.27 PW29 is Adedeji Taofeeq who gave testimony for IREMO, Ward 1
and his testimony is that on the day of election, one Obafemi
Fagbola, a serving commissioner under Governor Oyinlola of
Osun State collected the election materials meant fo r OAU
community under the guise that he was helping them to convey
the staff. 17 of the 23 unit‟s materials disappeared in the process.
That no ballot box or paper was brought to Obagbile, L.A.
Primary School, Elefon, Sports Complex at OAU, Ajebandele,
Slaughter‟s Slab, Awo Annex, First Bus Stop, Post Graduate Hall
of Obafemi Awolowo University Polling Units and many other
Polling Units whereas results were later announced for these
Wards. That at the polling unit in Fajuyi Hall, while elections
were conducted no Form EC8A was made available. That on the
same OAU campus, the Electoral Officer, while on situation tour,
officially admitted the obvious fact that polling units were
diverted to unknown places and he agreed to put it down on
paper. PDP thugs invad ed and unleashed violence on the voters
and AC polling agent, snatched and carted ballot boxes away at
Ajebandele Primary School, Polling Unit.
10.28 The same story of sorrow, tears and blood was enacted at New
Garage Polling Units when PDP thugs armed wi th cutlasses,
guns, axes and charms, in three buses invaded the polling units,
injured the AC agent, Mr. Kazeem Akinola. That PDP agents and
thugs offered monetary gratification to the 3 r d Petitioner‟s agents
so that the latter could allow them rig the ele ctions in this ward.
Upon refusal, they unleashed violence and inflicted grievous
bodily harm on them. That at Falaju Polling Unit, political thugs
were seen coming out of Senator Iyiola Omisore‟s house armed to
the teeth. The next thing was the overthrow of civilization as
naked terrorism became the order of the day. That in Ojoyin area,
68
AC members protesting the carting away of the ballot materials
were shot at by the rampaging PDP thugs led by one Hon. Dokun
Adeniji. In the ensuing phenomenon, four perso ns sustained
gunshot injury and one died instantly on the spot.
10.29 Under cross examination, PW29 stated that he wrote his report on
the day of the elections when the events were still fresh in his
mind. Although his report was not among the exhibits tendered,
it stated that the elections were not free and fair, political thugs
invaded all but two polling units in the ward. He stated that
there were originally 14 polling units in his ward, but on the eve
of the elections an additional 12 units were create d. He stated
that he visited all 26 polling units on the day of the election, and
was categorical in his assertion that election materials were
diverted in 17 polling units. He stated that in Obafemi Awolowo
University, there were supposed to be 5 polling units, but only 1
unit was operational on the day of the elections.
10.30 He also stated that in Fajuyi, there were supposed to be 5 polling
units, but only 1 operated. He stated emphatically that no
election materials were brought to P.G hall,1 s t and 2 n d bus stop,
Elemo village, Ogbagbile unit and sport unit. Despite these facts,
results were declared in all the polling units in the ward. He
further stated that Forms EC8A were not given to his agents in
O.A.U and Iremo Ward 1, and policemen were present i n only 7
of the 26 polling units. He stated that ballot papers were taken
away, and voters had to return home. He confirmed paragraph 12
of his statement on oath that a person was killed in the ensuing
mayhem caused by PDP thugs. His testimony under cross
examination was particularly damaging to the Respondents case.
He was unshaken during cross examination, and his evidence was
not contradicted.
10.31 Since this witness even under cross -examination confirmed that
he visited all the polling units in his wa rd and saw what
happened on the election day, the respondents can therefore not
69
be correct when they say of this witness that his evidence only
consists of what he was told by his agents. We refer this
honourable tribunal to the proceedings of the 11 t h of August,
2009.
PW39
10.32 PW39 is Akinnuga Olusoga who gave testimony for IREMO Ward
5, and his testimony is that on the day of election voting in the
ward was marred by substantial irregularities, intimidation,
violence and thuggery perpetrated by members and agents of the
third respondent (PDP). That at Akodi Baba Sigidi Polling Unit,
Akodi Asarogun, Waluberin Compound, Ojikutu Open Space
Polling unit, Darikuduru Polling unit, Akodi Orunto Jaojo Polling
Unit, Aderemi Polling unit and several other polling units,
hoodlums, on the instruction of PDP leaders, invaded the
different polling units one after another, beat all AC agents,
threatened many with guns and carted away the ballot boxes to
unknown destinations. That at Ogbon Agbara Polling Unit INEC
officials and Party agents was luckier as some disciplined
security personnel prevented hoodlums from being able to deal
with them. That voting was duly completed, counted but there
was no Form EC8A for recording the result.
10.33 That INEC polling officials t ogether with all party agents carried
the box to the INEC office where, surprisingly, violent PDP thugs
who were chased away earlier were now seen conducting
collation with INEC officials. That agent of the 3 r d Petitioner was
ordered to deliver the box and leave. That due to these activities
no collation was done in the presence of the agents of the 3 r d
Petitioner. That the votes cast at Akodi Lujumo II and Akodi
Atiki was not counted at the polling booth but at the INEC office
in the Local Government. That upon discovering that AC was
leading in the result, Hon wale Ojo ordered his thugs to deal with
the 3 r d Petitioner‟s agents present which they thoroughly did by
subjecting the 3 r d Petitioner‟s agent to merciless beating. That
70
thereafter Wale Ojo, other me mbers of the PDP and their thugs
began to void votes already cast for the AC by double thumb
printing on them. That at Ojoyin polling unit AC members and
voters who resisted the carting away of the ballot materials were
shot at by the rampaging PDP thugs l ed by Senator Iyiola
Omisore, Hon. Dokun Adeniji and Waidi Elepo Robi. That in the
ensuing phenomenon four persons sustained gunshot injury and
one Samson died instantly on the spot. He later tendered the
photograph of the dead and injured victims of the c allous
shooting spree marked as Exhibit IFC 7.
10.34 Under cross examination, PW39 stated that he did not visit the
police station to report the disruption he witnessed, he stated
that he knows Senator Iyiola Omisore, a former deputy Governor
of Osun State and a PDP senator. He confirmed that the AC had
polling agents in all the polling units in his ward on the Election
Day. He stated that he received Identification from his party the
AC, as opposed to INEC. He was not cross examined as to the
veracity of a ny of the allegations contained in his witness
statement on oath, nor was his credibility impeached. He was
unshaken during cross examination, and his evidence was not
contradicted.
10.35 Contrary to the position of the respondents in the ir written
address, it cannot be correct to say that he never visited the 18
polling units as paragraph 2 through to paragraph 10 of his
witness statement clearly shows this. This witness under cross
examination confirmed that he visited all the polling units and
that his evidence consists of what he saw. We refer to the
proceedings of the 25 t h day of August, 2009.
PW40
10.36 PW40 is Ademiju Nasiru who gave testimony for IREMO Ward 3,
and his testimony is that on the day of the election voting did not
take place at the fol lowing polling units Recreation Club, St
Peter‟s Primary School, Ojatuntun, Open Space London street,
71
Akodi Obalaaye Ajupepe, Obalufon 1, Obalufon 2, Open Space
Ayibiowu, Moku, St. Murumba, gbelenkan, Ilara Open Space,
Frontage Alimi‟s house, Olubuse marke t and Akodi Latale all in
the Ward as some notable PDP stalwarts namely; Dokun Adeniji
a.k.a “Aluta”, former vice chairman Ife Central Local Government
Council; Alhaji Abdulyekeen sakariyawu a.k.a “Amorer” former
supervisory councillor in the Local Governm ent, Adebowale
Adedotun a.k.a “Mere” PDP Chairmanship aspirant and a cousin
to Senator Iyiola Omisore and Mrs. Akinwande a.k.a “Iyalakara”
who were accompanied by thugs armed with guns, machetes, axes
and other dangerous weapons together with policemen at various
times invaded these polling units and disrupted hitherto peaceful
voting process.
10.37 That at Akodi jaran Awolude and Akodi Fayimoka Polling units,
these thugs snatched and carted away the ballot papers and the
ballot box for the unit. That at A akodi Jaran Arinloye polling
unit, a traditional chief in Ile Ife popularly known as Obalufe,
Chief Solomon Omisakin came to influence and induce voters to
vote for the PDP and upon refusal by the voters to heed his
instructions, he called out a number of thugs who were armed
with cutlasses and guns. That these thugs shot into the air and
chased away the voters, AC polling agents and polling agents of
other political parties present and started thumb -printing the
ballot papers and dumping them into the ball ot box. That there
was no counting of votes and no result was declared at any of the
afore-mentioned polling units.
10.38 Under cross examination, PW40 stated that he was registered to
vote at Open Space Ilara. He stated that he visited all 17 polling
units in his ward on the day of the election, and knows the ward
quite well as he has lived there for 41 years. He confirmed
paragraph 5 of his deposition, and maintained that voting went
on peacefully in the morning until PDP thugs arrived snatching
ballot boxes and disrupting the elections. He further stated that
72
he personally witnessed the disruption of elections perpetrated
by PDP thugs, as he followed them from unit to unit in his ward.
He stated that the AC party agents remained at their various
polling units until the close of elections. He was unshaken during
cross examination, and his evidence was not contradicted.
Evidence of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents in respect of Ife Central Local

Government
11.1 In Ife Central Local Government: The 1 s t to 3 r d Respondent
called 7 seven witneses from Ife Central Local Government, to
wit: RW23 Prince Timothy Olajide Awoyemi; RW25 Hon. Alhaji
Abdul Yekini Sakariyau; RW29 Obafemi Fagbola; RW30
Odikunrin Muyiwa; RW31 Barrister Rotimi John Adeyenuwo;
RW40 Hon. Rasheed Ade bisi; RW42 Hon. Albert Adeogun;
RW23
11.2 RW23 Prince Timothy Olajide Awoyemi of Unit 7, Ward 2; The
testimony of RW23 is that he participated in the election as an
electorate and cast his vote at Ilare Ward 2 Unit 7 located at
Irebami line 6 Ile -Ife. He claimed to have gone to the polling unit
with his wife. He stated that he knew one Mr. Kunle Jimson as
the chairman of PDP in Ward 2, Ilare Ile - Ife. He claimed that he
did not lead any thug anywhere on the Election Day and did not
set his eyes on the sai d Kunle Jimson on the day of the election.
He stated that he was able to cast his vote at around 10.30 am and
left for his house at around 10.40 because his house was very
close to the polling unit. He finally stated that he never went out
again after returning home.
11.3 Under cross examination, RW23 i n his witness statement stated
his occupation as Public Servant but under cross -examination, the
witness stated that is a trader and that as at 8/6/2007 when he
deposed to the witness statement he was a trade r. The witness
said that he was public servant serving himself! The witness gave
incredible testimony when he said that he registered as Timothy
73
Olajide Adeniran Awoyemi and that he registered four names but
that Awoyemi is his surname. The witness also s aid that he did
not know the name his wife registered, though her names are
Beatrice Fumilayo Awoyemi. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the witness
statement, the witness claimed that he participated as an
electorate and that he casted h is vote at Ilare Ward 2 Uni t 7 at
Irebami Line 6, Ile -Ife. However, an examination of Exhibit 442A,
Voter register for the unit revealed that the name of the witness
was not on the voters register as a voter in the unit. Thus, the
claim of the witness that he was an electorate and t hat he voted
at Ilare Ward 2 Unit 7 at Irebami Line 6, Ile -Ife is utter falsehood.
The witness also claimed that the voting exercise took him about
3-5 minutes whereas his name is not on the register. The witness
confirmed that he is a member of PDP, and t hat the chairman of
PDP in Ife Central as that time was Hon. William Ojo and the
Secretary of the party was Mr. S.O. No fiu. He said he cannot
remember the name of the collation agen t for his ward. He also
said that he did not know that Abiola Oladejo was t he PDP party
agent in Polling Unit 7 where he claimed he voted. He was said
he would not know that Abiola Oladejo, PDP Party Agent signed
for PDP and AC on Form EC8A at the election. The witness
further said that he was not interested in going to the Polli ng
Unit to see the counting so could not even know whether there
was counting and announcement of result in his unit. See Exhibit
99(1-15).
RW25 Hon. Alhaji Abdul Yekini Sakariyau of Unit 01, Ward 3;
11.4 The testimony of RW25 is that he took part in the April 14 2007
poll as an electorate. He stated that he knew one Ademiju Nasiru
because they worshiped in the same mosque. He stated that he
left his house for the polling unit at Iremo Ward 3, Unit 001
located at Obalaaye Ajupepe as an electorate at 9.30 a m and got
to the place at around 9.40am and met other electorates on the
line, ready to cast their votes. He stated that he casted his vote at
74
about 40minutes later and left for his house. He stated th at he
knew Dokun Adeniyi a.k.a A luta and Adebowale Aded otun a.k.a
mere very well but did not see them on the 14th day of April
2007. He claimed to have only heard about Mrs. Akinwade but
did not know her and cannot even identify her if he sees her. He
stated that he did not carry any gun, machete or axes or an y other
dangerous weapons on the day of election and did not lead any
thug anywhere on the 14 t h day of April 2007 or any other day
whatsoever. He stated that throughout his stay at the polling
centre to cast his vote there was no problem whatsoever.
11.5 Under cross examination, RW25 who had claimed under cross -
examination by Counsel to 4 t h to 1365 t h Respondents that he was
attended to by INEC officials said during cross -examination by
the Petitioners that he never heard of INEC until the day he was
testifying even though this witness admitted that he is a
politician and a former sup ervisory councillor. Both in his
witness statement and under cross -examination, the witness
claimed that he participated as an electorate. He claimed that he
registered and voted at Obaluaye Ajupepe Unit even though he
did not know the unit number. He also claimed that his name was
ticked on the voters register. However, an examination of Exhibit
448M, voters register for Obaluaye Ajupepe, showed that his
name is not on the regis ter and that his name was not ticked. We
humbly invite your Lordships to examine Exhibit 448M. Under
further cross-examination, the witness claimed that he did not
know Adebowale Adedotun except if he has other name by which
he may know him. He then said t hat he knew him as Mere and
that he did not know if its his real name. This is however
contrary to paragraph 7 of his witness statement where the
witness said “I know Adebowale Adedotun a.k.a. Mere”. He later
admitted under cross -examination that he knew that Adebowale
Adedotun is a PDP member. Incredibly, the witness also stated
75
that even though he is a politician he was not interested to know
the result of the election because he has party agents.
RW29
11.6 RW29 Obafemi Fagbola; The testimony of RW29 is that he is the
present commissioner for water resources and Rural
Development, in Osun State of Nigeria and that on 14th April,
2007 as a bona fide party member of P.D.P at about 10.00am in
the morning, himself with his wife went to Olorunsogo High
School Polling Unit, Ilare Ward 1 and queued up waiting for their
turn to vote he voted and waited for his wife to take her turn and
while waiting he exchanged pleasantries with all known faces
and went back to his house immediately. He claimed that there
were more than a hundred people at the Unit when he got there
so he spent about 45 minutes. He also stated that as at the time he
casted his vote and went back home there was no incident of any
act of thuggery, intimidation, harassment or anything whatsoever
and that he only went to the polling station with his wife and not
with thugs and neither did he attack nor disrupt the voting
exercise. He claimed not to be at any polling unit except the
polling unit where he voted talks less of visiting Olowo Idi
Agbon polling unit. He stated that he did not participate in mass
thumb printing of ballot papers meant for the general voters at
Olowo Idi Agbon polling unit or at the INEC Office. He in fact
claimed that Election was free and fair at his unit and that he did
not visit INEC office on 14th April 2007 and equally did not in
any way carted away ballot boxes and papers to unknown
destination. He claimed to have been informed by their party
agents later in the day that ballot papers were counted and result
declared and appropriate forms for results were signed by all
party agents. He denied being at the INEC office on the day of
the Gubernatorial Election and did not collect any election
materials meant for OAU community under any guise
whatsoever. He also claimed not to know any Mr. Adeoye Akeem
76
Adewale and did not in anyway offer him N2million or make him
any promise to send him to London nor hold any discussion with
him in any manner and equally did not meet any INEC Official to
make any arrangement or share money w ith anybody.
11.7 Under cross examination, RW29 claimed that he voted at Ilare
Ward 1 unit 1, Oluorogbo High School and that his name was
ticked on the voters‟ register. However, in Item 635 Exhibit 443A
voter register Oluorogbo High School, his photo and his name
were not ticked or accredited as having voted in that unit. When
confronted with this evidence under cross -examination, the
witness said that it is for INEC official to tell the court what
happened. Even though the witness claimed under cross -
examination by counsel to 4 t h – 1365 t h Respondents that the
election in his unit was the freest and fairest he ever witnessed,
this assertion has no credible basis as the witness claimed that he
went home to drin king champagne after voting and that he was
not there when the result was announced, that he did not have
personal knowledge of whether the result was collated or
announced at the Unit. He initially said that he knew the
collation centre for my Ward is at Oluorogbo High School and so
he had personal knowledge, he later said that he did not have
personal knowledge since he was not there. The witness stated
that Alhaji S.O.A. Nofiu is Secretary of PDP at the time of
election in Ife Central. He further stated that there are other 10
Wards scattered all o ver and that each Ward has each collation
center apart from Oluorogbo High School. He agreed that other
Wards are scattered all over Ife Central Local Government apart
from Oluorogbo High School which is a collation center for Ward
1. The witnesses had d eposed in paragraph 9 of his witness
statement that “ballot papers were counted, result declared and
appropriate forms for results were signed by all party agents”.
To contradict this assertion, the witness was confronted with
Exhibit 98(1) which showed t hat contrary to par agraph 9 of the
77
witness statement it was only PDP agent that signed the result
form and the agent of the o ther four parties did not sign.
11.8 Aside, the contradicting evidence in Exhibit 98(1), the witness
had no credible basis to truth fully make the statement in
paragraph 9 of the witness statement as the witness stated under
cross-examination that he did not even know when the election
ended as he was not there. The witness said he saw Hon. Ropo
Oyewole on the day of election and that he will surprised if Hon.
Ropo Oyewole said that he did not see him on the day of election.
The certified true copy of the frontloaded witness statement of
Hon. Ropo Oyewole admitted as Exhibit 466 showed that Ropo
Oyewole said that he did not see the witness on election day.
RW30 Odikunrin Muyiwa

11.9 The testimony of RW30 is that he got to his polling unit located at
Lugba compound Moore Street, Ile - Ife at about 10.22a.m, on
14th April, 2007 for Gubernatorial and House of Assembly
elections. He stated that he met only about twelve people on line
waiting to cast their votes and he joined them. He stated that he
did not see Wale Ojo in his polling unit on the day of election. He
also stated that he did not see any of the following people
namely: Chief Ato feru, Hon. Taiwo Adebusola and Dayo Eluyemi.
He denied knowing Alfa Ibraheem. He stated that while he was in
his polling unit there was no problem whatsoever and casted his
votes and returned to his house and stayed in door throughout.
11.10 Under cross examination, RW30 claimed that he voted on the
election day at Lugba Compound, Moore Street, Ile Ife. He
claimed that that election went peacefully under cross -
examination by Counsel to 4 t h to 1365 t h Respondents but in
paragraph 7 of the witness statement t hat after voting he
returned home and stayed indoor throughout. He said he left the
polling unit some minutes after 11.00a.m.There was no way the
witness could know that election was peaceful throughout. The
78
witness even said under cross -examination that after voting he
went home and that it was on the second day that he heard the
Polling Unit result.
11.11 Even though RW30 sated his name as Odinkunrin Muyiwa in the
witness statement, the witness claimed under cross -examination
that Adeyemi-Odikunrin is his surname and that he registered as
Adeyemi Odikunrin as his surname. However, in Exhibit 447B,
the voters register for Moore Street Unit 3, Ojaja Road, there is no
voter with the surname of Adeyemi Odikunrin registered there.
The witness claimed that he found error on the register and that
they told him that the error was from the computer. The witness
was however confronted that the register was manually written,
he then said he discovered the error on his card, that when he
had the temporary voter card , his names were complete and that
he did not know how the voters register is produced.
11.12 The witness admitted under cross -examination that he will not be
in position to know if election in his Unit was counted, collated
and announced. He claimed that his party had a Party Agent who
had the responsibility. He said he will be surprised that on
Exhibit 107(3) EC8A result Moore Ojaja Ward was not signed by
any Party Agent and in particular that of PDP. Indeed , no party
agent signed Exhibit 107(3). The wit ness said that it did not take
him more than 2 minutes from checking his name to actual
voting. It appeared that the witness was very conversant with the
location of several polling units in his ward even though he
claimed that he did not visit them on ele ction day. The witness
said he knew Chief At oferu, Hon. Taiwo Ade busola, Dayo
Eluyemi and that t hey are PDP members. The witness also said
S.O.A Nafiu was Secretary of PDP in Ife Central then and that
even though he did not know his Ward, he is not from
Moore/Ojaja.
RW31 Barrister Rotimi John Adeyenuwo
79
11.13 The testimony of RW31 is that he woke up around 6.00 am on
14th April, 2007 and got to his office at about 7.30 am to handle
office jobs. He stated that he moved to his polling unit at
Recreation Centr e, Lagere, Ile-Ife (at the back of his office) at
about 11.30 am on 14th April, 2007 for the Governorship and
House of Assembly election. He stated that he met a lot of people
waiting to cast their votes peacefully and joined them and after
casting his vot e he retired to his office immediately. He stated
that he did not visit any polling units at all. He claimed to have
left his office to his house at about, 7.00 pm.
11.14 Under cross examination, RW31 admitted that he is a member of
PDP and has held office s under the auspices of PDP. Under cross -
examination by Counsel to 4 t h – 1366 t h Respondents, the witness
claimed that everybody on that date voted for candidate of their
choice including himself and that he did not witness any incident
of ballot snatching and stuffing. The witness would not be in a
position to truthfully make this assertion having deposed in his
witness statement and under cross -examination that he left the
unit immediately after voting at about 12 noon and that he did
not come out of his o ffice till about 7.00 p.m.
11.15 RW31 witness would not be in a position to testify that election
in his unit was free and fair and orderly. There is also
contradiction in the testimony of this witness as to the location of
the polling unit relative to hi s office. Whereas in paragraph 2 of
his witness statement he stated that his unit was at the back of
his office, under cross -examination by counsel to the 1366 t h and
1367 t h Respondents he initially stated that the Polling Unit where
he voted was within a “ walkable distance to my office”. But when
he was confronted with paragraph 2 of his statement, he then said
that the polling unit was at the back of his office.
11.16 RW31 was also evasive about time as regards during election but
he was concise about ti me on other matters. Under further cross -
examination the witness claimed that when he registered, I
80
cannot remember my age then. He also said that on registration,
he cannot remember what he told the official was his occupation.
The witness later said that in 2006 when he registered, he was a
legal practitioner. Much later he claimed that the Adeyenuwo
registered in the register as a business man was him.
RW40 Hon. Rasheed Adebisi of Unit 1, Ilare Ward 1;
11.17 The testimony of RW40 is that he took part in the Gubernatorial
and House of Assembly election of 14th day of April 2007 as an
electorate. He stated that he left alone unaccompanied by nobody
to the polling Unit 001, Ilare Ward 1 located at Oluorogbo High
School, Ile - Ife. He stated that he arrived at the Polling Centre
around 10.00 am and was able to cast his vote around 10.30 am.
He stated that he did not see Ropo Oyewole either at the polling
centre or at any other place on that day but that he met Obafemi
Fagbola and they exchanged pleasantries. He stated that he left
the polling centre immediately after casting his vote and did not
see Bonfo Idowu on that 14th day of April 2007. He stated that he
did not lead any thug to any polling unit neither did he carry any
ballot box anywhere.
11.18 Under cross examination, RW40 a stalwart of PDP claimed to
have voted and as usual of others under cross examination by
INEC Counsel he claimed election was peaceful and orderly
despite the fact that he himself stated in paragraph 7 of his
deposition that he lef t the polling centre immediately after
casting his vote, a statement he restated under cross examination
by the 1365 t h – 1366 t h Respondent s Counsel, in corroborating this
statement when cross examined by the Petitioners Counsel he
admitted that he would no t know what happened after leaving
the polling unit and having admitted this much we submit he is
not in a position to know whether election was concluded, result
collated and announced.
11.19 In further discovery of the fallacious testimony of RW40, in
paragraph 3 of his deposition he claimed to have arrived at the
81
polling unit around 10 a.m. the same time Obafemi Fagbola RW
29 claimed to have arrived at the same polling unit. He went
further to state in paragraph 4 that he cast his vote around 10.30
a.m. The twist however is that Obafemi Fagbola DW 29 claimed to
have spent 45 minutes at the polling unit and on his way out of
the polling unit he met and exchange pleasantries with Hon.
Rasheed Adebisi and Ropo Oyewole who were on the queue.
11.20 We submit that it is easier to know that all the three of them were
liars as it remains a mystery how someone who exchange
pleasantry with another on his way out at about 10.45 a.m. would
have also left the same unit at around 10.30 a.m. unit and the
other twist is that while Obafemi claimed to have seen both Hon.
Rasheed Adebisi and Ropo Oyewole on his way out of the polling
unit all of them being chieftains of PDP in the same Ward and
Unit, we submit that it will be more than incredible to hear the
witness say that he did not see Ropo Oyewole and also that he
would not know whether he is a registered voter in his unit.
RW42 Hon. Albert Adeogun
11.21 The testimony of RW42 is that he voted at Ward 4, Ilare Unit 1,
Olodo, Ile-Ife during the Governorship and Legislati ve Houses of
Assembly Election of 14/4/2007. He stated that he got to the
polling unit where he voted around 10.00am and was promptly
attended to. He stated that the affidavits of Towogbola
Oluwaseyi, Adebayo Najeem and Bamgboye Ayo sworn to on 11 t h
May, 2007 have been shown to him and he has gone through the
same. He stated that the allegations levied against him as
contained in those affidavits attached to the petition are not true
and categorically denied them. He stated that he went to the
polling unit alone and not in the company of anybody and after
voting he went back home. He claimed to be a law abiding citizen
and that the election at the polling unit where he voted went on
smoothly and without any hitch.
82
11.22 Under cross Examination, RW42 claimed that he voted at unit 1,
ward 4 and that the name of the unit is unit 1, Ogboru Compound
when he was challenged that Ogbodu Olodo Compound is unit 5,
he said that it may be correct, he also stated that it may be correct
to state that the second unit in the compound is unit 6. He said he
voted and that he got to the polling unit around 10.am and that
he did not stay at the unit for more than 20 minutes. He said he
cannot give answer to the question as to how many people voted
before him. He said he only hear d the result of the election after 4
p.m and that he cannot say what happened after casting his vote.
He said he was not at the polling unit after that and he could not
know whether the election was concluded. He said that he cannot
remember the name of th e collation agent of his party in his ward
and the name of the polling agent for his unit. He stated that
Alhaji S.O.A. Nofiu was the secretary of the PDP in Ife Central
Local Government and that even though he did not know the
ward that Alhaji S.O.A. Nofi u belonged to, he said he did not
belong to Ward 4. Even though the witness claimed that he is a
law-abiding citizen, he admitted that his election to the House of
Representative was nullified by the court.
Evidence of the Petitioners in Odo Otin Local Go vernment

12.1 In respect of Odo Otin Local Government, the Petitioners
witnesses were Soladoye Fasanjo (PW1), Amusat Kamil (PW2),
Tajudeen Babatunde (PW3), Wasiu Ilufoye (PW4), Owolabi
Moshood (PW5), Femi Akintola (PW6), Adewumi Jonathan (PW7),
Emmanuel Folorunsho (PW8), Janet Babalola (PW44), Victoria
Ademola (PW45), David Adegboyega (PW47), Olayiwola Lateef
(PW48), and Awodeji Abayomi (PW). And their testimonies are as
follows:
PW1
12.2 PW1, is Soladoye Fasanjo who gave testimony of events in
FAAJI/OPETE, Ward 4 Odo Otin Local Government and his
83
testimony is that on the day of election some thugs who were led
by one Rasaq Oyelami (a.k.a. K.K.) invaded polling units in ward
4, Odo Otin Local government. That these thugs were wielding
guns, machetes and some other weapons as well as shot into the
air to scare away the voters and the other party agents and
forcefully snatched the ballot boxes and carried them away. That
voting was completely disrupted in the polling units in the Ward
and that voters, agents of the 3 r d Petitioner and agents of the
other parties were scared away by the acts of violence carried out
by the aforesaid persons. And as a result of the disruption, votes
were not counted and results not announced at any of the polling
units in Ward 4 (Fa aji/Opete).
12.3 Under cross-examination, PW1 stated that he is a business man
who carries on his business in Ilorin. It was further elicited under
cross examination that because they are all from his town, he
knows every AC polling agent in his ward who s ubmitted an
agents report. He stated that he spent about 10 minutes in each
unit before he proceeded to the next unit, thus he personally
witnessed the acts of violence perpetrated by PDP thugs, and did
not have to be informed by AC party agents. Under cro ss
examination by counsel to INEC, PW1 stated that he reported the
incidents of violence to the policeman stationed at his unit, but
was unable to report at a police station since there is none located
in his ward, and movement was restricted on the day of the
elections.
12.4 PW1 was a witness of truth. He was unshaken during cross
examination, and his evidence was not contradicted. The
suggestion of the respondents in their written addresses that
since this witness admitted under cross -examination that he
would be afraid if he sees someone shooting sporadically his
evidence is unreliable can not be correct as victims of violent
crimes have been known to give vivid accounts of the attacks on
them.
84
PW2
12.5 PW2 is Amusat Kamil who gave testimony for EKOSIN/I YEKU,
Ward 5 and his testimony is that on the day of election some
thugs who were led by one Mr. S.O. Idowu invaded polling units
in the Ward. That these thugs were wielding guns, machetes and
some other weapons as well as shot into the air and forcefully
stuffed the ballot boxes with already thumb printed ballot papers
in favour of PDP in seven out of the eight polling units. That
voting was completely disrupted in 7 out of the 8 polling units in
the ward and that polling agents of the 3 r d Petitioner, agents of
other parties and voters were scared away by the acts of
intimidation, thuggery and violence carried out by the aforesaid
persons. And as a result of the disruption in the 7 units out of
eight in the ward votes were not counted and results not
announced at any of the 7 polling units in Ward 5
(Ekosin/Iyeku).
12.6 Under cross examination, PW2 stated that there are 8 polling
units in his ward, and he voted at Ekosin Community Grammar
School. He mentioned that he personally knows all the AC party
agents who submitted agent‟s reports to him. He categorically
stated that S.O Idowu a PDP member masterminded the rigging
of elections in his ward. PW2 further stated that he followed the
said S.O Idowu from polling unit to polling unit, and witnessed
the acts of violence and disruption he perpetrated. He concluded
by stating that the police were there but did not do anything
about it. The witness was a witness of truth. He was unshaken
during cross examination, and his evidence was not contradicted.
PW3
12.7 PW3 is Tajudeen Babatunde who gave testimony for Esa/Otun
Bale Ode, Ward 12 and his testimony is that on the day of
election some thugs who were led by known PDP leaders like
Kunle Amao, Bisi Jinadu, Shuahib Oyedokun in vaded the polling
units in the ward. Tha t these thugs were wielding guns, cutlasses,
85
and other weapons, shot into the air to scare away the voters and
intimidate the electoral officers and forcefully snatched ballot
papers and ballot boxes and carried them away. That voting was
completely disrupted in the polling units in the ward and that
voters and polling agents of the 3 r d Petitioner, agents of other
political parties were scared away by the acts of intimidation,
thuggery and violence carried out by the aforesaid persons. Some
agents of the 3 r d Petitioner were attacked and wounded. That due
to the disruption in the ward votes were not counted and results
were not announced at any of the polling units in Ward 12
(Esa/Otun). He further testify that on the day of the election at
polling unit 06 (J ehovah witness, at about 2.30 p.m., he was
informed by one Mr. Gabriel Oyeleke, the 3 r d Petitioner‟s Ward
Chairman, information which he verily believe, that in Polling
Unit 06 (Jehovah Witness) Mr. Gabriel seized some ballot papers
already thumb -printed in favour of PDP from the invading thugs
when there was struggle to resist the snatching of the ballot
boxes.
12.8 Under cross examination PW3 stated that he knows Alhaji Shuaib
Oyedokun, a former PDP deputy national chairman. He stated
that even though Shu aib Oyedokun is an elderly person advanced
in age, he led thugs to attack all the polling units in his ward. He
further stated that although his town is a big town, he personally
visited all the polling units in his ward in the morning on the day
of the elections, but was unable to visit them later in the day
because of the disruptions. He stated that in the polling unit he
voted in, voting was abruptly ended before the time prescribed
by the rules. This was a witness who had a detailed knowledge of
the events that occurred on the election day. When asked to list
all the AC agents in his ward, he mentioned all their names
without hesitating.
12.9 PW3 was a witness of truth. He was unshaken during cross
86
arguments of the respondents‟ counsel that the evidence of t his
witness is mere hearsay can not hold water as the witness showed
that his evidence consists essentially of what he saw.
PW4
12.10 PW4 is Wasiu Ilufoye who gave testimony for Ijabe/Ila Odo,
Ward 7 and his testimony is that on the day of election voting
started on a peaceful note until about 12 noon when a policeman
attached to a Unit 4, Konta called some people and informed
them the electorates were massively voting for AC in the unit.
That about Fifteen minutes later, some thugs came in 3 18 -seater
buses led by Bamidele Adeniyi (a.k.a. Zangaruwa); Ezekiel (Ofa
Poly student) arrived in the ward with guns, machetes, charms
and other dangerous weapons. That the arrival of these thugs,
made all the electorates and party agents took to their heels while
some stayed at a safe distance to watch what these thugs would
do. That these thugs moved from one polling unit to another and
emptying the ballot boxes and stuffing them with already thumb -
printed ballot papers in favour of PDP. That as a result of the
activities of these thugs, voting was completely disrupted in all
the polling units in Ward 7 (Ijabe/Ila Odo).
12.11 Under Cross examination, PW4 stated that he along with the AC
party agents in the poll ing units in his ward wrote their agents
reports as soon as they witnessed the disruption of elections, that
although he voted, voting was disrupted shortly after. The
witness was a witness of truth. He was unshaken during cross
examination, and his eviden ce was not contradicted. It is not
correct as the respondents have contended in their written
address that this witness is evasive because according to the
respondents he did not state how he managed to observe that the
stuffing and emptying of ballot boxe s and the thumb printing of
ballot papers in favour of PDP. The witness has clearly stated this
in paragraph 7 of his witness statement on oath that he was
87
observing them from a safe distance. This testimony was not
destroyed under cross examination.
PW5
12.12 PW5 is Owolabi Moshood who gave testimony for OLUKOTUN,
thugs came in blue 18 -passenger bus invaded the polling units in
the ward. That these thugs were wielding guns, cutlasses, charms
and other weapons, the thugs shot into the air to scare away the
voters and intimidate the electoral officers and forcefully
snatched ballot boxes which they carried away. That voting was
completely disrupted in the polling units in the ward and that
voters and polling agents of the 3 r d Petitioner, agents of other
political parties were scared away by the acts of violence carried
out by the aforesaid persons. He stated that two members of the
3 r d Petitioner (Alhaji Rasheed Idera and Segun Agbadu) were
machete by these thugs in his presence. That by 1.15 p.m., these
thugs had concluded their nefarious activities with all the ballot
boxes carried away and all the electorates scared away. That
voting was irregularly conducted and/or totally disrupted in all
the polling units in the ward while votes were not counted and
results were not announced at any of the polling units in Ward 11
(Olukotun).
12.13 Under cross examination, PW5 stated that he voted in the
morning on the Election Day, that only a few people voted in his
unit before PDP thugs disrupted the elections. He further stated
that he received no prior training before the election. The witness
was a witness of truth. He was unshaken during cross
examination, and his evidence was not contradicted. Since this
witness has in his witness statement on oath stated that his
evidence consists of what he saw the suggestion of the
respondents‟ counsel in their written address that is evidence is
hearsay is therefore untenable.
PW6
88
12.14 PW6 is Femi Akintola who gave t estimony for JAGUN/OSI
BAALE ODE, Ward 13 and his testimony is that on the day of
election some thugs who were led by known PDP members like
Mr. Kola Ojo, Alhaji Folorunsho Arekujo and Alhaji Oloyede
invaded the polling units in the ward. That these thugs were
wielding guns, cutlasses, and other weapons, these thugs shot
into the air to scare away the voters and intimidate the electoral
officers and forcefully snatched ballot boxes and carried them
away. That voting was completely disrupted in the polling u nits
in the ward and that voters and polling agents of the 3 r d
Petitioner, agents of other political parties were scared away by
these acts of violence carried out by the aforesaid persons. That
he was particularly beaten by the thugs when he tried putting up
resistance. That Some of the 3 r d Petitioner‟s polling agents who
also tried to resist the activities of these thugs were arrested by
security agents on the instruction of alhaji Shuahib oyedokun,
former Deputy National Chairman of PDP. That voting was
irregularly conducted and/or totally disrupted in all the polling
units in the ward and as a result votes were not counted and
results were not announced at any of the polling units in Ward 13
(Jagun/Osi Baale Ode).
12.15 Under cross examination PW6 stated that he was not allowed to
vote on the day of the elections by PDP thugs. He stated that
because his community is a small one, he can identify the
members of the PDP, and need not attend their meetings. He
further stated that though he did not make a writ ten report, he
informed the INEC officials and policemen in his ward about the
presence of weapons, but was ignored. He stated that he knows
Alhaji Shuaib Oyedokun a PDP chieftain who led thugs to disrupt
elections. He stated pointedly that he saw Alhaji S huaib
Oyedokun, Alhaji Oloyede and one Mr. Fola disrupting the
elections. He mentioned that in polling unit 4, only about 3
people voted before the elections were stopped. He stated that
89
there was no voting at all in polling unit 2, and the elections were
disrupted by PDP thugs in polling unit 1. Under cross
examination by the 4 t h Respondents counsel, he stated that he
witnessed all the facts he related to the tribunal. He further
stated that he was only able to visit 4 out of the 7 polling units in
his ward before the elections were disrupted by PDP thugs. He
stated that he witnessed more violence and disruption than was
contained in the agents report. When asked if he made a report to
the police, he stated that there was no police station in his ward.
He concluded by stating he was beaten up by PDP thugs, and
sustained minor injuries but did not have to see a doctor. The
witness was a witness of truth. He was unshaken during cross
examination, and his evidence was not contradicted. The attempt
of the respondents to make the evidence of this witness highly
improbable when they said in their written address that the
witness must have been a superman for him to have been in units
4, 5, 7 and 2 when disruptions occurred in those units has failed
signally. This i s because the witness reiterated under cross -
examination by Mr. Gadzama SAN (counsel to the 4 t h -1365 t h
respondents) said that”… all the polling units are close
together…” We refer this honourable tribunal to the proceedings
of the 4 t h day of August, 2009.
PW7
12.16 PW7 is Jonathan Adewunmi, he is one of the Local Government
Chairmanship Aspirant for the Action Congress and a registered
voter in Unit 9, Ward 15 and gave testimony of what transpired at
his unit and ward and his testimony is that on the day of the
election he went to ward 15, polling unit 9 where he was
registered to cast his vote but was not allowed to vote. He stated
further that in the ward, thugs led by, Sunday Alabi, Zachaeus
Adeniran, Ganiyu Lawal, Soji Ibikunle and Muritala Ajayi
invaded the polling unit in two 10 seater buses, a jeep and a
Nissan primera. That those thugs were with guns, cutlasses and
90
machetes and they shot at random. That this group of thugs
hijacked the ballot bag and carried the bag away. That he was
chased away with guns and cutlasses and he had to run to Opa
Arin polling unit. That not long after he got to Opa Arin unit the
Governor of Osun State, Oyinlola came to the unit and carried
away the ballot box for the unit. That he left for his house and
later at around 11.30 a.m and 12.00 noon the same set of thugs
from the polling unit came to his house with guns, clubs,
cutlasses and machete and in the process destroyed his personal
belonging and also machete him on his head, hand and leg. That
he was left for dead in the pool of his blood and was later rushed
to the hospital where he received treatment. He further tendered
in exhibit a medical report marked exhibit JA1 to that effect.PW8
is Emmanuel Folorunso who gave testimony for
IGBAYE/IMULEKE, Ward 3 and his testi mony is that on the day
of election some thugs who were led by Mr. Bamidele Adeniyi
(a.k.a. Zangaruwa), Dr. R.A. Bello (Chairman, Ladoke Akintola
University of Technology, LAUTECH Teaching Hospital Board),
Mr. Adeniyi Bamidele who are known PDP leaders and some
other PDP leaders in the Ward invaded the polling units in the
Ward. That these thugs were wielding guns, machetes and some
other weapons. These thugs shot into the air and forcefully
snatched ballot boxes which they carried away. That voting was
completely disrupted in all the polling units in the Ward and that
agent of the 3 r d Petitioner, agents of other political parties and
voters were scared away by the acts of violence carried out by
these thugs. That election were irregularly conducted as well as
totally disrupted in all the polling units in the ward and as a
result votes were not counted and results were not announced in
any of the polling units in Ward 3 (Igbaye/Imuleke).
12.17 Under Cross examination, PW7 stated that he was a legal
practitioner, who had been called to the bar for 7 years. He stated
that he was enrolled as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme
91
Court with the name Jonathan Adewunmi sometime in 2005, he
however was unable to recall the name of the Director General of
the law school, nor the name of his lecturer in civil procedure,
neither could he remember the name of the Deputy Director
General of the Law School. Upon cross examination by the 4 t h
Respondents counsel, he could not mention any of the courses he
studied at the La w School. He stated that on the day of the
election, he went to report the acts of violence at the police
station, but did not meet the police there. It has to be noted that
the witness‟s account of what he saw on the polling day was not
shaken by cross-examination.
PW44
12.18 PW44 is Janet Babalola who gave testimony for
OLOYAN/ELEMOSHO/ESA, Ward 14 and her testimony is that
on the day of election some thugs who were led by known PDP
members like Ganiyu Lawal invaded polling units in the Ward.
That these thugs were wielding guns, cutlasses and some other
weapons. The thugs also shot into the air and forcefully snatched
the ballot papers and ballot boxes and carried them away. That
voting was completely disrupted in the polling units in the Ward
and those voters, polling agents of the 3 r d Petitioner, agents of
other political parties were scared away by the acts of violence
carried out by these aforesaid persons. That voting was
irregularly conducted and totally disrupted in all the polling
units in the ward and votes were not counted and were not
announced at any of the polling units in Ward 14
(Oloyan/Elemosho).
12.19 Under cross examination, the witness was simply asked question
as to her ability to read and write, which she respond to. The
question then went on to who are lawyers were and the election
process she went through. As can be seen from the record the
witness was not asked question relating to her evidence in chief.
It can be recalled that the witness restated the fact that she voted
92
very early in the morning before the election were disrupted by
the named PDP thugs. We submit that the respondents have not
in any way showed how the witness contradicted herself and in
the light of the foregoing we submit that her evidence should be
accepted.
PW45
12.20 PW45 is Victoria Ademola who gave testimony for ASI/ASABA,
Ward 9 and her testimony is that on the day of election some
thugs who were led by Lekan Oyediran, Soji Ibikunle and armed
with guns, machetes, acid, charms and other dangerous weapons
invaded the polling units in the ward. That these thugs went to
all the polling units in Ward 9 and scared away all the electorates
and party agents by shooting into the air. That she and others
stood at a safe distance to observed the activities of these thugs
on that they. That these thugs then took away all the ballot boxes
containing ballot papers and other election materials in all the
units without votes being counted or results announced. That
voting was completely disrupted in all the polling units in ward
9.
12.21 Under cross examination, PW44 stated that she voted at Oja Oba
polling unit at about 8 am on the day of the elections shortly
before PDP thugs disrupted the elections in her unit. She
explained that she could read and write, but cannot sign, and
would rather thumbprint. She further stated that her witness
statement was explained to her by one of the petitioner‟s lawyer
Mr. Badmus before she thumb printed. She was unshaken during
cross examination, and his evidence was not contradicted. The
observation of the respondents in their written addresses that
there are contradictions in the evidence of this witness on the
record of this tribunal is therefore unfounded as he evidence is as
lucid as can be.
PW47
93
12.22 PW47 is David Adegboyega who gave test imony for
OKUA/EKUSA, Ward 8 and his testimony is that on the day of
election some thugs who were led by Bamidele Adeniyi (a.k.a.
Zangaruwa), Segun Babalola, A.S. Adetunji and Samson Oduoye
and armed with guns machetes, charms and other dangerous
weapons invaded the polling units in the ward. That these thugs
went to all the polling units in Ward 8 and scared away all the
electorates and party agents by shooting into the air. That these
thugs then took away all the ballot boxes, ballot papers and other
election materials in all the units without the votes being counted
or results announced. That as a result voting was completely
disrupted in all the polling units in the ward (Okua/Ekusa, ward
8).
12.23 Under cross examination, PW47 stated that the AC and the PDP
are the major parties in his ward, that the PDP has a large
following in his ward, but not as large as the AC. He mentioned
that voters queued up to vote before PDP thug‟s disrupted the
elections. He was unshaken during cross examination, and his
PW48
12.24 PW48 is Olayiwola Lateef who gave testimony for ORE/AGBAYE,
thugs who were led by one Mr. Fatai Adeboye and Sarafa
Oyewole came in two 8 -seater buses and inv aded polling units in
the Ward wielding machetes, acid, cow bones, clubs and some
other weapons as well as injured a lot of people. That they also
threw certain liquid substance suspected to be an acid at some
people. That voting was completely disrupted i n all the polling
units in the ward and that polling agents of the 3 r d Petitioner,
agents of other parties and voters were scared away by the acts of
intimidation, thuggery and violence carried out by the aforesaid
persons. That voting was completely disru pted as these thugs
made away with the ballot boxes, the ballot papers and the other
94
election materials in all the polling units. That as a result of this
there was no voting in any of the polling units in Ward 6
(Ore/Agbeye).
12.25 Under cross examination , no evidence was elicited from PW48 to
discredit him. He was asked if he was in possession of an INEC
Identity card or if he had ever worked in chemistry laboratory,
both of which he denied, He was unshaken during cross
examination, and his evidence was n ot contradicted. The
respondents have argued in their written addresses that this
witness should not be believed since his testimonies are
strikingly similar to those of PW47. This argument to say the
least is strange as there is no law which says that two individuals
who had witnessed the same event/s can not give accounts of the
event/s in the same or even use the same language in relating the
events.
PW79
12.26 PW79 is Awodeji Abayomi who gave testimony for OLUNISA,
Ward 10 and his testimony is that on t he day of election ballot
papers that were already thumb -printed in favour of PDP were
stuffed into the ballot boxes after attempt to snatch away the
ballot proved abortive and the polling agent of the 3 r d Petitioner
was threatened and compelled to partici pate in the counting and
forced to sign the result sheet. That at polling unit 2 and unit
Oyedele I some thugs who were led by Alhaji Shuahib Oyedokun,
a known PDP leader came in two 18 passenger buses and one 504
station wagon filled with mobile policemen invaded the polling
unit wielding guns, cutlasses and some other weapons, that those
thugs shot into the air to scare away voters and forcefully thumb -
printed the remaining ballot papers and thereafter snatched the
ballot papers and boxes and took them aw ay. That voting was
similarly disrupted and serious irregularities and ballot box
snatching were carried out in some other unit in the ward. That
voting was completely disrupted in the entire unit to the
95
exclusion of unit 005. That voting was irregularly c onducted
and/or totally disrupted in the majority of the units in the ward
and neither were votes counted nor result announced at almost
all the unit except in unit 005 and unit 008 where the polling
agent was forced to participate in the counting of vote and
signing of the result sheet.
12.27 Under Cross Examination, PW79 stated that Inisa is well known
to him, and there are only 4 wards in Inisa. When his factual
knowledge of Inisa was tested he accurately named all the 10
units in ward 10. He was not qu estioned as to the veracity of his
witness deposition, nor was any of the allegations contained
therein challenged. He was unshaken during cross examination,
and his evidence was not contradicted. The respondents have
argued in their written addresses that the evidence of this
witness to the effect that vehicles brought individuals who were
in police uniform to disrupt the voting was not covered by the
Petitioner‟s pleading can not be correct as the Petitioners have
pleaded already that voting was disrupted and by this evidence,
the witness was only giving evidence of the manner of the
disruptions.
Evidence of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents in respect of Odo Otin Local

Government
13.1 In Odo Otin Local Government , the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents called
11 witnesses; These are: RW28 Bamidele Adeniyi; RW33 Soji
Ibikunle; RW35 Zaccheus Adeniran; RW36 Samson Oduoye; RW37
Job Atoyebi; RW38 Lekan Oyediran; RW45 Femi Okunola; RW49
Oyewunmi Musliyu; RW57 Tayo Oyedijo; RW59 Abiodun Abiona
Azeez; RW60 Adeyemi Najeem.
RW28 Bamidele Adeniyi of Ward 3 Unit 3 Odo Otin
13.2 The testimony of RW28 is that he is a member of Peoples
Democratic Party in Ward 3 while his polling unit is Unit 3 (St.
96
Mary Primary School Igbaye). That he went to cast his vote at his
polling unit at aroun d 11am on 14th April 2007. That he did not
lead anybody to the polling unit neither did he carry any weapon
on the day of election. He stated further that he left the polling
unit immediately after casting his vote to his house at statio n
road Igbaye. That he was inside his house throughout the day
watching television and listening to radio.
13.3 Under cross examination, RW28 claimed that he voted at unit 3
ward 3 (St Mary Primary School), that the voting process from
voting was not quite 2 minutes, not mo re. He stated further that
he left for his house immediately. Contrary to the claim of the
witness that he voted and was accredited, the name of the witness
was not ticked in Item 429 of Exhibit 377C for Unit 3 Ward 3.
Your Lordship is urged to examine Ite m 429 of Exhibit 377C in
finding that the witness told a lie when he claimed under cross -
examination that he saw his named ticked on the voters register.
The witness even denied Exhibit 357C, the certified true copy of
voters register.Even though the witne ss claimed that his house
was so close to the unit that he would have heard if there was
disruption, the witness stated that he heard the result of his
polling unit in the night and that he did not know when or where
it was collated because he went home. W hen confronted that
Exhibit 217 EC8A for Odo Otin Local Government, for his my
Unit was totally blank he said it cannot be blank because there
were so many votes. But at the same time the witness admitted
that he was not at the Polling Unit when for the re cording and
counting of the votes. He also admitted that he did not know
when the election ended even if at 3.00p.m.
RW33 Soji Ibikunle of Ile Olowa, Oyan, Odo Otin
13.4 The testimony of RW33 is that he is a member of PDP in Oyan,
Odo Otin Local Governmen t, Osun State. That on the 14th of
April, 2007, he went out to vote at his polling centre at Owode
Market and returned home immediately. He stated further that he
97
did not go anywhere at all after voting neither did he carry any
gun, cutlass nor charms, aci d or any weapon at all. That he did
not have any thug and neither did he go about with thugs. He
went further to state that voting went on peacefully at his polling
centre.
13.5 Under cross examination, RW33 admitted that he is a member of
PDP and a leade r in the Ward, he claimed he voted. He
remembered that he got to the unit at 10 am but could not
remember when he left the unit. The witness not being the first
person to get to the unit and neither was he an agent of any party
nor an accredited observer h e said categorically that INEC
brought enough materials to the polling unit. Though he stated
under cross-examination by INEC that election were peacefully
conducted, contrary to that assertion he admitted not being in a
position to know whether election w as concluded and votes
counted as he was not at the unit since he left after he
purportedly casted his vote.
13.6 Contrary to RW33‟s assertion that he voted Exhibit 375B, the
voters register for his unit discloses that he did not vote has his
name was neither accredited nor ticked to have voted. Clearly,
the testimony of the witness is a tissue of lies. Contrary to his
deposition in paragraph 5 the witness having admitted under
cross-examination by Counsel to the Petitioners he is not in a
position to state what happened after he left the polling unit as
he claimed in his paragraph 5. He even admitted that he would be
surprised that Exhibit 217(1 – 73) the certified true copies of
result for Odo Otin were not clear, ironically Exhibit R18
tendered by the Respondent does not even contained an EC8A for
his unit.
RW35 Zaccheus Adeniran of Apa -Oka Compound, Oyan
13.7 The testimony of RW35 is that he voted during the last
Governorship and House of Assembly Elections held on the 14th
April, 2007 at his unit at O nile's Compound and that he went to
98
my polling unit to vote alone without carrying any arms and left
the polling unit immediately after casting his vote. That he was
in-door for the remaining part of the period of election on that
day.
13.8 Under cross ex amination, RW35 who admitted that he is a
member and a leader of the PDP claimed to have voted in
paragraph 3 of his deposition and went further to say that he left
for his house and stayed indoor throughout the remaining part of
the day in paragraph 4 of his witness statement. The witness who
never said he is an agent or the first person to vote at the unit it
cannot be believed when he said there were sufficient electoral
materials under cross examination by counsel to the 4 t h – 1365 t h
respondent. The wit ness however contradicted himself under
cross examination by the Petitioners counsel when he admitted
that he was not there when INEC brought election materials in
the Unit and do not know the number of ballot papers brought to
his Unit on that day, he adm itted not knowing the number of
people registered to vote and that he is not in a position to know
as he is not INEC and do not have personal knowledge of
materials brought to the Polling Unit on that date.
13.9 RW35 further displayed his unwillingness t o tell the truth when
having admitted under cross examination that he was in his unit
between 10.00 am and 11.00 am and since he did not go out to
other Units he would not know whether election was free and fair
in other Units he went further to say that h e was not in his unit
throughout the election period and was only there for less than
1½ hours the calculation of which in itself is wrong and for those
reasons if there was any problem he would not know. He went
further to state that he did not witness a ny counting of election at
any Unit, since he was not there personally and would not know
if election was concluded, results collated, counted and
announced in his Unit unless somebody reported to him because
he left at 11.00 am. The witness went further t o insist that
99
election was free. The witness unbelievable testimony was further
exposed by the content of Exhibit 385(C) the voters register for
ward 14 unit 4 where he claimed to have voted as his name was
neither accredited nor ticked as voted. His testi mony remains
unbelievable as the result sheet for his unit was not provided by
INEC as majority of the EC8A certified by INEC were blank even
the R18 tendered by the respondent could not help the witness.
RW36: Samson Oduoye of ward 08 Odo Otin
13.10 The testimony of RW36 is that he went to the polling unit alone
without carrying any weapon whatsoever and t hat casted his vote
at around 10 am at Unit 1 (Oja Oba Polling Unit 01) Okua in the
presence of all party agents and the security agent. That he has
never carried gun in his life. That immediately after casting his
vote, he went straight to his house to rest and did not go out
again throughout the day as there was restriction of movement.
13.11 Under cross examination, RW36 while being cross examined by
counsel to the 4 t h – 1365 t h respondent stated that he confirmed
that allegation of violence in his Unit was false. We submit that
in the face of paragraphs 4 and 5 of his deposition on oath RW36
cannot be rightly believed? And it is our humble submission th at
he is obviously not a witness of truth as his testimony under
cross examination by the Petit ioners counsel revealed. Under
cross examination he started out by being evasive about the time
he spent casting his purported votes, he also denied knowing the
time he got back home but was certain that he did not go back to
the polling unit. Furthermore and in confirming that he was not
at the unit he stated that he heard report from unnamed persons
that voting was concluded in his unit and that he also heard th at
collation of result was done at the collation centre. Ironically for
someone who admitted that he had a stake in the election all
these his hearsays were heard late in the night.
13.12 RW36 confirmed that he has been a politician since 2001 after his
retirement was effected by the then Governor Bisi Akande who
100
incidentally is the chairman of the Action Congress, the witness
stated that he was bitter about his retirement and acknowledges
the fact that he is a special adviser to the Local Government
Chairman thus affirming his interest in ensuring his party win his
ward. With such an ambition he still maintained that he was not
bothered knowing the result until he was informed and in
another breadth he said he knew from the dancing crowd late in
the night. When confronted with the fact that result for majority
of the unit amongst which was his unit that is Exhibit 217
Certified True Copy of result sheet for Odo Otin were bla nk he
admits he would be surprised and to even worsen his case Exhibit
R18 tendered by the respondent also does not help his claims.
When asked about his relation with David Adegboyega and
Bamidele Adeniyi a.k.a Zangaruwa, he admitted knowing the
former but was quick t o say he knew the former after election and
denied knowing Segun Ba balola and A.S Adetunji all of whom
together they disrupted election.
RW37 Job Atoyebi of Oluoko‟s Compound, Oyan
13.13 RW37: Job Atoyebi of Oluoko‟s Compound, Oyan in Odo Otin
Local Government. The testimony of RW37 is that he was
appointed the party agent fo r the PDP in ward 14, Unit 9 located
at Obitikun-Oluoko in the election of gubernatorial and House of
Assembly election held on the 14 t h day of April, 2007 while one
Samuel Adedeji stood in as party agent for the AC on the said
day. He further said electio n in the Unit started at around 8.30
am and that election in the unit went on smoothly throughout
without any disruption whatsoever. He stated that election was
concluded at 3.00 pm and counting of votes started immediately
in the presence of the party age nts and security agents after
which, the result of the election was announced openly. He later
claimed to have signed the result sheet while Samuel Adedeji the
AC agent refused to sign the Form EC8A but instead left in anger
for his house which was in fron t of the polling unit. He finally
101
stated that he, the INEC Officers and the security agents left for
the collation centre at St. Peter‟s African Primary School, Oyan.
13.14 Under cross examination, RW37 an acclaimed PDP party agent
restated the same position while being cross examined by the
counsel for the 4 t h – 1365 t h respondent when he claimed that he
was the Party Agent for PDP on 14/4/2007 in his Unit and that
AC also had a Party Agent called Samuel Adedeji and that both of
them were on ground througho ut the election period. Contrary to
his assertion that he was on ground throughout the election,
under cross examination by the Petitioner‟s Counsel he said he
voted at Onile‟s compound an entirely different unit from where
he claimed to have acted as poll ing agent and when confronted
with his claim of being at the unit throughout he claimed to have
spent about five minutes voting. Ironically Exhibit 385(C) the
voters register for Onile‟s compound debunked his voting claim
as his name was neither accredited nor ticked as voted on the
register. Still under INEC Counsel‟s cross examination the
witness who was not at the unit throughout as claimed by him
still said Election went peacefully in his Polling Unit and after
the election votes were counted and decla red in presence of
himself and AC Agent. He claimed further that results were
announced openly and both of them were given Form EC8A to
sign. He claimed to have signed the form while AC agent
without any valid reason refused to sign the Form and he still
maintained that election was peaceful. One is left to wonder why
someone would just refuse to sign result sheet if indeed election
was truly peaceful.
RW38 Lekan Oyediran of ward 9 Odo Otin
13.14 The testimony of RW38 is that he went to the polling unit
(Asi/Asaba) to cast his vote at about 10.30am where he casted his
vote alone in the presence of all party agents and security agents.
He stated that he left the polling unit immediately after casting
his vote and went back to his house. He further stated th at he did
102
not carry any weapon to anywhere and neither did he go to the
polling unit with anything. He claimed to be a lay reader at St.
Andrews African Church, Asaba, Odo Otin Local Government,
Osun State.
13.15 Under cross examination, RW38 a PDP member and former House
of assembly member who decamped from AD, the platform upon
which he was elected claimed to have voted on the day of the
election. The witness set out to be one who is not willing to tell
the truth right from the face of his deposition. Fi rstly he decided
to exempt his trade or profession from his deposition, secondly
he also decided not to disclose the exact polling unit where he
voted, but under cross examination he stated that he voted at the
unit in front of St. Andrew Church, Asi Asaba , whereas there are
separate unit one called St. Andrew and the other Opposite
African Church, but a look at the register for both unit discloses
that he was not a registered voter in both units. Finally to
dissolve any iota of truth in his testimony there was no result
sheet provided by INEC for the unit he allegedly claimed to have
voted as Exhibit 217 and R18 tendered by the Petitioner and
Respondents respectively were mostly blank.
RW45 Femi Okunola of Unit 1, Ward 4

13.16 The testimony of RW45 is tha t he was the accredited party agent
for Peoples Democratic Party in Unit 1, ward 4 Odo Otin Local
Government during the Gubernatorial and House of Assembly
elections held on 14 t h of April, 2007. He stated that his duty was
to represent his party and monito r the voting in his ward to make
sure that there was no rigging. He claimed that election started
and it went well peacefully as there was no disruption of votes
and neither was there any fight, quarrel or trouble of any kind in
the unit. He stated that he knew Abdul Rasaq Oyelami (K.K) as
one of the party leaders in ward 4 but denied seeing him at his
103
polling unit on that day. He stated further that he did not see him
with any gun, machetes or with thugs or charms on that day. He
claimed that election went without any hitch in the unit and
votes were publicly counted and result announced before being
recorded into the result sheet whereupon all the party agents
including him signed.
13.17 Under cross examination, RW45 clearly from the beginning
discloses that the witness statement he adopted was made under
a false name. Aside this, the testimony of the witness is replete
with contradictions. By paragraph 3 of the witness statement, the
witness stated that his duty is to represent my party and monitor
the voting in his ward to make sure that there is no rigging but
under cross-examination the witness stated that his duty only
relates to unit monitoring election in unit 1 and not to monitor
election in the entire ward. Both in paragraph 2 of the witness
statement and under cross -examination the witness claimed that
he was only a polling agent. However, the name of the witness
appeared in Exhibit 216(3), Form EC8B, which is the result for
Ward 4, as collation agent for the PDP. In paragraph 7 of the
witness statement and under cross-examination, the witness
claimed that election went without any hitch and it was publicly
counted and announced before it was recorded into the result
sheet whereupon all the party agents including him signed.
13.18 In furtherance of his testimony, the witness stated in paragraph 5
of his deposition that he knew Abdul Rasaq Oyelami but under
cross-examination, he initially said he did not know Abdul Rasaq
Oyelami. Furthermore, even though the witness claimed to have
sign beneath the re sult form, when challenged as to the proper
place agent signs his answer was that he did not know whether
he signed at the bottom or on the right side.
RW49: Oyewunmi Musliyu of Unit 03, Ward 5 in Odo Otin Local
Government.
104
13.19 The testimony of RW49 is that he served as party agent of the
PDP at Unit 03, Ward 5 at St. Paul‟s Primary School, Ekosin, for
the Gubernatorial and House of Assembly Elections held on the
14 t h April, 2007. He stated that voting commenced around 8.00 am
and ended around 3.00 pm on that day without any form of
molestation, intimidation or harassment of any voter. He claimed
that there was no incident of electoral malpractices during the
voting period as the law -enforcement agents kept the law and
party agents were present to monitor the election. He further
claimed that votes were counted publicly and entered into the
INEC forms which all party agents signed after which copies
were given to them. He finally stated that he submitted the copy
of the result given to him to his party.
13.20 Under cross examination, RW49 c laimed to be PDP agent at St
Paul‟s primary School, Ekosin polling unit, he claimed further in
paragraph 4 and 5 that there was no electoral malpractices during
the voting period and that votes were counted and publicly
entered into the INEC Forms that is; EC8A. he went further to say
the forms were signed by party agents and copies given to them,
he stated in paragraph 6 of his deposition that he gave his own
copy to his party, but unfortunately all his testimonies remain a
mere skeleton without flesh, as among the result sheet certified
by INEC as used in the entire Odo Otin Local government, result
which were mostly blank and of the few clear ones there is none
to ascertain the veracity of his testimonies this much is ev idenced
in Exhibits 217(1 – 73) and R18 tendered by the Petitioners and
the Respondents respectively. The witness or his party could not
even avail the Court with the copy allegedly received by him and
forwarded to his party.
RW57: Tayo Oyedijo of Unit 06, Ward 12 in Odo Otin Local
Government.
13.21 The testimony of RW57 is that he was the PDP party agent for the
Gubernatorial and House of Assembly election conducted on the
105
14 t h day of April, 2007 at ward 12, Unit 6 located at Jawo‟s
Compound, Inisa. He st ated that he arrived at polling centre by
8.00 am on the Election Day where he met one Bode Abioye who
later informed him that he is the party agent for the AC as well as
some electorates. He stated further that voting commenced at
about 8.30 am under a pe aceful atmosphere and ended at 3.00 pm.
He claimed that during the course of the voting exercise, there
was no disruption of any sort and that votes were counted
immediately after conclusion of election by 3.00 pm. He claimed
that result of the election wa s announced publicly and Form
EC8A was provided to be signed which he did sign but the AC
agent failed to sign and left the polling centre in anger. He finally
claimed to have followed the INEC officials and the security
agent to the collation centre locat ed at Methodist Primary School,
Inisa.
13.22 Under cross examination, this witness claimed to be a party agent
for PDP. He claimed election was peaceful and further claim that
one Bode Abioye stood in for AC and that Bode refuse to sign
result sheet at the end of the election without any reason. Under
cross examination he agreed to stand by the integrity of what he
signed but when his attention was however drawn to the
discrepancy on EC8A i.e R18(7) and voters register i.e. 373(E) and
he then attempted to d eny the result saying that it is INEC that
should explain the discrepancy, unfortunately INEC never came
to clear same. We submit that there is discrepancy between the
signature on the deposition of the witness as contained in his
deposition, Exhibit R18 a nd Exhibit 468.
RW59: Abiodun Abiona Azeez of Unit 07, Ward 11 in Odo Otin Local
Government.
13.23 RW59: Abiodun Abiona Azeez of Unit 07, Ward 11 in Odo Otin
Local Government. The testimony of RW59 is that he was the PDP
party agent for Ward 11, Unit 007 l ocated at St. Peter Anglican
Church premises Inisa at the Gubernatorial and House of
106
Assembly Election held on the 14th April, 2007. He stated that he
was at the polling unit until one party agent, namely Odebunmi
Tunji for Action Congress and Awoniyi Gome z for Alliance for
Democracy (AD). He claimed that election process at the polling
unit commenced at 8.30 am and voters strolled into the polling
unit to cast their votes without molestation or harassment,
intimidation from any quarters and that there was no disruption
of election in any manner nor was there any disturbance. He
stated that it is a blatant lie that either Alhaji Rasheed Idera who
is his relation and Segun Agbadu, a motorcyclist were matcheted
on Election Day as these people are well known to him and the
following day after election he knew they were hale and healthy
without any physical wound. He claimed that voting was
regularly conducted in a peaceful atmosphere while votes were
counted at his polling unit at 3.00 pm. He claimed that he d uly
signed Form EC8A as PDP party agent while Awoniyi Gomez AD
party Agent equally signed but the Action Congress, Odebunmi
Tunji refused to sign on the ground that the result was not in his
party form. He further claimed that it is a known fact that Segun
Agbadu is an ANPP Ward Party Chairman and he was neither
harmed nor molested in any manner on the Election Day. He
finally claimed that the result of the election was made and
announced publicly at the polling unit which equally served as
the Ward Collation centre.
13.24 Under cross examination, Claimed that AC & AD had agent in the
unit namely Odekunmi Tunji & Awoniyi Gomez respectively in
his paragraph. Under cross examination by INEC he reiterates the
authenticity of his paragraph 2 and contrary to thi s R18 (65)
Awoniyi Gomez did not sign for AD.
RW60: Adeyemi Najeem of Unit 01, Ward 6 in Odo Otin Local
Government.
13.25 The testimony of RW60 is that he was the PDP Party Agent for
the Gubernatorial and House of Assembly elections held on the
107
14th day of April, 2007 in Ward 6, Unit 01 located at St Gabriel
Primary School, Oore in Odo Otin Local Government. He stated
that he arrived at the polling unit around 8.50 am on that day and
met the security personnel on ground. He stated that one Musiliu
Afolabi introduced join him at the unit and claim to be the AC
party agent. He stated that voting process commenced at about
9.30 am after all processes had been put in place. He claimed that
election went on smoothly from the beginning to the end without
intimidation or harassment at all and he neither saw Fatai
Adeboye nor Sarafa Oyewole in his Unit on that day. He further
claimed that the voting exercise was concluded at 3.00 pm, and
the counting of votes was done immediately after which the
Presiding Officer an nounced the election result openly. He
further claimed that the result was recorded in Form EC8A which
was signed by the AC party agent and himself. He finally stated
that he followed the INEC officials and the security agent to the
collating centre.
13.26 Under cross examination, Claimed to be a party Agent but R18
(35) the relevant EC8A for the unit discloses that another person
signed the form. He also claimed to have signed when cross
examined by INEC counsel. R18 (35) finding discredit his entire
witness statement.
Boripe Local Government

Petitioners Evidence in Respect of Boripe Local Government
14.1 In respect of Boripe Local Government, the Petitioners
witnesses were Olorede Fatai Aderemi (PW9), Timothy Segun
Dokun (PW10), Adebiyi Babtunde (PW11), Idowu Ismaila
(PW12), Sanusi Wasiu (PW58), Olatunji Adesoye (PW62),
Oladosu Tajudeen (PW63), Oyewole Lukman (PW65) and Lateef
Akinwale (PW74) and their testimonies are as follows:
14.2 PW9 is Olorede Fatai Aderemi who gave testimony for Ward 1,
and his testimony is that on the day of Election thugs suspected
to be PDP thugs invaded the 7 polling units in ward 1 Iragbiji
108
Town at different times, that these thugs shot into the crowd of
people that queued up to vote thereby causing pandemonium and
in the ensuing pandemonium they used the opportunity to snatch
ballot boxes and carted same a way. That these thugs took the
ballot boxes to Senator Kola Ogunwale‟s house. That these thugs
later went round the ward and wre ak havoc on the people and as
a result of these votes were neither counted nor result announced
at any of the polling units.
14.3 Under cross examination, PW9 stated that there was no
accreditation before voting in his ward due to the absence of a
voters register. He stated that the INEC office was bur nt prior to
the elections, and names of voters were merely written on pieces
of paper which aided multiple voting. He stated that he voted in
the morning and only a few people voted after him before the
elections were disrupted by PDP thugs. He pointed to paragraph
6 of his written statement on oath where he mentions Senator
Ogunwale a known PDP stalwart as a person who disrupted the
election aided by thugs. He stated that though he did not make
any report to the police, his party agents did. He concluded b y
stating that he did not have to make a report to the police as they
were present and witnessed all the acts of violence. He was
contradicted.
14.4 The respondents‟ comments in their written addr esses on the
evidence of this witness is they wonder how come he was not
wounded by any of the gunshots that were fired during the
disruptions in the ward!!!
PW10
14.5 PW10 is Timothy Segun Dokun who gave testimony for WARD 8,
and his testimony is that on the day of Election one Gbenga
Abioye, the younger brother of Abimbola Oyedele the PDP Local
Government Chairmanship Aspirant in Boripe Local Government
led thugs who invaded the polling Units and unleashed violence
109
in all the polling units in the Ward. T he agents of the 3 r d
Petitioner were attacked at the polling unit by these thugs. Those
violent activities of these thugs scared away all the electorates
and polling agents at the polling units. That at Oke Baale polling
unit, He was attacked by these thug s who were armed with guns,
sword, clubs and other dangerous weapons and were at the point
of shooting him when He was rescued by Chief E. O. Oyaniran,
Baale of Ada and Chief M. O. Ojedele, Jagun of Ada. That voting
was completely disrupted in all the poll ing units and as a result
there was no counting of votes and no result was announced at
any of the polling units in the ward.
14.6 Under cross examination, PW10 stated that he is a registered
member of AC, and though he has not seen the register of
members for the PDP, he knows their members as they are from
the same community. He stated that he witnessed all that
transpired in his unit, and made a report detailing it. He
concluded by stating that there was no voters register in his
ward. He was unshaken du ring cross examination, and his
14.7 The respondents in their written addresses have said of this
witness that his evidence is a narration of what his party agents
told him. This is not true as the witness has disclosed in h is
evidence how he moved around the various units in his ward on
the polling day and saw all that transpired and that he was even
attacked by the thugs.
PW11
14.8 PW11 is Adebiyi Babatunde who gave testimony for Ward 7, and
his testimony is that on the day of Election that barely thirty
minutes after voting started in the ward, thugs armed with all
sorts of weapons invaded all units in the ward except unit 1. That
in all the units invaded, these thugs snatched ballot boxes and
papers, engaged in multiple voting and stuffing of ballot boxes
110
with the illegal votes. That voting was completely disrupted in
all the polling units except unit 1.
14.9 Under cross examination, the witness restated his assigned duty
as a Ward supervisor. He went further to state th at he made a
report which was submitted to his party chairman. The issue the
respondent tried to make out of the fact that a ward is divided
into unit cannot hold because the witness unequivocally stated
that his duty was to supervise the ward and doing le ss will
amount to incompetence on his part in any event the ward in
question as stated by the witness is not a large one. The witness
was unshaken under cross examination when he maintained that
his report contained what he actually saw. We submit that the
testimony of the witness cannot be impeached as he took a
holistic approach in his testimony when he admitted that election
was peaceful in one unit. The witness stated further that even at
the unit where election was peaceful, result were not collated,
counted nor announced at the polling unit making it impossible
for the agents to sign the result form.
14.20 PW12 is Idowu Ismaila who gave testimony for Ward 6, and his
testimony is that on the day of Election in the ward, voting went
on peacefully in all units except RCM 1 where ballot box was
snatched and carted away and at RCM 1 unit votes were not
counted and results were not announced.
14.21 Under cross examination, PW12 stated that there was no voters
register and no accreditation in his ward. He ment ioned that he
went collation centre but there were no INEC official present. He
further stated that he was aware that results in his ward were
cancelled by INEC. The most damaging testimony elicited from
him under cross examination was that the police assi sted PDP
thugs in snatching ballot boxes. He was unshaken during cross
examination, and his evidence was not contradicted. In spite of
the obvious clarity of the evidence of this witness, the
respondents still contend in their written address that the
111
evidence of this witness is evasive without even stating how this
is so.
14.22 PW 58 is Sanusi Wasiu gave testimony for WARD 9, and his
testimony is that on the eve of the Election Day at about 9 p.m.,
PDP thugs led by Bisi (a.k.a Oju Ejo) serially attacked t he houses
of AC members in the town, shot into their houses
indiscriminately and beat the unlucky ones they were able to
catch. That many AC members and loyalist were therefore scared
out of town a day to the election. That on the day of the
purported election, all the units in the ward had been taken over
by thugs who were the only ones who thumb printed the ballot
papers and stuffed the boxes with them. That prominent among
these thugs were Bisi Oju Ejo, Alhaji Emaagbadun and Sina
Babadiya. That AC agent was not allowed to be present at any of
the polling units. That as a result of these there was no counting
of votes and announcement of results in any of the polling station
in the ward.
14.23 Under cross examination, PW58 stated that his party the AC
maintained polling agents in all 6 polling units in his ward, but
these agents were unable to carry out their mandated functions
because of disruptions occasioned by PDP thugs. He further
stated that he was prevented from voting by PDP thugs even
though he was registered to vote at maternity centre. He stated
that PDP thugs chased away all the voters with guns and other
dangerous weapons. He maintained that he did not vote despite
what was contained in his previous testimony. The respondents
wondered in their written addresses how this witness was able to
know that those thumb printing the ballot papers were PDP
members since he was not allowed to move close to come near the
polling units. This surprise of the respondents is not warranted
as the witness in parag raph 10 of his witness statement on oath
explained that he gained a personal knowledge of these events
when he visited the polling units.
112
14.24 PW62 is Olatunji Adesoye who gave testimony for Ward 2, and
his testimony is that on the day of Election is tha t at Unit 1, thugs
came and invaded the polling unit, caused commotion and
snatched away the ballot box and polling papers. That everybody
including INEC Presiding Officers and polling agents of the
various parties had to run for dear life in the ensuing m elee. That
at Unit 2, thugs led by Kayode Idowu came in a civilian Coaster
bus belonging to Senator Ogunwale with the Senator‟s name
boldly inscribed on the bus invaded the polling unit, that these
thugs shot into the air, thereby caused great commotion a nd in
the middle of the commotion snatched away the ballot box and
polling papers. That the disruption operation in the Ward was
caused by the Kayode Idowu (a PDP House of Representatives
candidate) led thugs. That th is same man led his thugs to all the
other units in the Ward and made voting impossible after carting
away all polling materials. That He was also at the ward collation
centre and the Local Government Collation Centre where no
INEC official was present throughout the day whereas results of
elections were later announced on radio by INEC.
14.25 Under cross examination, PW62 stated that he was the 3 r d person
to vote on the day of the elections before elections were
disrupted. He further stated that PDP thugs arrived at about 12
noon, and carted away ballot papers and ballot boxes. He
maintained that they were led by Senator Bola Ogunwale and
Kayode Idowu. He was emphatic when he stated that he saw
Senator Ogunwale with a gun. He stated that there was no
counting of votes, he was at the collation c entre at 3:00 pm and
remained there till 6:30 pm yet no INEC officials or policemen
came. He denied the imputation that he read his agents report
before writing his report and maintained everything contained in
his report was witnessed by him. He was unsha ken during cross
PW63
113
14.26 PW63 is Oladosu Tajudeen who gave testimony for Ward 10, and
his testimony is that on the eve of the election 9 p.m., PDP thugs
led by Sunday (a.k.a Ejang), Amos serially attac ked the houses of
AC members in the town, shot into their houses indiscriminately
and beat the unlucky ones they were able to catch. That many AC
member and loyalists were therefore scared out of town a day to
the election. That on the day of the purported election, INEC
officials arrived at the polling stations with these thugs at about
9 a.m. That these thugs, were fully armed with guns, machetes,
clubs and other dangerous weapons that these thugs announced
to all present that the 3 r d Petitioner‟s polling agents and members
should leave all the polling units if they wanted to stay alive.
That all the polling units in the ward were taken over by thugs
who were the only ones who thumb printed the ballot papers and
stuffed the ballot boxes with them. That AC agent was not
allowed to be present at any of the polling units.
14.27 Under cross examination, PW63 stated that everything contained
in his deposition was what he witnessed, he stated that though he
saw INEC officials on the day of the election, they were in the
company of PDP thugs who shot into the air and disrupted the
elections, when confronted with his previous testimony that said
INEC officials did not turn up on the election day, PW63 insisted
they turned up, but elections were disrupted by PDP thug s. His
cross examination was concluded when he stated the policemen
were present, and witnessed all the disruption but did not act.
14.28 It is submitted that the respondents cannot be right when they
insinuated in written addresses that disruption of elec tion does
not mean that the election did not hold. It is our contention that
this is mere nitpicking as the evidence of the witness is
essentially that while the potential voters turned out with the
intention of casting their ballots, the process was disru pted by
the individuals who have been named by the witnesses and other
thugs.
114
PW65
14.29 PW65 is Oyewole Lukman who gave testimony for Ward 3, and
his testimony is that on the day of Election at polling unit 1, He
was personally attacked, shot at and seri ously injured when
thugs led by Kayode Idowu invaded the polling unit and carted
away the ballot box and ballot papers. That these thugs invaded
all the other polling units in the ward, repeating their violent
acts, snatching ballot boxes and ballot cartin g them away. That as
a result votes were not counted and results were not announced
at any of the polling units in the ward. That he later heard a
purported result for his ward announced on the radio.
14.30 Under cross examination, PW65 stated that there w as no voting in
his ward on the Election Day. He stated that elections were
disrupted by PDP thugs led by Kayode Idowu. He further stated
that INEC was unable to declare results in his ward because of
these disruptions. He stated that he was shot by PDP th ugs and
had to be taken to the hospital. He was unshaken during cross
examination, and his evidence was not contradicted. There is no
negation of this witness‟s testimony as alleged by the
respondents in their written addresses as the witness is
consistent in his testimony that no results were announced in the
polling units in the ward but that the results were announced on
the radio purportedly in respect of the ward.
PW74
14.31 PW74 is Lateef Akinwale who gave testimony for Ward 4, and his
testimony is th at on the day of Election the mayhem in the
neighbouring ward 2 with the several gunshots imposed fear in
the electorates in ward 4 thereby causing them to take to their
heels. That at about 12 noon, armed thugs invaded the ward
moving from one polling uni t to another at different times and
carted away the voting materials. That he witnesses the act of
these thugs who snatched the ballot boxes in each polling units in
the ward. That votes were not counted and results were not
115
announced at any of the polling units in the ward. That he went
to the collation centre but there was no INEC official and no
results were collated at the collation centre.
14.32 Under cross examination, PW74 stated that thugs led by Kayode
Idowu disrupted the elections. He further stat ed that though he
does not know if the results in his ward were cancelled, but
knows Oyinlola was declared the winner. His cross examination
was brief, no questions were asked to impeach his credibility, nor
were any averments in his witness statement on o ath open to
scrutiny. He was unshaken during cross examination, and his
evidence was not contradicted. The comments of the respondents
that the evidence this witness is useless because he could not say
whether the results for the entire ward was cancelle d or not
render the evidence of the witness useless is simply unwarranted
as the witness is not obliged to say what he did not know.
Evidence of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents in respect of Boripe Local

Government
15.1 In Boripe Local Government: The 1 s t to 3 r d Respondent called 3
(three) witneses from Boripe Government, to wit: RW39, Abioye
Gbenga; RW43 , Sunday Babadiya and RW50 Lawal Ayiloye
RW39 Abioye Gbenga
15.2 The testimony of RW39 is that he is the youth leader of P.D.P in
ward 8, Ada, Boripe Local G overnment and that he voted at L.A.
Primary School and thereafter went home. He stated that he did
not go with any Abimbola Oyedele or anybody at all as they are
not from the same unit or ward. He claimed that voting went on
smoothly without any violence o r trouble at his polling centre.
15.3 Under cross examination, RW39 by virtue of paragraph 2 of his
statement on oath states that he is a PDP Youth Leader in his
ward. He stated in paragraph 5 of his deposition that voting went
smoothly without any violen ce or trouble at his polling centre
and also reiterate same assertion under cross examinations by
116
both counsel for the 4 t h – 1365 t h and 1366 t h – 1367 t h respectively.
The witness, we humbly submitted cannot rightly make those
assertions in the face of para graph 3 of his deposition where he
claimed thus “….That I voted at my Polling Centre L. A. Primary
School and thereafter went home”. The witness further
demonstrates that he is not worthy of belief when in the face of
obvious fact he claimed to have voted with his name accredited
and ticked on a voters register, we submit that this witness being
a member of the local government ought to be aware as it is a
general information that the voters register for most part of the
local government including that of h is own was burnt and even
INEC who conducted the election could not make available
register for his unit. To further compound the woes of this
witness no form EC8A was provided for his unit, an obvious
admission that no election took place in that unit. Th e witness
admitted knowing Abimbola Oyedele with whom he went about
disrupting election but denied seeing him. This witness testimony
became more incredible when in the face of all the above he insist
election was peaceful.
RW43 Sunday Babadiya
15.4 The testimony of RW43 is that he is a civil servant at Osun State
Polytechnic, Iree. He stated that he casted his vote at ward 9 unit
1, Iree at around 9.30am in the presence of the presiding officer,
party agents and security agent alone without carrying any
weapon or in the company of anything. He stated that after
casting his vote he immediately left for his house where he was
throughout the day.
15.5 Under cross examination, RW43 claimed that he voted at Oke
Maye, unit 1. He insisted that Oke Maye where he v oted was unit
1 but Exhbit 211(1) showed that Oke Maye is unit 2 not unit 1 and
he said he will not be surprised that Oke Maye is listed as unit 2.
Even though he claimed he voted, he said he did not know the
exact time he voted and that he cannot remember what time it
117
took him from accreditation to voting. He claimed that he left
immediately after voting. Even though he admitted that he voted
before 10 a.m., he said he cannot remember that he left around 10
a.m. The witness said he would be surprised tha t voters register
for Boripe had been burnt before election. Incredibly, the witness
claimed that he did not know that 14, 497 is greater than 12, 631
and also that he did not know which one is greater between N12,
000 and N14,000. The witness was confron ted with Exhibit 92
which showed that the total number of registered voters for
Boripe is 12, 631 and on the same Exhibits showed that the vote
for PDP alone is 14, 497. The witness admitted that he did not
know that there was no Form EC8A for Ward 9 Borip e in that
election and that he did not know that the whole election in
Boripe was mared by violence and was not concluded. It should
be noted that the witness did not under cross -examination denied
the absence of EC8A in ward 9 and disruption of election i n
Boripe Local Government.
RW50 Lawal Ayiloye
15.6 The testimony of RW50 is that he was the party agent of the PDP
at Oke-Asa polling Unit at Ward 9, Iree, Boripe Local
Government. He stated that throughout the voting period from
8.00 am to around 3.00 pm he was at the polling unit monitoring
the election. He stated at the conclusion of voting he went to the
collation centre at Baptist High School Iree from where he left for
his house after the collation of result at around 6.00 pm. He
claimed that througho ut the period of the election and thereafter
he never carried any arms or dangerous weapons.
15.7 Under cross examination, RW50 claimed to have been the PDP
party agent at Oke – Asa Polling unit at ward 9, ire in Boripe
Local Government. Contrary to the al legation he claimed to have
stayed throughout the election period in the unit where he acte d
as polling agent. Under cross examination by counsel to the
1366 t h – 1367 t h respondent he claimed to have gone back home
118
upon collection of his own copy of the res ult after election, we
submit that this is a clear contradiction of paragraph 6 of his
deposition on oath where he claimed to have gone to the collation
centre and left for his home at around 6.00 pm. Ironically under
the petitioners counsel‟s cross examin ation it was around the
same 6.00 pm that he got to the collation centre and was there till
the ward collation was almost through. The witness claimed to
have signed below the Form EC8A and later when confronted on
the areas where agents are expected to si gn he simply said all he
knows is that he signed. The veracity of his claims as to the
conduct of the election was punctured when he was confronted
with the fact that most of the units in Boripe had no EC8A, this
he denied but when asked for his own copy, he claimed to have
taken it to their party‟s collation agent at the collation centre and
neither his party nor INEC produced the same. The witness who
also claimed to have voted was confronted with the voters
register for the unit and his name was not even on the register for
the unit as shown in Exhibit 398(B).
Atakunmosa West Local Government

Evidence of the Petitioners in respect of Atakunmosa West Local
Government
16.1 In respect of Atakumosa West Local Government, the
Petitioners witnesses were Gbenga Popoola (PW13), Adebiyi
Adelowo (PW14), Olowookere Adesoji (PW15), Omole
Adebamigbe (PW16), Bamidele Olanrewaju (PW46), Foluke
Oladosu (PW60), Titus Osobu (PW61) and Mudashiru Bello
(PW66) and their testimonies are as follows:
PW13
16.2 PW13 is Gbenga Popoola who gave testimony for Ward 7, and his
testimony is that on the day of Election He particularly
monitored the voting in Oke Osin polling unit. That even though
voting started on a peaceful note in the unit, Mr Dosu Babatunde
119
former chairman of the loc al government and Mr Sanya
adetimilehin and Mr Akinwunmi Omotayo led thugs armed with
guns and machetes to stuff ballots paper already thumb printed
by non voters at the ward in favour of PDP into the ballot box in
Oke Osin polling unit in the ward. That h e was particularly
attacked by these thugs who beat him up and tore his clothes. He
said that results declared for the election at Oke Osin do not
reflect the actual voting by the electorate in the unit.
16.4 Under cross examination, PW13 stated that as th e AC party ward
supervisor, his duty was to move within the different polling
units in his ward to supervise his party agents. He stated that it
was not within the sphere of his duties to canvass votes on the
Election Day. He further stated that the rule r estricting
movement does not preclude a party leader from moving within
his ward. He further stated that he was no accredited by INEC,
but by his party to oversee the conduct of elections in his ward.
When told to endorse his signature on a piece of paper by
respondents counsel, it was contended that the signatures were
different from those contained in his statement on oath; he
however insisted the signatures were similar. He confirmed
paragraph 16 of his witness deposition that he was attacked and
beaten by PDP thugs. He maintained under cross examination
that he could identify 3 members of the PDP who led thugs to the
voting centre. His cross examination was concluded when he
stated that he did not report the incidents he narrated to the
police because th ere were policemen who witnessed all that
transpired. He was unshaken during cross examination, and his
16.6 The observation of the respondents in their written addresses that
the witness was not supposed to move round in hi s polling units
on the polling date assuming this to be true would not render the
evidence he gathered in the course of his movement inadmissible
as the law is clear that even evidence may be stolen. The further
120
observation of the respondents in their writ ten address about this
witness that since he admitted not being an agent in the unit, he
could not give evidence of the happenings in the unit ignores the
fact that this witness had said that he moved about the units in
the ward and his evidence is an ac count of what he saw.
16.7 The final observation of the r espondents about the witness by
which they asserted that since the witness in spite his having
been beaten by thugs did not visit an hospital for treatment. This
submission is strange as there is no rule by which a person who
had suffered the kind of fate which was suffered by PW13 to visit
an hospital before their testimonies becomes credible.
PW14
16.8 PW14 is Adebiyi Adelowo who gave testimony for Ward 9, and
his testimony is that on the day of the Election voting started on
a peaceful note before Sanmi Asaolu, Dare Asaolu, Akanmu (PDP
ward youth Leader), Muyideen Jimoh, Mike Alu and Ajayi led
thugs armed with machetes and axes to invade the Polling units.
These thugs chased away all voters. That voting was totally
disrupted in all the 6 polling units in the ward. That as a result of
these votes were neither counted nor result announced at any of
the 6 polling units in ward 9.
16.9 Under cross examination, PW14 stated that he is a registered
voter, registered to vote at Osolo unit in Morocco ward. He stated
that he was prevented from voting on the Election Day by PDP
thugs. He maintained that despite the fact that there was
restriction of movement on the Election Day, he was permitted as
ward supervisor to move within the various units in his ward. He
explained that his party was not lawless in appointing him a
ward supervisor, and were not in breach of any INEC rules. He
was unshaken during cross examination, and his evidence was
not contradicted.
16.10 It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners that even if it is true
that the manner in which the witness had signed his name on the
121
witness statement on oath in this matter is different from the
manner in which he had signed his name on an earl ier document,
this will not be enough to destroy his evidence as there is no law
which obliges a man to have only one signature. The observation
of the respondents in their written addresses on this point is
therefore of no moment.
16.11 PW15 is Olowooke re Adesoji who gave testimony for Ward 3, and
his testimony is that on the day of Election voting started on a
peaceful note until one Mr. Ladipo, and other well known PDP
members led some thugs to invade the polling units in the ward.
These thugs chased a way agents of the 3rd Petitioner and voters
away from all the polling units. He also said that election were
totally disrupted and as a result votes were not counted and
results were not announced at any of the 6 Polling Units in Ward
3.
16.12 Under cross examination, PW15 stated that there were no
elections in his unit. He maintained that the elections were
disrupted by PDP thugs led by one Mr. Oladipo a member of the
House of Assembly. He stated hat though he registered to vote at
Oke-Omi unit, he prevent ed from doing so by PDP thugs, and had
to run home in fear of his life. He concluded by stating there was
no collation of results at his unit. He was unshaken during cross
16.13 The respondents in their written addresses have argued that since
this witness had allegedly said that he ran away when mayhem
ensued anything he says about non -counting of votes amounts
hearsay. This with respect to t he counsel to the respondents
amount to a distortion of the evi dence of this witness as he had
indicated clearly in paragraph 5 of his witness statement on oath
that the electoral process was going on smoothly before it was
disrupted.
PW16
122
16.14 PW16 is Omole Adebamigbe who gave testimony for Ward 8, his
testimony is that shortly after the voting commenced on the day
of the Election one Bayo Famuyiwa, Ajibola Dada, Shayo David
all PDP Stalwarts in the Ward led thugs to invade polling units in
the ward. These thugs were armed with machetes and guns. These
thugs attacked innocent voters and AC, party Agents in Ita Osan,
Inasin, Risawe and Isa Obi polling station. That there was no
resistance from any of them as the thugs were wielding deadly
weapons. He said that the unarmed man in police uniform, which
they all relied on for protection at Inasi polling units, took to his
heels when these thugs made a show of their pump action by
shooting indiscriminately. That this disruption led to the fleeing
of voters, AC party agents and other political party agents from
the voting centres and the thugs seized and fled with ballot boxes
and papers. That election was totally disrupted in all the 4
polling station in the ward and as a result votes were neither
counted nor result announced at any of the 4 polling station in
the ward.
16.15 Under cross examination, PW16 stated that he is a lawyer whose
practice is primarily in Lagos, and is a member of the Ikeja
Branch of the Nigerian Bar Association. He stated that the INEC
rules did not restrain a ward supervisor from moving through t he
various units within his ward to observe the election process. He
further stated that though he was not accredited by INEC, INEC
expected the various political parties to appoint supervisors to
monitor the conduct of elections. He confirmed paragraph 4 of his
deposition that PDP thugs came to his polling unit shooting into
the air and generally disrupting the elections. He stated that he
along with other AC agents were attacked by these thugs. He
further stated that he was unable to make a report to the police as
the policeman who was on duty where the attack took place
jumped out of the window and ran away in fear of his life. He
stated that he was prevented fr om voting by the PDP thugs, and
123
voting ended in his ward at about 10:00 am because of the
disruptions. He was unshaken during cross examination, and his
PW46
16.16 PW46 is Bamidele Olanrewaju who gave testimony for Ward 4,
and his testimony is that on the day of the Election voting started
on a peaceful note until t he 2nd Respondent, Erelu Olusola
Obada, Chief Joshua Ogunleye and one Elder Gbenga Abiola led
some thugs which included Ibitoye Ogunbekun, Sunday Fadugba
(a.k.a. Eniari), Olaoluwa Famurewa, Seyi Awoniyi (a.k.a Body),
Bola Owosho Dare ·Jegede and forcefully snatched the ballot
boxes in two polling units (Temidire Primary School and Open
Space Ibodi Grammar School) and replaced the authentic ballot
boxes with other ballot boxes already stuffed with ballot papers.
That in 4 polling units, (Igila Unit, Iyere Un it, Ilotin Unit and
Open Space Campus Area) the aforesaid persons forcefully
stuffed ballot papers into the ballot boxes in the said 4 units. That
the 3rd Petitioner's agents and some other voters were scared
away from all the polling units in the ward and the 3rd
Petitioner's were prevented from participating in counting of
votes, if any, in all the 6 polling units in the Ward. That there
was no counting of lawful votes in the polling units and results
were not announced at any of the polling units.
16.17 Under cross examination, PW46 stated that he voted on the day of
the elections at unit 2 open space grammar school Ibodi. He
stated that his party the AC, had polling agents in all 6 units in
his ward, but these polling agents were not allowed to observe
collation at the collation centre. The cross examination of PW46
was short; no evidence was elicited from him contradicting the
averments in his statement on oath. He was unshaken during
cross examination, and his evidence was not contradicted. The
124
argument s of the respondents in their written addresses that
since AC had agents in the polling units election must have taken
place can simply not be correct as this witness and the reports of
the agents indicated that there was no election.
PW60
16.18 PW60 is Foluke Oladosu who gave testimony for Ward 1, and her
testimony is that on the day of Election voting started on a
peaceful note but at about midday, some persons who were led
by one Ogunleye Joshua Oladipo, who is the Osun State House of
Assembly Candidat e on the Platform of the Peoples Democratic
Party, invaded the polling units in the ward. These people
disrupted voting by attacking polling agents of the Action
Congress and other voters. Those attacked were beaten and
machete and sustained wounds. That a mongst the wounded in the
said attack were Messrs Gbamila, Chief Fagbamiye (a.k.a.
Gbogandan) and Kehinde Ajiyo.
16.19 Under cross examination, PW60 stated that she was a hairdresser.
She further stated that she knows one Gbamila, Chief Fagbamiye
and Kehinde Ajio, that they are all members of the AC. When
asked if she knew Kunle Fagbile, she replied in the negative. She
was then confronted with Exhibit R10, her witness deposition
which showed that the content was interpreted to her by Kunle
Fagbile. She res ponded saying the witness deposition was made
over 2 years ago, and all she recollects is that it was interpreted
to her by a man. None of the averments in her witness deposition
was impeached during cross examination. He was unshaken
during cross examinat ion, and his evidence was not contradicted.
PW61
16.20 PW61 is Titus Osobu who gave testimony for Ward 5, and her
testimony is that on the day of Election voting was successfully
concluded in three polling units‟ viz. Epe, Igun and Abepe. That
in Ijana Methodist Primary School Unit, one Chief J. Sunday
125
Obadare (Chairman, State Universal Basic Education Board), Mr.
Kehinde Arowolo and Deacon Dele Amasa led thugs to invade the
unit. These thugs beat up, shot and wounded the 3rd Petitioner's
agent and other vo ters. That herself, Friday, Freeboy and Ropo
ani were attacked by these thugs when they made efforts to
prevent them from snatching the ballot box at Ijana Methodist
Unit 3. That votes in two units‟ viz. Odo Iju unit and Iyemogun
Unit were not counted at t he polling units but the ballot boxes
were taken to OSU for counting and at OSU agents of the 3rd
Petitioner were violently attacked and driven away from the
collation centre thus preventing them from witnessing the
counting, if any. That at the INEC offic e, these thugs further
attacked some of their members who were seriously wounded.
That three motorcycles belonging to 3rd Petitioner's members
were seized by Chief Ogunleye. The victims of the attack at the
INEC office are Rotimi Ibironke, Isiaka Olaniyan.
units in her ward, and the AC was declared winner in 2 polling
units. She stated that though Ropo Oni and Friday Freeboy are
not mentioned in the poling agent‟s reports, they led the thug s
that disrupted the elections. He was unshaken during cross
arguments of respondents in their written addresses that the
refusal of certain individuals who were attacked by thugs
namely, Patrick Lawr ence, Olaniran Isiaka, Julius Muri to testify
deprive the evidence of this witness of credibility. In the first
instance, it has to be said that the said individuals have refused
to testify as there is nothing on record to say that they were
called and they refused to testify. Much more, the law does not
require that before the type of facts in issue in this case can be
proved the individuals in question ought to have been called so
long as the petitioners deem themselves able to prove their case
without calling this people.
126
PW66
16.22 PW66 is Mudashiru Bello who gave testimony for Ward 10, and
his testimony is that shortly after voting commenced on Election
day, one Mr Omopariola and Richard Akinsehinde (a councillor)
led thugs who invaded Town Hall and O gogodoja units in the
ward. These thugs were armed with machetes and guns with
which they snatched ballot boxes in Town Hall and Ogogodoja
units. That when the same attempts were resisted in Agbabiaka
and N.U.D polling units the ballot boxes were burnt by the thugs.
The particulars of the vehicles used to transport the armed thugs
that disrupted the elections in wards 10 and 11 are: a Mazda with
registration No “AE 55 SSU” and an 18 -seater Bus with
Registration No “XB 993 FFE”. That election were totally
disrupted in all the 4 polling units and as a result votes were
neither counted nor result announced at any of the 4 polling units
in ward 10.
16.23 Under cross examination, PW66 stated under cross examination
that he was a counsellor representing the UNCP for ward 11
Atakumosa West Local Government Area. He was not cross
examined as to the content of his written statement on oath, nor
was his credibility impeached under cross examination. He was
contradicted. The evidence of this witness , contrary to the
contention of the respondents , in their written address has not
been discredited simply because he was not accredited on the
polling date as a supervisor in the ward. We say this because
there is no law which stipulates that for a witness of the events
on an election day to be credible, he must have been accredited
by INEC to perform the role which he performed by INEC.
Evidence of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents in respect of Atakumosa West

Local Government
127
17.1 In Atakumosa West Local Government: The 1 s t to 3 r d Respondent
called 10 (ten) witneses from Atakumosa West Local Government,
to wit: RW1 Ogunleye Joshua Oladipo; RW2 Deacon Dele Amasa;
RW3 Elder Joseph Akindele Obadare; RW4 Hon. Dosu Babatunde;
RW5 Chief Akinwunmi Omotayo; RW6 Ibitoye Ogunbeku; RW7
Sayo David; RW13 Akinsehinde Richard; RW14 Hon. Omopariola
Boluwaji; RW24 Ajayi Folorunso .
RW1
17.2 RW1 Ogunleye Joshua Oladipo of ward 3 Atakumosa West. The
testimony of RW1 is that he is the Honourab le member of State
Assembly representing Atakumosa East and West State
Constituency. That on the 14th April, 2007, when the election to
the office of the Governor of Osun State took place, He voted at
polling unit 001, Methodist Primary School Oke - Omi, in Ward 3
and after voting, he returned to his house. That he did not lead
some persons or/and thugs to any polling unit in Wards 1, 3, and
4 or/and any ward and did not disrupt voting at the aforesaid
polling units or/and wards. That he did not with any pe rson
or/and a group of person attack polling agents of Action
Congress or/and other voters. That he did not know Gbamila and
Kehinde Ajiyo in Ward 1, but he knew Chief Fagbamiye (a.k.a
Gbogandan) as a Chief in Osu Community. That on the said day
of election, he did not with Erelu Olusola Obada, Elder Gbenga
Abiola or/and any other persons led thugs or / and group of
persons to forcefully snatch the ballot boxes in Temidire Primary
School and open space Ibodi Grammar School and/or in any
other units in Ward 4 or in any wards. That he did not with the
aforesaid people replaced the authentic ballot boxes with other
ballot boxes already stuffed with ballot papers. That he did not
with the aforesaid people or any other people forcefully stuffed
ballot papers into ballot boxes in I gila Unit, Iyare Unit, Ilotin
Unit and open space campus or/and in any units in Ward 4. That
the 3rd Petitioners agents and voters were not scared away in my
128
unit, Methodist Primary School or in any other units in the Local
Government. He further states that votes were sorted, counted,
recorded and announced at his unit in the presence of the party
agents present namely, PDP, AC. He also claimed that election in
his unit was peaceful and orderly. He finally stated that he did
not seize the motorcycles of the 3rd Petitioner's member at the
INEC office or at any other place.
17.3 Under cross examination, RW1 said that he cannot remember the
day that he signed the witness deposition but that it was made in
2008. He claimed to have voted at Me thodist Pry Sch Oke -Omi,
Osu and that he got to the polling unit at 8:30am and that he met
a lot of people there. He said that it took him within 5 minutes
from verification to the casting of vote and that he left for his
house immediately. He claimed that he knew of the result of his
unit after 3 pm when voting close I returned to unit to know the
result of election. This witness is not a credible witness, because
even though he claimed to have voted only in a unit, it became
clear from item 697 of Exh 365 A (voters register for (Meth pry Sch
Oke-Omi 001) and item 688 of Exh 365B (voter register for polling
unit 02 Methodist Pry Sch) that there is evidence that the witness
registered and was accredited to have voted at two different
polling units. Further, e ven though there is clear evidence on
item 688 of Exh 365B that the name of the witness on that exhibit
was marked or ticked the witness falsely claimed, under cross -
examination, that there is no ticking against his name “but only
11”, whatever that means! The Petitioners humbly invite your
Lordship to again look at item 688 of Exh 365B where your
Lordship will find that the name of the witness was ticked in that
document.
RW2 Deacon Dele Amasa of ward 5, Ataku nmosa West
17.4 The testimony of RW2 is that he was a former Chairman of
defunct Atakunmosa Local Government Council and a member of
PDP in Ward 5. He recollected that election to the Office of
129
Governor of Osun State took place on the 14th April, 2007 and
that on the 14th of April, 2007 he voted at Met hodist Primary
School Ijana polling unit and after which he returned to his
house. He stated that he knew Elder Joseph Akindele Obadare
and Kehinde Arowolo. He went further to state that himself with
the said Elder Joseph Akindele Obadare and Kehinde Arowo lo or
any other persons did not lead thugs to beat up, shoot and wound
the 3rd Petitioner's agents or any party agent and voters. He
stated further that he with any other person(s) did not attack
Friday, Freeboy, Ropo Oni, Titus Osobu or any other persons. He
stated that himself and any other person(s) did not snatch the
ballot box at Ijana Methodist Unit 3 or at any other units in the
ward and neither did he with any other person(s) prevent the 3 r d
Petitioner's agent or members from voting nor were they dr iven
away by anyone from the polling unit. He stated that he did not
with any thugs attack the 3 r d Petitioner's members or agents at
the INEC Office. Furthermore he stated that votes were counted,
recorded and announced In the presence of party agents and that
the election in his unit was peaceful and orderly.
17.5 Under cross examination, RW2 claimed that he voted on the day
of election, at Unit 3 Ward 5, Methodist Primary School Ijana and
that Ward 5 is Ifelodun. He said he got to the Polling Unit
between 9.00a.m. and 10.00a.m., and met other people there. To
test the veracity and credibility of the witness, particularly as the
sum of his testimony was that he voted and went home, the
witness was initially shown Exhibit 368C and he claimed that
Exhibit 368C was not the voters register for his unit. He was later
shown Exhibit 368B, the voters register for Methodist Primary
School, Ijana, the polling unit where the witness claimed that he
voted. Even though this witness claimed that he voted both in his
evidence in chief and under cross -examination, the witness could
not find his name or picture in Exhibit 368B, the voters register
for Methodist Primary School, Ijana, the polling unit where the
130
witness claimed that he voted. It is submitted that with this
evidence, verifiable by Your Lordships on Exhibit 368B, this
witness lacked credibility and cannot be believed.
17.6 RW3 Elder Joseph Akindele Obadare of Oke - Ode, Ijana Wasare,
Atakumosa West. The testimony of RW3 is that he is the
Chairman of Osun State Universal Basic Board and a Party Leader
in the Atakumosa West Local Government. He also recollected
that the election to the office of Governor of Osun State took
place on the 14th April, 2007. He stated that on the day of
election, he voted at Methodist Primary School, Ijana Polling Unit
after which he returned to his house. He stated that he knew
Kehinde Arowolo as the immediate past councilor of Ward 5, and
also knew Deacon Dele Amasa as a former Chairman of
Atakumosa West Local Government. He stated t hat he did not
with anyone lead thugs or any other persons to beat up, shoot
and wound the 3rd Petitioners agent or/and any party agents and
other voters. He went further to denied that himself and the
Kehinde Arowolo and Deacon Dele Amasa or/and any other
person lead thugs or/and any other persons to beat 3rd party
agents or any other party agents he also stated that they did not
attacked one Friday, freeboy, Ropo Oni and Titus Osobu or any
other persons and neither did they snatch the ballot box at Ijana
Methodist Unit 3 or at any other units nor prevent the 3rd
Petitioner's agent or members from voting. He went further to
deny driven anybody away from the polling unit and that he did
not with any thugs attack 3rd Petitioner's members or agents at
the INEC Office. He claimed that votes were sorted, counted and
announced in the presence of party agents of PDP and AC in his
unit and results form signed by agents of PDP and AC. He finally
claimed that election was peaceful and orderly in his unit.
17.7 Under cross examination, RW3 said that Elder J. A. Obadare are
his full names. He stated that the election was conducted in
April, 2007 but that he cannot remember the date for it was a long
131
time now. He claimed that he voted at open space Ijana Wasarie,
in front of Methodist Pry Sch. Unit 3 and that he got to the
Polling Unit between 10a.m. to 11.00a.m., and that he met a lot of
people and he queued up. He said initially that his witness
statement was written by his lawyer but he later stated that he
cannot say whether it was written by himself or his lawyer. To
test the credibility and veracity of this witness as to his written
deposition, particularly paragraph 4 of the written deposition,
the witness was shown Exhibit 368B, voters register for open
space Ijana Wasarie, in front of Methodist Pry Sch. Unit 3, and
asked to confirm whether his name is in the list). The witness
confirmed that his name was not on the document. Even though
Exhibit 368B, voters register for open space Ijana Wasarie, in
front of Methodist Pry Sch. Unit 3, is a certified true copy by
INEC as voters register for his unit, the witness claimed that
Exhibit 368B is not the document used during the election and
that his name was on the one used during the election.
17.8 The witness also confirmed that Exhibit 368B did not contain his
photograph. In the absence of production of any other register for
the unit by INEC or any other party, by Section 114 of the
Evidence Act, there is presumption as to genuineness of Exhibit
368B as the voters register for open space Ijana Wasarie, in front
of Methodist Pry Sch. Unit 3 and the fact that the name or picture
of the witness was not on the Exhibit showed that the witness is
not a credible witness as he has come to court to tell lies about
his having voted on the day of election and went back home in
order for same to be some form of alibi against the allegations of
distruption of election levied against him by the Petitioners.
RW4 Hon. Dosu Babatunde of Ward 7 Atakumosa West L/G
17.9 The testimony of RW4, a lawyer is that he was the immediate past
Chairman of the Local Government and a PDP member. He stated
that he knew Sanya Adetimilehin as immediate past Special
Adviser in the Local Government and also knew Akinwunmi
132
Omotayo as the Chairman o f PDP in Atakumosa West Local
Government. He stated that on the 14th April, 2007 when the
election to the office of Governor of Osun State took place, he
voted at Oju - Oja Polling Unit after which he returned to his
house. That he neither went to Oke - Osin Polling Unit nor any
other units after voting. That he did not see the said Akintayo
Omitayo on the said 14th April, 2007 neither did he , Sanya
Adetimehin and Akinwunmi Omotayo le ad thugs or any other
persons armed with guns, machetes and/or any other w eapons to
the ward. That they did not stuff ballot papers already thumb -
printed by non-voters at his unit or any other units in the ward.
That himself, Sanya Adetimehin and Akinwunmi did not put
already thumb -printed ballot papers into the ballot box in Ok e-
Osin polling Unit or any units o f the ward. He claimed that votes
were counted, record ed, announced and signed by the party
agents of PDP and AC in his unit and that election was peaceful
and orderly in his unit.
17.10 Under cross examination, RW4 said he voted at Oju Oja Polling
Unit. That he got to the Polling Uni t around 11.00a.m. He said
that on reaching there he saw people on the queue and joined the
queue. That he went to the polling unit from his house which
was adjacent to the Polling Unit and t hat it takes about 2 minutes
normal walking. That after voting he left for his house. That he
joined the queue and waited for about 45 minutes to 1 hour and
that it took him about 3 - 4 minutes from the time of verification
and when he voted.
17.11 RW4 displayed prevarication when he claimed under cross -
examination that he heard the counting and recording at a
distance. That he saw the recording but that he did not see what
they recorded. He later said that “they did not record after
counting”. In the same breath he said that “I saw the recording
but I was in a position to see the Party Agent signing. I saw the
recording, but I cannot say what they wrote”. Under cross-
133
examination, the witness claimed that Adebisi Samuel and Friday
John were at the unit w ith him and were member of his polling
unit but when confronted with the fact that the names of Adebisi
Samuel and Friday John were not on the voter register for the
unit (Exhibit 373G, Oju Oja unit Oke Bode) , he said that it is
possible. Even though not a n INEC official, the witness also
claimed under cross -examination that there are many
discrepancies in the register of voters. Adebisi Samuel and Friday
John were obviously with him at the unit for disruption of
election as they were evidently not register ed voters at the
polling unit. The witness also showed serious reluctance in
answering questions.
RW5 Chief Akinwunmi Omotayo of Ward 7 Atakumosa West
17.12 The testimony of RW5 is that he is the Chairman of people's
Democratic Party In Atakumosa West Loca l Government. He
stated that he knew Hon. Dosu Babatunde and Sanya
Adetimilehin. He claimed that he voted at Oke - Osin polling unit
on the day of election and returned to his house after voting. He
stated that himself, Dosu Babatunde and Sanya Adetimilehi n did
not lead thugs or any other persons armed with guns and
machetes to the ward. He further stated that they neither stuff
ballot papers already printed by non - voters at his unit or any
other units in the ward in favour of PDP nor stuff the said
already thumb-printed papers into the ballot box in Oke - Osin
polling unit or any units in the ward. He claimed that votes were
sorted, counted, recorded and announced in the presence of all
the party agents present and that election was peaceful in his
unit. He finally stated that the results declared in Oke - Osin
reflected the actual voting by the electorate in the unit.
17.13 Under cross examination, RW5 said he can read English, but
preferred to speak in Yoruba. He swore to the statement before
his lawyer. He claimed that he voted at Oke Osi Polling Unit and
that he got to the polling unit at 8.25a.m. He said it took about 5
134
minutes for his name to be checked in the voters register. From
the time of verification of his name and the time of voting, it did
not take him more than 2 minutes. He said he left the Polling Unit
around 8.45a.m. The witness is one that deliberately set out to
withhold facts from the Tribunal. He claimed under cross -
examination that even though he saw members of his Party who
came to vote he cannot remember their names, even the names of
those from his Unit because it has taken 3 years.
Notwithstanding that he was the Chairman at the Party of that
Unit, he said nob ody greeted him and he cannot say whether
people recognized him or no t. He said Sanya Soya Adetimilehin
is a member of PDP. The witness is not one of truth because even
though he emphatically stated at paragraph 8 of his evidence in
chief that “Votes were sorted, counted, recorded and announced
in the presence of all the p arty agents present” and in paragraphs
9 and 10 respectively that “the election was peaceful in my unit”
and “that the result declared in Oke -Osin reflected the actual
voting by the electorates in the unit”, the witness stated under
cross-examination that he only heard about the result of the
polling unit when the polling agent called him on phone at about
3.25 p.m.
17.14 The witness also admitted under cross -examination that he was
not present when the vote were sorted, counted and announced
and that it will be a lie if anybody including himself said that he
was present when the votes were sorted, counted and announced.
The witness also claimed that he had left his unit at about 8.45
a.m. With these admissions under cross -examination, there is
clearly no basis for the testimony of the witness in paragraphs 8,
9 and 10 of his evidence in chief and those statements were made
by the witness falsely and to deceive the Honourable Tribunal.
RW6 Ibitoye Ogun beku of Ward 1, Atakunmosa West
17.15 The testimony of R W6 is that he voted at Methodist Primary
School Oke - Oja polling unit on the 14th April, 2007, when the
135
election to the office of Governor of Osun State took place. He
stated that he knew all the people mentioned in paragraph 5 of
the Petitioners' affidav it sworn to by one Bamidele Olanrewaju.
He denied being a thug and that he was not employed by Erelu
Olusola Obada, Chief Joshua Ogunleye and Elder Gbenga Abiola
or any other person as a thug. He denied replacing the authentic
ballot boxes with other ballo t boxes already stuffed with ballot
papers at Temidire Primary School and open space Ibodi
Grammar' School or in any units. He stated that he did not with
anyone snatch ballot boxes and papers or forcefully stuff ballot
papers into ballot boxes in 4 units or in any units. He claimed
that he did not go to Ibodi on the 14th April, 2007 and neither did
he vote in any unit at Ibodi Ward 4. He stated that after voting at
his unit in Methodist Primary School Oke - Oja Polling Unit of
Ward one, he returned to his house. He finally stated that himself
and any other person did not scare away the 3rd Petitioners'
agents and voters from the polling units in Ward 4.
17.16 Under cross examination, RW6 did not state his occu pation in his
witness statement. However, under cross-examination, the
witness who claimed that he cannot read and write stated that he
can sign and his specimen signature was admitted as Exhibit 463.
The witness stated that he started carpentry work since 1979. He
stated that he did not go to school, that was why he stated that he
had been following his father since the age of 12. The witness
who initially stated that he only calculated that he was 12 years
old in 1979 by calculating the age of his older siblings later
categorically stated that he wa s born in the year 1968! He said it
was his lawyer, Barrister Ogunjuyigbe, that wrote his witness
statement for him. The witness stated that he voted at Oke Oja
Primary School Osu and that he got there around 8.30a.m.
17.17 RW6 was evasive and hesitant when he was asked whether he met
his friends who are PDP at the polling unit, later stated that he
has no friend in PDP, but that he saw members of PDP, among
136
whom are Victoria Fasugba and Apostle Jayeoba and Victoria
Fasugba. The witness stated that he on ly knew about the result of
the election between 4.30 – 5.00p.m. The witness admitted that
he did not witness the collation, counting and announcement of
the results and that he was not present when the votes were
counted, collated and announced. Further, that the election was
not concluded in his presence and that he cannot say when it
ended.
17.17 The witness, admitted under cross -examination that he knew the
locations of C & S Primary School Osu Unit, Aru -Aji Open Space
Unit, and Atakumosa High School U nit and that they are within
his Ward even though he claimed in his evidence in chief that he
did not go to any other polling units on the election
17.18 The witness claimed that one of the people he saw at his polling
unit was Apostle Jaiyeoba but when h e was confronted with
Exhibit 363A, the voters register for the units to pick the name
and picture of Apostle Jaiyeoba, the witness said that he did not
go to school; that he cannot see the picture properly. But the
witness later stated that he can identif y photograph of Apostle
Jaiyeoba but that it is not there. In the same breath, the witness
was also stating that all the photos there are dark. Your
Lordship will find that this witness is not a reliable one, because,
the pictures in Exhibit 363A were no t dark and as admitted by the
witness, the picture of Apostle Ja iyeoba, whom he claimed was at
the polling unit with him, was not in Exhibit 363A, voters‟
register of Methodist Primary School, Oke -Oja.
RW7 Sayo David of Ward 8, Atakunmosa West
17.19 The testimony of RW7 is that he was the party agent for PDP on
the 14th April, 2007 when the election to the office of Governor of
Osun State took place. He stated that he knew Bayo Famuyiwa
and Jibola Dada as members of PDP in his ward. He claimed to be
present at his unit, Ita - Osan from the beginning to the end of
election on the said 14th April, 2007. He states that himself, Bayo
137
Famuyiwa and Jibola Dada did not lead thugs or/and other
persons armed with machetes and guns to ward 8 and neither did
they attack innocent voters and the AC party agents in Ita -Osan,
Inasin Risawe and Isaobi polling stations or any other units nor
wield deadly weapons, pump action or any guns. He claimed that
the election was peaceful and orderly and that the election was
not disrupted in his unit or any other units in the ward by him
or/and any other persons. He claimed that votes were counted,
recorded and result announced in the presence of the party
agents present in his unit. He finally stated himself and any other
person did not seize and run away with ballot box and papers in
his unit or in any other units in the ward.
17.20 Under Cross examination, RW7 The witness who did not state his
occupation in his evidence -in chief stated under cross -
examination that he was a busines sman. The witness claimed he
voted at Unit 4 Ward 8 Atakunmosa Local Government, Ita -Osan
Polling Unit. The witness who initially stated that he attended
Ibodi Grammar School and Ilesa Grammar School and that he had
West African School Certificate and star ted business after that, he
later stated that he was a student at Kiloru Grammar School,
Idominasi, to reseat English and Mathematics examination in
WASC. However, the registration particulars in the voters
register, Exhibit 362D Item 156, read Olusayo D avid, male 27,
civil public servant. The witness admitted that he knew the
difference between student and civil servant.
17.21 The witness stated that he did not know the time it takes for
verification and voting, even though he claimed to be a party
agent. Also, the witness who claimed that the election was free
and fair was shown Exhibit 132 D – result of Polling Unit page 4,
Unit 4, Ward 8 which he said he signed as agent and that in
column 7 therein, the total number of used ballot papers was 411.
He was also shown Exhibit 360D – ballot papers used in the unit,
C.T.C. 1-416 which showed that the ballot papers returned as
138
used was 416 contrary to what was recorded on Exhibit 132 D.
The witness then said that even though he signed 411 in Exhibit
132D, it was for INEC to explain the discrepancies. When asked
for the difference between 411 and 416, the witness gave an
incredible answer that he had told the court that he had reseat in
English and Mathematics.
17.22 Even though the witness claimed that Bayo Fa muyiwa, a person
with whom the witness was alleged to have distrupted the
election, registered in Unit 4 Ward 8, the witness was confronted
with Exhibit 362D – Voters register for the unit whet her Bayo
Famuyiwa was on the registers. The witness claimed he saw a
name in Item 182, that is, Patrick A. Famu yiwa 30501402301. He
admitted that the name in paragraph 3 of his witness statement is
Bayo Famiyiwa not Patrick Famuyiwa.
RW13 Akinsehinde Richard of Unit 4, Ward 10, Atakunmosa West.
17.23 The testimony of RW13 is that he participated as an electorate
during the Gubernatorial and House of Assembly e lections held
on the 14th April, 2007. He claimed to have left his house for the
polling centre at Ward 10, unit 4 located at N.U.D. Primary
School Ifewara to ca st his vote. He stated that he got to the
polling centre at about 9.35 am and met voters on the queue and
therefore had to wait for his turn. He stated further that he was
able to cast his vote at about 11 am after which he left the unit for
his house and stayed indoor throughout the remaining part of the
day. He stated that he knew Mr. Omopariol a but did not see him
on the day of election as they belong to different unit. He denied
leading any thug either as an individual or with any councilor
anywhere on the day of election since he returned home
immediately after voting. He stated that he did not enter into any
vehicle at all on that day because his house is a walking distance
from the polling centre. He finall y stated that he neither carried
any gun or machete, nor did he snatch any ballot box or boxes on
the 14th day of April, 2007.
139
17.24 RW13 stated under cross-examination that he got to the Polling
Unit around 9.35a.m., but that he cannot say when he left home
even though his house is not too far from the Polling Unit. He
said that from accreditation to voting he spent around 2 -4
minutes. He said he left immediately after voting for his house
and that he would not know what happened after he left for his
house and that his evidence on conduct of electi on is restricted to
when he was at the polling unit. Even though the witness claimed
to be a farmer Exhibit 367D Item 92, showed that the witness is a
public servant and the witness admitted under cross -examination
that as an Executive Assistant to Governo r Oyinlola he is a public
servant. Also, that when he contested election and became a
Councillor in 1999, as a Councillor he was a public servant
RW14 Hon. Omopariola Boluwaji of Atakunmosa West
17.25 The testimony of RW14 is that he is a PDP member from
Atakunmosa west Local Government area. He stated that on the
14 t h of April, 2007 at about 11.00 am he went to his polling unit
where he met voting exercise in progress and exchanged
pleasantries with people at the polling station, he stated that he
casted his vote and went back to his house but did not see Tope
Awotimide and Richard Akinsehinde on that day, he stated
further that in fact both Tope Awotimide and Richard
Akinsehinde are not in his ward and he only casted his vote and
went back home to his fam ily. He stated that he did not use any
machetes or lead thugs to any polling units in Ifewara on 14th
April, 2007. He claimed that he did not own a gun and never
handled one in his life talk less of using gun to intimidate or
harass people. He claimed that to the best of his knowledge
voting exercise was free and fair in his units and in Ifewara
Township.
17.26 Under cross examination, Hon Omopariola Boluwaji The witness
claimed he voted in Ward 9 Ifewara, Unit 5 Maternity Centre
Ifewara. He said he voted at Unit 5 not Unit 4. He said he went
140
to the polling unit with his wife but that he did wait for his wife.
He said that the time from presenting his voters card to casting
votes was not more than 5 minutes. The witness is one that has
come to give testimony of convenience because even though the
witness had stated in paragraph 5 of the witness statement that to
the best of his knowledge “voting exercise was free and fair in
my units and in Ifewara Township” admitted under cross-
examination that he did not know when voting ended and that he
only heard the result of election late in the evening – 6.30-
7.00p.m. The witness also admitted that he did not know the
number of Polling Units in Ife wara even though there are 2
Wards. He said his Ward is Ward 11 and t hat he was not in
another Ward to know if the election was fr ee and fair. He also
stated that he did not go round the units to know how the
election went and that he only kne w what happened in his Unit
while he was ther e and that he will not know about other Unit,
These clearly contradict the testimony in paragraph 5 of his
witness statement that “voting exercise was free and fair in my
units and in Ifewara Township.”
17.27 There is further contradiction in the testimony of RW14 when he
initially stated th at he knew Tope Awotimide and Rich ard
Akinseyinde and that he did not know their political party but
later stated that “we have PDP meetings in Ifewara, we attend
different PDP meetings in Ward level” and that he knows that
Richard Akinseyinde has been mad e Special Assistant on
Education to the Governor on PDP platform.
RW24 Ajayi Folorunso of Unit 1, Ward 9, Atakunmosa West
17.28 The testimony of RW24 is that he was the party agent at Muroko
polling unit on 14th April, 2007 when the election to the offi ce of
Governor of Osun State took place. He stated that he knew the
people mentioned in paragraph 5 of the Petitioners' affidavit
sworn to by one Adebiyi Adelowo. He stated that the said people
or other persons did not lead thugs or other persons armed wit h
141
machetes and axes and that no voter(s) was chased away in his
unit. He claimed that he was at his polling unit from the
beginning to the end of election. He further claimed that votes
were counted, recorded and announced In the presence of the
party agents present in his unit and that the election was peaceful
and orderly in his unit and was not disrupted by anyone.
17.29 RW24 claimed in paragraph 2 of his witness statement to be the
party agent for PDP at Muroko polling unit. Under cross -
examination by 4th to 1365 t h Respondents, the witness
categorically stated that “ the result form was signed by me and
AC Party Agent”. However, the lack of credibility of the witness
became glaring under cross -examination by Petitioners‟ Counsel
when the witness initially stated that “AC Agent and I signed the
result sheet” but later stated that there were two party agents of
PDP at the Polling Unit and it was one of them that signed the
result sheet. He also contradicted his earlier testimony by stating
that he cannot re member if he signed but that the AC Agent
signed. Still contradicting himself, when the witness was
confronted with paragraph 7 of his witness statement where the
witness claimed that the election result was signed “by the party
agent of PDP and AC”, the w itness then said what he meant was
that PDP Agent signed and AC Agent also went there but that he
cannot say whether the AC Agent signed.
17.30 Also, contrary to the statement in paragraph 7 of the witness
statement, RW24 said under further cross -examinat ion that he did
not say AC Agent did not sign and that what he said was that he
did not know if the AC agent signed. In clear contradiction of
paragraph 7 of the witness statement is Exhibit 13(1), the
Certified True Copy of Form EC8A for Muroko unit which clearly
showed that party agent of AC did not sign the result sheet
contrary to paragraph 7 of the witness statement.
17.25 Another area of contradiction is that RW24 under cross-
examination had initially stated that PDP and AC scored votes in
142
the unit but later under further cross examination when he was
confronted with Exhibit 133(1) that no vote was recorded for AC
in the unit, the witness then stated that he did not look at AC‟s
votes, that he only looked at his own – PDP and that he did not
say that AC scored votes. The falsehood of paragraph 6 of the
witness statement became clear as the witness could not assert
what happened about announcement and scores of the parties as
the witness stated that he went to PDP side and AC agent went to
AC side after the announcement and we both collected the result
of our respective Parties. That he did not know the votes scored,
that when PDP votes was announced, PDP signed, that is , one of
them signed but its along time he can‟t recollect who signed.
And after the announcement of AC votes the Party Agent of AC
went to their side, but he did not know how he signed.
Incidentally no votes were recorded for AC on Exhibit 13(1), the
Certified True Copy of Form EC8A for Muroko unit.
17.26 Further, RW24 the witness claimed that the signature of the PDP
agent on Exhibit 133(1) is his signature, it is submitted that the
said signature is clearly different from the signature of the
witness on the witness statement and Exhibit 465. The witness
also denied Exhibit 361, certif ied true copy of the voters register
for Muroko unit and said that was not the vote rs register used in
the Unit. INEC or any other respondents did not bring any other
register for the unit. There is evidence in support of the case of
the Petitioners that t he result was not announced, counted and
recorded on the Form EC8A at the unit. As can be seen for
example the votes recorded on Exhibit 133(1) for PDP is 327
whereas the number of voters on the register was 315. Incredibly
the witness claimed he cannot subtract or add figures of 315 – 327
and that he did not know which is higher.
Ayedaade Local Government

Petitioners Witnesses Ayedaade Local Government
143
18.1 In respect of Ayedaade Local Government, the Petitioners
witnesses were Nafiu Raji (PW31), Kilani S alako (PW49),
Francis Oyediran (PW50), Sabaina Abiola Adegboye (PW51),
Alhaji Sulaimon Oyegbola (PW53), Tijani Jimoh (PW72) and
Fatai Salawu Animashaun (PW73) and their testimonies are as
follows:
PW31
18.2 PW31 is Nafiu Raji who gave testimony for Ward 5, and his
testimony is that on the day of Election some thugs led by Ambali
Oladosu, Jelili Adesiyan, one man popularly known as „Melo‟
invaded the polling units in the ward. That these thugs were
armed with guns, axes, machete, iron rod and other dangerous
weapons. That these thugs snatched ballot boxes, emptied the
valid votes cast and replaced it with their thumb -printed ballot
papers. That voting was totally disrupted in all the Polling Units
as ballot boxes were snatched and taken away by these thugs an d
as a result votes were neither counted nor results announced at
any of the polling Units in the Ward.
18.3 Under cross examination, PW31 stated that he had been invited
by the police on 2 occasions for questioning, but the allegations
were found to be untrue upon investigation by the police, and
were instigated by his political opponents. He stated that INEC
officials reported late for their duty on the Election Day, and
maintained that in his ward no election was conducted and no
results were announced. He further stated that there was no
counting or collation of votes. He also stated that INEC did not
declare results for his ward; rather results were written and
announced by the PDP. He stated that the elections were
disrupted in all the 17 polling units in his ward, and he followed
the PDP thugs from polling unit to polling unit, witnessing their
acts of disruption. He was unshaken during cross examination,
and his evidence was not contradicted.
144
18.4 The respondents have stated in their written addresse s that this
witness contradicted himself when he said that the thugs who
disrupted the polls were led by Jelili Adesiyan rather than
Ambali Oladosu. The truth of the matter is that the witness had
deposed in paragraph 5 of his witness statement on oath that the
thugs were led by both Jelili Adesiyan and Ambali Oladosu. The
contradiction in this witness‟s evidence is therefore imaginary.
PW49
18.5 PW49 is Kilani Salako gave testimony for Ward 7 . His testimony
is that on the day of Election the Ba ales in the different villages
laid siege on the polling units insisting that they were executing
an order from above to the effect that everybody must vote for
PDP. The Baales intimidated many voters to vote for PDP and
votes were duly carried out thereafter. He said that INEC
officials left the various voting centre without the polling agents.
That he knew that no collation was done at the ward level but
results were announced on air as he personally visited the
collation centre at court Hall, Gbongan.
units in his ward, and his party the AC had polling agents in all
17 polling units. He further stated that he voted at Agripop unit
1, and could only visit 9 out of the 17 polling units in his ward.
He was unshaken during cross examination, and his evidence was
not contradicted.
PW50
18.7 PW50 is Francis Oyediran who gave testimony for Ward 8, and
his testimony is that on the day of Election voting was not held in
the authentic polling units within the ward. That all the electoral
materials were diverted to the palace of Oloogi of Ogi, a
community where there is just one polling unit. That he saw most
of the presiding officers meant for the other units (e.g. Kunl e
Egbetola, presiding officer, O gi; Adeniji Adeyefa, presiding
officer, Lasole) and more than 5 ballot boxes at the palace of
145
oloogi. That he saw a number of instances where the PDP thugs
and leaders were engaging in multiple voting and adequately
protected by armed security personnel and thugs, that at the
period, the palace was heavily guarded by armed thugs who
prevented the electorates from participating in the voting
exercise. That though the polling unit in O gi was meant to be at
St. Stephen‟s Anglican Church, ogi but election materi al were
taken to the palace of O loogi. That there was no voting at all in
all the polling units in the ward and as a result there was no
counting of votes or announcement of results in any of the 11
polling units.
18.8 Under cross examination, PW50 stated that he had never been a
member of the PDP nor had he ever worked for INEC in any
capacity. He stated that neither he nor his agents wore any
uniform identifying them as AC members on the Election Day. He
was confronted during cross examination with the transcript of
his testimony in the previous proceedings, where he stated he
stayed permanently in Tonkere. He stated that was false and as a
ward supervisor he could not have stayed permanently in
Tonkere. He was unshaken during cross examination, and his
PW51
18.9 PW51 is Sabaina Abiola Adegboye who gave testimony for Ward
10, and her testimony is that on the day of Election peter Babalola
(a.k.a Peter Power), the Chief of Staff to the Osun State
Government, together with one Talibi A degboyega Bello, a Legal
Practitioner, one Kehinde Olatoyosi, Tunde Akinbowale, Talibi
Bankole Adeowu, Honourable Sunday Akinpelu, Mr. Ademola
Onifade, Secretary to the State Primary Education Board,
Aiyedaade Local Government, Sola Adebowale, a Legal
Practitioner, Chief S. O. Olawoyin, Tunde Ogunsina and Biodun
Olanrewaju led some thugs who were armed with guns and
machetes, canes, charms and other dangerous weapons and
146
snatched ballot boxes in 18 out of the 21 Polling Units. That these
thugs carted away t he ballot boxes at St. Peter 2, Matako 1,
Matako 2, Ojetunde Village, Sabo 1, Sabo 2, Ile Oluwo, Gbona,
Court 1, Court 2, Gbogbo Compound, Baptist 1, Baptist 2,
Alagbede Village, Abimbola Village, Ope Ayoola Village and
Bara-Iwo village polling units. That voting was completely
disrupted in all the 18 aforementioned polling units and neither
were votes counted nor results announced at any of the said
polling units. That thereafter, she saw these thugs take these
ballot boxes to the house of Talibi Adegboyeg a Bello where all
lawful votes cast at the polling units and carried with the boxes
were seen burnt while the emptied boxes were taken inside the
house of Talibi Adegboyega Bello. That in Alabameta Village,
Alagutan and Farm Settlements polling units, the voting exercise
was peacefully conducted and votes were counted and results
announced.
18.10 Under cross examination, PW51 stated that she is the AC woman
leader in Aiyedaade Local Government Area. She stated that
there are 9 villages in her ward, consisti ng of 21 polling units.
She stated that though she was registered to vote at Unit 6 Saint
Peter‟s field Orile Owu, she was prevented from voting by PDP
thugs. She stated that she visited 18 of the polling units in her
ward, and was prevented by the disrupt ions. She further stated
that because the PDP realised the AC was winning the elections
they disrupted it. She further stated that her agent‟s report got
missing when she was being chased by PDP thugs. She was
unshaken during cross examination, and her evidence was not
contradicted.
PW53
18.11 PW53 is Alhaji Sulaimon Oyegbola who gave testimony for Ward
4, and his testimony is that on the day of Election some thugs led
by Kamoru (a.k.a Elegunmeje), Alhaji Azeez Akomola, dele
Iyafulani, Segun Animashaun who were armed with axes, guns
147
and machetes, invaded all the polling units in the ward and,
amidst gunshots and threats, snatched ballot boxes, emptied the
valid votes cast and replaced it with ballot papers which they
thumb printed themselves. That voting was totally disrupted in
all the polling units as ballot boxes were snatched and taken
away and votes were neither counted nor results announced at
any of the polling units in the ward.
18.12 Under cross examination, PW53 stated that as at 3:00 pm when
elections were to have ended he was hiding in the bush beside
Orita Ile Iwe polling unit because of the PDP thugs who had
chased away voters. That he indeed voted, but shortly after
elections were disrupted. He was unshaken during cross
examination, and his evid ence was not contradicted.
18.13 Contrary to the position of the respondents in their written
addresses that this witness contradicted himself by claiming to
have visited all the polling units in his ward that he admitted
having visited only 8 units in the ward. This position of the
respondents misrepresents the testimony of this witness as he
only stated in his witness statement on oath that he visited
polling units in his ward without stating the number of the units
which he visited. The actual number o f the units he visited only
came out during cross examination. We refer this tribunal to both
the witness statement on oath of this witness and the answers
which this witness supplied to the questions which were put to
him by the counsel to the 1 s t -3 r d respondents during the
proceedings of the 27 t h day of August, 2009.
PW72
18.14 PW72 is Tijani Jimoh who gave testimony for Ward 3, and his
testimony is that on the day of Election some thugs armed with
guns, clubs, machetes and other dangerous weapons, we aring
brown khaki uniforms came in a jeep donated by Association of
Local Government of Nigeria (ALGON) TO THE POLICE and
invaded the polling units in the ward. These thugs shot
148
sporadically into the air. The action of these thugs scared away
the electorates and polling agents in all the polling units. That
these thugs then snatched ballot boxes emptied the valid votes
cast and replaced them with already thumb printed ballot papers.
That on getting to the ward, the policemen who accompanied
these thugs to t he ward, got down from the vehicle and folded
their arms while watching the acts of the thugs as aforesaid. That
voting was totally disrupted in all the polling units as ballot
boxes were snatched and taken away and votes were neither
counted nor results a nnounced at any of the polling units in the
ward. That she and some others went to the INEC collation centre
but found out that these thugs did not take the ballot boxes to the
collation centre.
18.15 Under cross examination, PW72 stated that his agents re port
comprised what he personally witnessed and all the AC polling
agents‟ reports. He further stated that he has never been a
member of the PDP. He maintained that he knows all the AC
polling agents in his ward, and one of those agents Adedokun Ojo
of unit 2 Gbadore had died. He was unshaken during cross
PW73
18.16 PW73 is Fatai Salawu Animashaun who gave testimony for Ward
1, and his testimony is that on the day of Election voting was
interrupted by th e P.D.P thugs who were led by some PDP
leaders namely Mr. Segun Odekunmi, Mr Raifu Ajanaku and
Chief Abiola Morakinyo. These thugs shot sporadically into the
air thereby driving away voters at the same time molesting them.
That in the ensuing melee the thu gs snatched the ballot boxes and
took them away to unknown destinations. That he narrowly
escaped death in the hands of the thugs hired by PDP when he
was brutally attacked and vi ciously beaten. That the 3rd
petitioner‟s polling agent at Molubinrin was ser iously wounded
when the thugs descended on him. That voting was totally
149
disrupted in all the polling units and as a result votes were
neither counted nor were result announced at any o f the polling
units in the ward.
18.17 The only grouse which the respond ents have with the testimonies
of this witness is that he did not mention in hi s witness statement
on oath that he was abducted. This observation of the
respondents is irrelevant as the most important thing is whether
the polls were disrupted and that this happened has been clearly
established by the witness.
Ayedaade Local Government

Evidence of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents in Ayedaade Local Government
19.1 The 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents only called 4 witnesses. These are,
RW21 Reuben Segun Odekunmi; RW22 Onif ade Ademola; RW26
Alhaji Adeyanju Aliu; RW58 Elder Soji Ojuade .
RW21 Reuben Segun Odekunmi
19.2 The testimony of RW21 is that he is a leader in the P.D.P. in
Ayedaade Local Government Area of Osun State and that he
voted at Ile Asoro polling unit 01 In Wa rd 01 of Ayedaade Local
Government Area, Osun State on April 14 t h , 2007 during the
Governorship and House of Assembly Elections. He stated that he
went alone to vote at the said polling unit around 8.30 am and
left the polling unit immediately after castin g his vote around
9.15 am for his home where he stayed in -door for the rest of the
day. He stated that on the day of election he did not carry any
gun, cutlass or any other dangerous weapon to the polling unit.
He claimed that election was peacefully condu cted at the polling
unit where he voted.
19.3 The witness claimed in paragraph 6 of his witness statement that
election was conducted peacefully at the polling unit where he
voted. However, in paragraph 4 of his witness statement, he said
that after casting his vote around 9.15. a.m. he left for his home
150
and stayed indoor throughout. There is no factual basis for
paragraph 6 of the witness statement. Under cross -examination,
the witness had to admit that voting was only peaceful when he
was at the unit. Whereas the witness stated in paragraph 2 of his
witness statement that he is a leader of PDP in his local
government, the witness stated that he did not know the result of
election in his unit and that he did not care to know the result.
19.4 Even though the witness claimed that Olaide Odekunmi, who is
one of his children, was not at home during election, Exhibit 111
(item 5) showed that Olaide Odekunmi was a presiding officer
during the elections. The witness who had told the court that his
grandfather has 14 wives later when asked how many wives he
had, he told the court that it was a taboo to state the number of
wives a person has in his family. The witness s tated that the
voting process did not take up to 3 minutes, even though he
cannot be precise. Incre dibly, the witness stated that when he
returned to his house there was nobody in his house even though
he admitted that he lives with his wives and children.
19.5 The witness who initially under cross examination denied
knowing or remembering one Moses Agb ungbun later stated,
when he was confronted under cross -examination, that Moses
Agbungbun died in detention. He then stated that he reported
Moses Agbungbun as owing him money for cocoa to Police
Station and that Moses later died in
RW22 Onifade Ademola
19.6 The testimony of RW22 is that he registered and voted at unit 001
ward 10 on the day of election after which he went back to his
house to rest after voting. He stated that his attention was drawn
to the averment of One Mrs. Sabaina Abiola Adegboye and he
denied all the averments contained therein in its entirety. He also
stated that he did not go out with anybody and neither did he go
out with any thug or thugs on the day of election. He also stated
that he did not carry any gun or machete or any weap on and
151
neither did he participate or see anybody snatching ballot boxes.
He stated that he did not see Peter Babalola a.k.a. Peter Power,
Talibi Adegboyega Bello, Kehinde Olatoyosi, Tunde Akinbowale,
Talibi Bankole Adeowu, Hon. Sunday Akinpelu, Sola Adebow ale
on the day of the election as I went home to rest immediately
after voting. He claimed that voting was not disrupted at all at
the unit where he voted.
19.7 The witness is not one of truth. In paragraph 8, the witness
claimed that voting was not disru pted at all at the polling unit
where he voted but in paragraph 3, he stated that he went back to
rest at his house after voting. The witness, under cross -
examination admitted that he did not know t he result of election
in his unit and that after he left t he polling unit, he would not
know what happened. The witness stated that he knew Talibi
Adegboyega Bello, Kehinde Olatoyosi, and Sola Adebowale and
that they are all PDP members and all of them belonged to his
ward. The witness admitted knowing Sabaina Ab iola Adegboye
(PW 51) who testified against RW22 and that they belonged to the
same church. The witness admitted that he will not know if PW51
saw him on election day.
19.8 Under cross-examination, the witness claimed that he knew
“Peter Power” but that he did not know his full name as “Peter
Babalola” and that he was just hearing the full name of Peter
Power as Peter Babalola from Petitioners‟ Counsel. This is a
blatant lie because in paragraph 7 of the witness statement, the
witness stated the full name o f Peter Babalola when he stated that
“I did not see Peter Babalola a.k.a, Peter Power…”
RW26 Alhaji Adeyanju Aliu
19.9 The testimony of RW26 is that he registered and voted at unit 06
ward 11 on the day of election after which he went back to rest at
his house. He stated that his attention was drawn to the averment
of one Mr. Ezekiel Abidoye and he denied all the averment in its
entirety. He stated that he did not go out with anybody and
152
neither did he lead any thug or thugs on the day of election. He
also stated that he did not carry any gun or machete or any
weapon and neither did he participate in snatching of ballot
boxes or see anybody snatch ballot boxes. He further stated that
he did not carry any gun machete or charms or any dangerous
weapon on day o f election or any other day as he is not a violent
person and he did not witness any snatching of boxes and neither
was any report of such made to him. He claimed that voting was
not disrupted at all at the unit where he voted and neither was
any report of such made to him from any unit in the ward.
19.10 Apparently in other to cover his activities of disrupting the
election, the witness claimed in paragraph 9 of the witness
statement that voting was not disrupted at all at the unit where
he voted whereas t he witness had stated in paragraph 3 of the
witness statement that after he voted he went back to rest at his
house immediately after voting. It is incredible for a witness who
said he went back to rest immediately after voting again depose
that voting wa s not disrupted at all in the unit as he cannot be at
two places at the same time, his house and the polling unit.
Clearly, the testimony of the witness is a tissue of lies. I n view of
the deposition in paragraph 3 of the witness statement, the
statement by the witness under cross -examination by Counsel to
the 4 t h -1365 t h Respondents that election was peaceful, free and
fair cannot be believed as the witness is not in a position to state
what happened after he left the polling unit as he claimed.
RW58 Elder Soji Ojuade;
19.11 The testimony of RW58 is that he was the Party Agent for Peoples
Democratic Party (PDP) on the day of election attached to St.
Peters School Akiriboto polling unit where he remained
throughout the period of the elections. He stated th at no Baale
from any village came to lay siege at his polling unit and neither
did any Baale came to his Polling Unit to carry out any order
from above to the effect that everybody must vote for PDP he
153
claimed that the Baale of Akiriboto I came to vote at his unit after
which he went back to his house. He stated that the Baale
Akiriboto I, or any other Baale neither lay siege at his polling
unit nor intimidate any voters to vote for PDP in his unit. He
further stated that his party arranged his movement fro m the
polling unit to the collation centre. He claimed that votes were
counted, recorded and result announced at his unit in the
presence of Party Agents of PDP and AC after which himself and
the AC agent - Ademola Olatidoye went together to Ward 7
collation centre at Oju Court, Gbongan. He stated that there was
collation at Ward 7 and the results were announced at the centre,
Oju Court, Gbongan and both he and the AC Agent signed INEC
Forms at Collation Centre. He stated further that Electoral
materials were given to his unit and neither were the materials
diverted nor thumb printed in the bush. He further stated that
neither was the 3rd petitioner‟s agent in his unit beaten nor were
ballot boxes and ballot papers removed. He claimed that Election
took place in his unit and same was conducted peaceful ly and
orderly.
19.12 Under cross examination, it became clear that contrary to
paragraph 5 of his statement he admitted that he d id not know
the destination of Ba ale of Akiriboto. His signatures are different
in relation to EC8A [exhibit 117(8)] and witness statement. The
EC8A for the unit Exhibit 117(8) does not contain the details of
the Presiding Officer and neither was it stamped & signed. He
attempted to deny the document which is a CTC.
Ife South Local Government

20.1 In respect of Ife South Local Government, the Petitioners
witnesses were Oladokun Gbenga (PW30), Olanrewaju Israel
Babalola (PW32), Azeez Oloyede (PW33), Olanrewaju Adewale
(PW41), Akin Adedigba (PW64), Adereti Akeem (PW71) and
154
Ademola Adeyinka Kafidiya (PW76) and their testimonies are as
follows:
PW30
20.2 PW30 is Oladokun Gbenga who gave testimony for Olode Ward,
and his testimony is that on the day of Election at Ward 7 (Olode)
which is made up of 12 units, voting was disrupted by some
thugs who were led by known PDP members/leaders in the
Ward. That Ballot boxes and ballot papers were snatched at
gunpoint at some of the polling units in the Ward and taken
away. That it was to his knowledge that monstrous violence was
perpetrated on the pet itioners‟ polling agents as some were
thoroughly beaten and injured and threatened by sporadic
gunshots. That one of such injured was Apostle J. O. Ogedengbe,
the AC polling agent at AUD units 1 and 2 of Olode Township
who was savagely dealt with by a grou p of thugs led by Taofeek
Adewole a.k.a Otiti, and Mathew Adedire a.k.a Materror. That
one Reverend, Bisi Odesola in company of other thugs, snatched
ballot box at Court hall Unit Olode Township. That election were
irregularly conducted as well as totally disrupted in 11 of the 12
polling Units in the Ward and votes were not counted and/or
announced at any of the affected Polling Units in Ward 7 (Olode).
That it was in only Agbonbiti Polling Unit that voting was
conducted without any form of disruption as t hese agents of
destruction could not reach the unit due to distance and
roughness of the road leading to the unit. That at Garage Olode
comprising five of the 12 units in Olode Ward, voting was
disrupted by some thugs who were led by known PDP
members/lead ers like Hon. Diran Ayanbeku, Remi Arogundade
and Adebisi Ojo. Ballot boxes and ballot papers were snatched
from some of the polling units in the ward and taken away. That
Elections were irregularly conducted and visited with maximum
amount of malpractices as well as totally disrupted in all the
polling units in the Ward except Agbonbiti as mentioned above
155
and votes were not counted, collated and/or announced at any of
the polling units and at the Ward level.
20.3 Under cross examination, PW30 stated that h e was invited for
questioning sometime in 2007 over the stabbing of one Adedapo
Saka, but he was released after the police investigated the matter
without having to pay a dime. He stated that 8 persons were
invited by the police in respect of the stabbing, and all 8 were
released on the same day without paying bail. He further stated
that there were 12 polling agents under his supervision as ward
supervisor. He also stated that though he registered to vote, he
was prevented from voting on the Election Day b y PDP thugs. He
stated that he visited only 5 of the 12 polling units in his ward,
but his report contained an amalgam of what he saw and what his
agents reported. He stated that none of the allegations in his
written statement on oath was false as he know s all PDP thugs
that disrupted the elections in his ward.
20.4 PW30 was emphatic in stating that the elections in his ward were
disrupted by PDP thugs. He stated that there were no elections in
his ward, INEC officials did not show up, there was no collat ion
of results and results were not declared. He stated that he
reported these incidents to the chairman of his party in his ward
who in turn reported to the police. He was unshaken during cross
20.5 The complaint of the respondents about the evidence of this
witness is that Apostle Ogedengbe whom the witness mentioned
as having been wounded by the thugs was not called by the
Petitioners. It is submitted that the failure to call this gentleman
is of no re levance to the reliability or otherwise of this witness
PW32
20.6 PW32 is Olanrewaju Israel Babalola who gave testimony for
MEFOWORADE WARD, and his testimony is that on the day of
Election at Omifunfun Polling Units 1 and 2, about six soldiers
came with some PDP men among who was Hon. Layi Adebiyi
156
from Olode. That these people stopped the election and took the
ballot boxes and INEC officials together with the polling agents
of all the parties to Olode Police Station and the Soldiers left.
That the Police took the ballot boxes and ordered all party agents
to leave. That as a result no votes were counted and no results
were announced at Omifunfun 1 and 2 polling units.
units in his ward. He stated that he did not know the names of
the policemen in his unit, and was unaware of an army unit in his
ward. He stated that he was a ward supervisor ad collation agent
for his party but was not accredited by INEC. He was unshaken
during cross examinati on, and his evidence was not contradicted.
PW33
20.8 PW33 is Azeez Oloyede who gave testimony for ARE WARD, and
his testimony is that on the day of Election some thugs armed
with guns, machetes, cudgels, charms and other dangerous
weapons led by Akin Famu yide (a.k.a Jaguu), One Azeez (a.k.a
Awo), David Adeoti (a.k.a Omolope) who are prominent PDP
members in the Local Government invaded the Ward and that the
thugs shot in the air and at the people. That some of the 3 r d
Petitioner‟s member in Idi -Odan unit, Mr. Suara Ajetomobi, Mrs.
Tope Oriade (Iya dami), Depo Ogunremi, Wole Oke, Adekunle
Gabriel and One Yemi (a non member of AC) were shot and as at
the time of lodging the Petition, the pellets are still lodged in the
body of Suara Ajetomobi. He stated that electorates and other
residents of the ward had to run for their lives. That he and some
others stayed at a safe distance from where they observed the
activities of these thugs and that these thugs carted away the
ballot box and other election materials in the unit.
20.9 PW33 further stated t hat the thugs then proceeded to Court hall
1, Court Hall 2, Town hall, Aiyetoro, AUD and Alagbado polling
units and repeated these nefarious acts. They then carted away
the ballot boxes in these units. That no votes wer e counted and
157
no results were announced at any of these seven polling units.
That consequently, none of the 3 r d Petitioner‟s polling agent
signed the result sheet (Form EC8A). That these thugs later left
for the said Suara‟s father‟s house and vandalised t he whole
place. That at Amula, Owode and Akintola units, the 3 r d
Petitioner‟s members and sympathisers were intimidated and told
not to come to the polling units if they valued their lives and
property.
20.10 Under cross examination, PW33 stated that he ha d given evidence
in the previous trial where the reports of the polling agents in his
ward were tendered through him. When asked if the reports that
were before him had been marked showing they had previously
been tendered, he replied in the negative. He s tated that he first
witnessed the disruption of elections in Idi Odan unit, after
which he cautiously followed one Jagun who led PDP thugs to
Court Hall 1 unit. He stated that Suara Adejumobi, Wole Oke,
and Tope Oriade, members of the AC were shot by PDP t hugs. He
further stated that the police were present, and aided the PDP
thugs in disrupting the elections. He was unshaken during cross
20.11 The evidence of this witness is not in any way destroyed by the
failure of this wit ness to state where he was at 3 :00 pm on the day
of election as argued by the respondents in their written
addresses as this witness has proved the fact which needed to be
proved namely that election was disrupted on the day of electi on.
PW41
20.11 PW41 is Olanrewaju Adewale who gave testimony for IKIJA 2,
and his testimony is that on the day of Election in Ikija 2 located
within Ifetedo Township and adjourning villages with 11 polling
unit, there was massive violence, snatching of ballot boxes and
papers at gunpoint. That votes were not counted in 8 units of this
ward as a result of snatching of ballot boxes by PDP thugs. That
in Onipere unit, Goke Olasoji, D ayo Esodiji, Kazeem Adebiyi
158
including some took the snatched ballot materia ls to unknown
destination. That in Baba Akodi unit, C.A.C 1, C.A.C. 2, Ilare and
Otutu Open Space polling unit, Wale Adentan, Adeoti David,
Waheed Oniwinde, Oduyanwa Julius and some other PDP thugs
stuffed the ballot box with already thumb printed ballot p apers
after hijacking the ballot box. That AC Agents and voters were
beaten and subsequently scared away.
units in his ward, and the AC had polling agents in all the units
in his ward. He stated that he only visited 10 out of the 11 polling
units in his ward. He stated emphatically that elections were not
free and fair in his ward. He was confronted with Exhibits 36B
and 36L which are reports from the AC polling agents stating that
the elections were peaceful and the PDP won.
20.13 The respondents in their written addresses have urged this
tribunal to reject the evidence of this witness on the ground that
same is conco cted and designed to mislead the tribunal. It is
submitted on behalf of the petitioners that this comment on the
part of the respondents is as unfair as it is unwarranted. As it is
clear on the record of this honourable tribunal that the evidence
of this witness is direct, clear and even under cross -examination,
he related the events as he stated them in his witness statement
on oath.
PW64
20.14 PW64 is Akin Adedigba who gave testimony for AIYESAN
WARD, and his testimony is that on the election day in Aiyesan
Ward made up of 11 polling units, some thugs and some
uniformed men in black kits were led by known PDP
members/leaders, especially akin Famuyide, Honourable Niyi
Owolade, former Commissioner for Works in Osun State, one
Azeez (a.k.a. Awo), to invade the polling units in the ward at
different times. These thugs were wield ing cutlasses, guns,
charms and some other weapons with which they chased away
159
voters from the polling units and then thumb -printed the ballot
papers in favour of the PDP with active connivance of the
security officials (i.e. the police officers) at the po lling units. That
he was aware that one Rasak Adedokun at Bolorunduro Unit 1, an
agent of the 3rd petitioner lost three of his toes to bullets shot at
one of his feet by these invading PDP thugs.
20.15 He further stated that t hese thugs further unleashed violence on
property of known members of the 3rd petitioner. That voting
was completely disrupted in the polling units in the ward by
agents of the 3rd respondent, agents of other parties and voters
were scared away by the acts of violence carried out by the
aforesaid persons. That e lection was irregularly conducted as
well as totally disrupted in all the polling units in the ward and
as a result votes were not counted and results were not
announced at any of the polling units in Aiyesan Ward. That at
Bolorunduro Unit 2, one of the petitioners‟ polling agents, Taju
Lasisi, was critically injured when the thugs of PDP struck him
with a spear on the thigh which pierced through his thigh. He
further at the hearing tendered the medical report issued and
photograph taken including the complaint made at Olode Police
Post marked as Exhibits IFS 3. That at Asawure Unit, Oyeniyi
Adewunmi, the petitioners‟ agent lost his ear to the knives of the
PDP thugs when he resisted their efforts at snatching the ballot
box. This had to be stitched back at the Olusanu Hospital at
garage Olode Township.
20.16 Under cross examination, PW64 stated that one of the AC polling
agents Taju Lasisi was wounded on the right leg by PDP thugs.
The incident was reported at Olode police station before he was
taken to Olusannu Hospital for treatment. He also stated that one
Razak Adepoju was shot on his feet by Mr. Famuyide a PDP
chieftain. He confirmed paragraph 7 of his witness statement on
oath that voting was completely disrupted in his ward. He was
160
contradicted.
20.17 The respondents have attacked the evidence of this witness on the
ground that the place where two of the agents of the AC were
stated to have been injured as disclose d in the witness statement
on oath is different from the place in which he stated the y have
been injured when he was cross -examined. It is really difficult to
appreciate the point of the respondents in this respect as the only
point of significance is tha t these agents were injured in the ward
and that polls were disrupted.
PW71
20.18 PW71 is Adereti Akeem who gave testimony for ABIRI OGUDU
WARD, and his testimony is that on the day of the election at
Abiri Ogudu Ward made up of 10 units, some armed thugs who
were led by one Jimoh (a.k.a. Agalanta), one Tunde Alarape, the
Personal Assistant to Hon. Diran Ayanbeku, Ife South Local
Government Chairman and the PDP Osun State House of
Assembly Candidate invaded all the polling units at different
times. These t hugs were wielding cutlasses, guns and some other
weapons. That the thugs attacked agents and voters at the polling
units, snatched ballot papers that were later thumb -printed in
favour of PDP and then stuffed same into the ballot boxes. That
some of the p etitioners‟ agents were forced to sign Form EC8A at
gunpoint in six units out of 10 units with the exception of Kajola,
Gbafaari, Toba Polling Units where the AC agents were driven
into the bush with guns and Aba Ooni Unit, where the PDP thugs
thumb-printed, counted and signed the Form EC8 A for and on
behalf of AC polling agent. That at Gbafaari and Kajola Units,
one of the Petitioners‟ polling agents Mr. Kazeem Akintilo and
himself were mercilessly beaten.
20.19 Under cross examination, PW71 stated that he made a report
detailing all he saw on the Election Day, and forwarded it to his
party chairman. He stated that although his report is not
161
contained in the Exhibits tendered through him, it is summarised
in his witness statement on oath. He stated that Tun de Alarape
and Jimoh Agalanta known PDP thugs disrupted the elections in
his ward, and beat both him and one Kazeem an AC agent. He
further stated that there were no elections in his ward. He
reiterated paragraph 6 of his written statement on oath that som e
AC polling agents were forced at gunpoint to sign the forms
EC8A, a fact he witnessed. He was unshaken during cross
20.20 The respondents in summarising the testimonies of this witness
in their written addresses have urged this tribunal to consider
him a liar because according to them he did not visit all the
voting units as he has claimed. With respect to the respondents‟
counsel, this position is not correct as this witness is very clear in
his evidence that he visited all the polling units before the polls
started on the day of election and that he visited 6 units in the
ward when voting was supposed to have been underway but for
the disruption.
PW76
20.21 PW76 is Ademola Adeyinka Kafidiya who gave t estimony for Osi
Ward, and his testimony is that on the day of Election some thugs
who were led by Hon. Diran Ayanbeku, the house Of Assembly
candidate of P.D.P. in Ife South Local Government., Okikiade,
immediate past councillor in the ward and a prominen t PDP
member in the ward, Adeoye Ademiluyi (a.k.a. sorty) and some
others came in four (4) 18 -seater buses and a jeep belonging to
Hon. Diran Ayanbeku to invade 6 polling units out of 11 polling
units in the ward. That these thugs while wielding cutlasses,
guns, charms and some other dangerous weapons, shot
indiscriminately into the air and at known 3rd petitioner‟s
members and sympathisers. That the violent act of these thugs
scared away the electorates and security agents attached to the
polling units too k to their heels while he and some others stayed
162
at a safe distance to observe the activities of these thugs. That at
Osi Sooko unit, voting had completed and votes were about being
counted when the thugs arrived, these thugs mercilessly beat the
AC agent at the unit, Biodun Ademiluyi and hijacked the ballot
box and took it to an unknown destination. That at Kajola units 1
and 2, Diran Ayanbeku and his thugs invaded the two polling
units, snatched the ballot boxes in which lawful votes cast were
contained, threw down the ballot papers, burnt them and carried
away the ballot boxes together with the unused ballot papers.
They took away the INEC officers at the units at gunpoint.
20.22 PW76 further stated t hat at Ara Joshua poling unit, the said Hon.
Diran Ayanbeku led thugs who shot at four members of the 3rd
petitioners and burnt the entire ballot papers of the votes that
were cast. He later exhibited the pictures of the persons shot at as
exhibits ATW 1. That these thugs then proceeded to snatching the
ballot boxes and forcefully carted them away with some other
electoral materials at Ara Joshua. That in all these 6 units, voting
was irregularly conducted as well as totally disrupted by acts of
violence by the aforesaid persons in the said polling units and a s
a result votes were not counted and results were not announced
at these 6 polling units in the ward.
20.23 Under cross examination of PW76, he stated all the 6 polling
units under his supervision, namely: Kajola 1 and 2 unit, Ara 1
and 2 unit, Osi -Soko unit, Osi Okero unit. He also stated that he
made a statement on oath which contains his written report given
to his party chairman. Witness stated further that he read his
agents reports before his deposition. He confirmed that he will be
surprised to hear that the result of his polling unit was intact. It
was again elicited under cross examination that witness gave
evidence before Naron Tribunal where he stated that he cast his
vote at Osi, and it was his duty as a party supervisor to be at the
place. He also confirmed that the pictures of those wounded are
with his lawyers. Furthermore, he stated that he was at the
163
polling unit at kajola when they took the INEC Officials away.
Under cross examination by counsel to the 4 th to 1365 t h
Respondents, witness st ated that he was the collation agent for
his ward as accredited by his party and not INEC. Witness was
unshaken by all the sets of Respondents under cross examination.
20.24 The respondents in their written addresses have also alleged that
since the witness could not tell the name of the INEC official who
was taken away as stated in paragraph 9 of his witness statement
on oath, his evidence should be discountenanced. This to say the
least is startling as it has not been shown on the evidence
available that the names of different INEC officials during the
abortive election in the ward were displayed or disclo sed on that
day.
Evidence of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents in Ife South Local Government
21.1 The 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents called only four witnesses from Ife
South Local Governmnt. These are: RW34 Akin Famuyide; RW41
Kazeem Adebiyi; RW51 Adebisi Ojo; RW55 Adeoye Ademiluyi
RW34 Akin Famuyide
21.2 The testimony of RW34 is that he is presently the chairman
caretaker committee Ife South Local Govemment and that on 14th
April, 2007 at about 10.30a.m at Are Ward Town Hall polling
units Ifetedo, he got to the polling station to cast his vote and
went back home. He stated that he did not see any Azeez (a.k.a
Awo) David Adeoti (a.k.a Omolope), Niyi Owolade on the day of
the election or neither did he own a gun and as a born again
Christian he does not engage in charms. He stated that he was in
his house all through the day of election and because of the
compactment of Ifetedo he knew as a fact that election was
peaceful, free and fair in his unit and throughout the ward in
Ifetedo town. He denied engaging in any act of harassment,
thuggery or violence on the day of election.
21.3 RW34 claimed in paragraph 5 of his witness statement that
election was conducted peacefully at the polling unit where he
164
voted and the entire ward of Ifetedo. However, in paragraph 3 of
his witness statement, he said that at about 10.30 am at Are Ward,
Town Hall polling units Ifetedo, he got to the polling station cast
his vote and went back home . There is no factual basis for
paragraph 5 of the witness statement as he admitted under cross -
examination that he was not in a position to know whether votes
were collated, sorted, counted or announced. Whereas the witness
stated in paragraph 2 that he i s the chairman caretaker committee
Ife South Local Government, furthermore he admitted under
cross examination that he is an experienced politician and despite
his assertion in paragraph 5 as to the compa ct state of Ifetedo the
witness did not know the result of election in his unit and the
ward. He finally admitted that his appointment was a reward for
his labour and even deserves more than that.
RW41 Kazeem Adebiyi
21.4 The testimony of RW41 is that he is from Ikija Ward 2 of Ife South
Local Government and casted his vote at C.A.C. 2 polling unit on
14th day of April, 2007 after which he left for his house
immediately. He stated that he did not see Dayo Esodiji and Wale
Adeniran on April 14th 2007 and that he did not cause violence at
any place on 14th Apr il, 2007 neither did he accompany any
person or persons to snatch ballot boxes or papers on 14th April,
2007. He further stated that the affidavit sworn to by one
Olanrewaju Adewale is not true.
21.5 Under cross examination, Kazeem Adebiyi claimed to have voted
at C.A.C polling unit 2 and under cross examination by Counsel
to INEC he claimed that election was peaceful, free and fair in his
unit. This same witness in paragraph 3 of his deposition stated
categorically that he left for his house after voting a nd under
cross examination by the Petitioner‟s counsel he admitted he
would not know what happened after he had left the polling unit .
Latter the same witness said though he would not see but he
would have heard if there was any disruption, ironically the same
165
witness who claimed to have voted in the morning without
knowing when and how long it took him admitted that he did not
know when election ended. We humbly submit that the witness
cannot be believed as for him to admit that he did not know when
election ended he would also not be in a position to know
whether there was disruption or not. To further discredit the
testimony of this witness, he was confronted with Exhibit 414(C)
which is the INEC Certified True Copy of the voters register
allegedly used for the conduct of election in his unit and
unfortunately his name was not on the register. And like a
drowning man whose hope of survival is in clinging to an
available straw, and not being an INEC official denied the
register.
RW51 Adebisi Ojo
21.6 The testimony of RW51 is that during the April 14, 2007
Gubernatorial and House of Assembly elections he casted his vote
at Court Hall Unit, Olode and immediately went back to his
house at Isale Alawusa Area, Olode. He denied moving around
with Hon. Diran Ayanbeku, Remi Arogundade on 14/4/2007. He
also stated that he neither snatch ed ballot papers from anybody
on 14/4/2007 nor stuffed ballot papers into any ballot box on
14/4/2007. He further stated that he has read the affidavit
deposed to by Oladokun Gbenga a nd that all facts deposed to
therein are false.
21.7 Under cross examination a witness sworn as Adebisi Ojo all of a
sudden decided to be known as Adebisi Ojo Samson A. though,
he never gave the full meaning of the A. This witness claimed to
have voted around 2pm and that he would know what happened
as well as happening after he left the polling unit as his house
was close to the unit. The witness in another breath admitted he
would not see whatever was going on at the unit and that if there
is any form of malpractice he would not know since he left the
unit after voting. In a twist of fa te for this witness INEC the
166
organizer of the election could not even make available voters
register of the unit he allegedly claimed to have registered. In
fact there were obvious discrepancies in the scores recorded in
the EC8A (exhibit 166(1)) with that of the EC8A (exhibit 159(7))
we invite your lordship to see these discrepancies.
RW55 Adeoye Ademiluyi
21.8 The testimony of RW55 is that on the 14 t h day of April, 2007, h e
did not accompany anyone in 4, 18 seater buses and a jeep
belonging to Hon. Diran Ayanbeku. He stated further that he did
not invade any polling units in Osi Ward neither did he wield
cutlasses, gun, charms and some other dangerous weapons as
alleged by Ademola Adeyinka Kafidiya nor shoot
indiscriminately into the air and at known 3 r d Petitioners
members and sympathizers as alleged by Ademola Adeyinka
Kafidiya. He also denied owning a gun.
21.9 Under cross examination , this witness who claimed to have vot ed
said under cross-examination that election was peaceful . In a bid
to cover the atrocity committed by himself, Hon. Diran Ayanbeku
and their cohort he frantically tried to create a scenario of the
impossibility of moving from Aiyesan to Osi by saying tha t the
journey will take a very longtime but later admitted it is possible.
This witness did not tell us how many days it took him to get to
the Court to testify.
21.20 We humbly urge your lordship to take cognizance of the fact that
he was alleged to have been riding in a jeep with the said
honourable and it is a known fact that jeeps are perfect off -road
vehicles. We submit that the witness lacks the credibility as far as
his testimony on the conduct of the election in his ward is
concerned because INEC, the organizer of the e lection, cancelled
result of three (3) units including the unit where the witness
claimed to have voted in Osi Ward as can be seen from exhibit
159(8) before Your Lordships.
167
Isokan Local Government
22.1 In respect of Isokan Local Gov ernment, the Petitioners
witnesses were Adeniyi Olusegun Oyebola (PW52), Adesina
Mutiu Adegoke (PW54), Abolaji Saheed (PW55), Alabi Idowu
Oluwafemi (PW59), Mudashiru Asimiyu Olayinka (PW75),
Akanji Dolapo (PW77) and Mojeed Onifade (PW78)
PW52
22.2 PW52 is Adeniyi Olusegun Oyebola who gave testimony for Ward
11, and his testimony is that on the day of Election in ward 11,
Alhaji Moshood Lawal (a.k.a. Timayin) one Musefiu Olumagbo,
Tirimisiyu Alagbaa (a.k.a Titimayin), Olym pic photo, Ologan,
Mutiu, Sule O lorunsesan who are known members/ leaders of the
3rd respondents led a large number of armed thugs to disrupt
voting in all the polling units in this ward. That these thugs
illegally thumb printed ballot papers and stuffed the ballot
papers into the ballot box and high jacked the ballot box away to
an unknown destination. That in Faru A lapomu polling unit the
stolen ballot box was forcefully taken to an unknown destina tion
which later resurfaced at Faru A lapomu polling unit. The ballot
box was eventually taken to the collation centre where the Action
Congress party agents were not allowed to be present.
22.3 PW52 further stated that in O osa po lling Unit Oladebo Yisau, Dr
K.K. Akinroye and Peter Babalola (a.k.a. Peter Power) were part
of the thugs that disrupted the election in the unit. That in all
polling units in the wards in Isokan local government votes were
not counted and neither was form EC8A made available by the
INEC officials at the said polling units for immediate recording
of the election scores to b e counter signed by the various party‟s
agents.
22.4 Under cross examination of PW 52 counsel to the 1 s t – 3 r d
Respondents, witness stated that he registered to vote but PDP
thugs led by Alhaji Moshood Olorun -esan did not allow him to
vote. Witness was re gistered to vote at Faru -Alapomu polling
168
unit and he got to the unit in the morning before 9am, but could
not say the exact time because he did not have a wrist watch with
him. He also stated that he met few voters, but INEC officials
were not yet around. W itness confirmed that INEC officials
accredited people before thugs came to disrupt the election.
Again witness stated that voting is to start by 8am – 3pm under a
free and fair election. But in his ward the reverse was the case,
election did not start 8am .Furthermore, witness said he was at
Ayepe polling unit when the PDP thugs disrupted the election.
22.5 PW52 stated that Aiyepe was a collation centre and that he did
not see anybody to collate results. Witness said he got reports
from his agents of their own account s in the unit, and he
personally saw what happened. What he saw is what he wrote.
Agent wrote what they saw. They chased away agents and he was
there and he saw other things i.e. he saw Peter power the chief of
staff in the Governor‟s office. H e also saw that ballot boxes were
taken away. He did not agree with counsel that he has come to lie
rather to state what happened. The evidence of witness was firm
and remained uncontroverted.
22.6 The respondents in their written addresses in discussing the
evidence of this witness have said that the fact that the witness
admitted under cross -examination that the reports of the AC
agents in the ward did not include the fact that ballot boxes were
snatched “…put paid to the testimony in paragraph 5 -9 of his
written statement that snatched ballot boxes were snatched and
eventually stuffed and brought to the collation centre...”
22.7 While it is true that the witness admitted that the reports of the
agents did not include this fact, the respondents unfortun ately
did not state the full testimony of the witness on this issue as the
witness had said even under cross -examination that the reports of
the agents did not include the fact that ballot boxes were
snatched because the agents were chased away. We refer t his
honourable tribunal to the proceedings of the 27 t h day of August,
169
2009; most especially the answer which the witness gave to the
question of the counsel to the 1 s t -3 r d respondents during the
proceedings of that day.
PW54
22.8 PW54 is Adesina Mutiu Adegoke who gave testimony for Ward 6,
and his testimony is that on the day of Election in ward 6,
Apomu, comprising of Alapomu and St Banabas polling units) a
PDP stalwart, Alhaji Moshood Lawal (a.k.a Olorunesan), one
Yisau Oladebo and Kola Faesan led thu gs alongside other
members of the 3rd Respondent and members of the National
Union of Road Transport Workers to disrupt voting in the various
polling units in the ward. That the group of people threatened
party agents of the 3rd petitioner with guns, cutla sses, charms
and beat up the said AC party agents and took them to police
stations. One of the said party agents taken to the police station
is Ogunlowo Abiodun from Alapomu 1 polling unit. That the
thugs later seized the ballot papers, embarked on thumb p rinting
of ballot papers and stuffing the ballot boxes with these papers.
22.9 Under cross examination witness stated that he was not beaten
but frightened. Police did not arrest nor prosecute anybody that
beat my agents. Witness said National Union of Roa d Transport
Workers disrupted the election . He confirmed that election starts
at 8am, and that he was at Alapomu II at 8.00am where he
registered to vote . He stated that at 3.00pm he was at the
collation centre expecting them to bring the result, he did no t see
them. Witness said he went at 8.00am to his unit to vote. Witness
said that while he was at Alapomu II he would not know what
was happening in other units.
PW55
22.10 PW55 is Abolaji Saheed who gave testimony for ward 10, and his
testimony is that on the day of Election in ward 10, one Lateef
Adeniran (a.k.a. Mao) Moshood Lawal (a.k.a. Olorun Esan),
170
Honourable Ademola Opadola, Dr Kola Akinroye led some thugs
to invade the polling units in the ward that the thugs disrupted
voting in Awala, Okodowo, Agb aogun, Onikoko, Ita Marun and
Elebenla polling units. That the thugs also beat up AC agents and
threatened them with guns and cutlasses. That the thugs
eventually started thumb printing ballot papers and dumping
them in the ballot boxes.
22.11 Under cross examination of PW 55, Witness said that he was not
one of the Action Congress agents that was beaten, he was ward
supervisor. He also confirm ed that his agents are alive . The
respondents in their written addresses have attacked the evidence
of this witnes s by alleging that this witness did not link the
individuals mentioned in paragraph 5 of his witness statement to
any political party. Well the simple response to this is that what
is in issue is whether the election was disrupted? The evidence on
the record in respect of the ward has shown this clearly it does
not matter whether those who caused the disruption are from
Mars!!!
PW59
22.12 PW59 is Alabi Idowu Oluwafemi who gave testimony for ward 2,
and his testimony is that on the day of Election in ward 2 (made
up of 6 polling units namely; St. David, Obaonileowo, Timi, Town
Hall, Ile Oke, Maternity Polling Units), the same Alhaji Taofeek
Abioye Makinde, Honourable Sulaimon Adio Oyegunle, Kolawole
Faniyi, Akeem Opeola, Latifu Gbadebori, Kamoru Biobaku, Taiw o
Ambali and Moshood Ambali, all PDP leaders/members, led
about 40 thugs to invade the polling units in the ward.
22.13 PW59 further stated t hat these thugs attacked all the agents of the
3 r d Petitioner in all the six polling units in the Ward and that the
thugs scared voters and agents of the 3rd Petitioner away .
Subsequently these thugs seized the ballot papers and started
thumb printing them which they later dumped into the ballot
box. One Mrs. Iyanda and a Member of the National Youth
171
Service Corps sim ply known as Charity, a Police Officer, simply
known as Omotosho with No. 306906 and other policemen present
assisted the PDP thugs in the aforesaid activities. That in fact, in
Timi polling unit Honourable Sulaimon Adio Oyegunle pointed
gun at the witness and asked him to leave the polling unit
otherwise he loses his life. That voting was completely disrupted
as these leaders/members of the 3 r d Respondent and their armed
thugs did not allow voting to take place at any of the polling
units in the ward in ac cordance with the law. That votes were not
counted and results were not announced at any of the polling
units in Ward 2.
22.14 Under cross examination of PW 59, he stated that he is an OND
holder in Business Administration . That he is an Applicant.
Witness said there are 6 polling units in his ward. Action
Congress had party agents in each of the polling unit . He said
that he acted as a ward supervisor and never acted as an agent in
the polling unit s. He said he knows the duties of his polling
agents. Witness further stated that It was the duties of my agents
to stay permanently at the unit and watch/monitor election and
to sign INEC results, but the reverse was the case in his ward, as
agents were not allowed to stay in the unit. He also stated his
duties as a ward supervisor, was to monitor his agents and move
around the polling units. He said that he wr ote a report which is
not part in Exhibits 54a -f, and that the said report was given to
his party chairman in the Local Government Area
22.15 PW59 stated that PDP thugs did not allow him to vote despite the
fact that he registered to vote at maternity polling uni t and that
his voters card was torn by the PDP thugs le d by PDP leader. The
witness said that the PDP thugs have already chased the agents
away so he could not know that gun was pointed at him. The
reports were not written after the election, it was written after all
the agents have being chased away.
PW75
172
22.16 PW75 is Mudashiru Asimiyu Olayinka who gave testimony for
ward 3, and his testimony is tha t on the day of the Election in
ward 3 (consisting of 6 polling units namely CAC, St Ritas,
Dispensary, Ikoyi-Ile, Alekuso, and Asejire Polling units), the
same Alhaji Taofeek Abioye Makinde, Honourable Sulaimon Adio
Oyegunle, Kolawole Faniyi, Akeem Opeola , Latifu Gbadebori,
kamoru Biobaku, Taiwo Ambali and Moshood Ambali together
with Messrs Alhaji Aminu and Alhaji Rasheed accompanied by
their armed thugs invaded the various polling units in this ward.
This group of people disrupted the hitherto peaceful v oting
activities by scaring away voters seized the ballot papers and
started thumb printing ballot papers in favour of the 1 s t , 2 n d and
3 r d respondents. That the unlawfully thumb printed ballot papers
were then stuffed into the ballot boxes. That he is awa re that
votes were not counted and results were not announced at any of
the polling units in ward 3.
22.17 Under cross examination of PW 75 by counsel to the 1 s t – 3 r d
Respondents witness stated that he was not accredited by INEC
as ward 3 supervisor but nominated by his party. Witness said he
read the reports (exhibit 75a -h] before he wrote his deposition
and that he also read the reports of his agents before swearing to
the deposition. He stated that saw his agents before he testified
before the Justice Naron‟s panel but now he has not been seeing
them. He said that his Statement on Oath contains his reports.
Witness said he got to dispensary unit at about 11.30am, hanging
somewhere because Suleimon Ambali and others led thugs to
disrupt the election; the y are PDP thugs he confirmed. He again
confirmed that he was at Dispensary polling unit, when the PDP
told the voters to come back the following week because they
have voted on their behalf. He said exhibit 75g, is the agents
report for Dispensary polling unit
PW77
173
22.18 PW77 is Akanji Dolapo who gave testimony for ward 4, and his
testimony is that on the day of Election in ward 4 (consisting of 7
polling units namely Mopa, Abidemi, Alako, Oranran , Oranran 2,
Mowo-Oba and Olumelo polling units) very early in the morning,
Alhaji Abioye Makinde, Honourable Sulaimon Adio Oyegunle,
Moshood Ambali together with one Akeem Tibinu, the Chairman
of the National Union of Road Transport Workers and others led
thugs to invade the polling unit in the ward. That the thug s fully
armed with guns and cutlasses waylaid AC party agents around
Orita Ijebu Palace Hall, Ikoyi, locked them up in the hall and
forced them to part with their money, phones and ID Cards. That
the said agents who are Sabitu Gbadamosi, Lasisi Usman and
Ganiyu Omoboriowo from Mopa Polling Unit were later taken to
State Criminal Investigation Bureau in Osogbo from where they
were transferred to Ife Prisons without any order of court to that
effect. That one Lasisi Sarafa, a party agent to the Action
Congress was attacked with cutlass on the head at the Abidemi
polling unit. That as a result of the attack he sustained a serious
injury which caused serious bleeding and was eventually taken to
the Boripe Hospital for treatment. That other AC agent were not
allowed to monitor the said elections thereby leaving the 3rd
petitioner with no party agents in the ward.
22.19 Under cross examination of PW 77, he stated that he made a
written report to his party chairman. He confirmed that report
was not part of Exhibits 77a-g shown to him. He stated that he
knows Lasisi Sharafa was in his house .He also confirms that all
other agents are alive. He said he is not aware that every political
party will send their agents name to INEC before election . In
view of the foregoing the claim of the respondents in their
written addresses that this witness did not give evidence about
the conduct of the election or non -compliance cannot be correct.
PW78
174
22.20 PW78 is Mojeed Onifade who gave testimony for ward 8, and his
testimony is that on the day of the Election in ward 8, Prince
Afolabi Babatunde, Adio Sulayman, Moshood Lawal a.k.a.
Olorunesan and Kunle Akindunbi known members of the 3rd
Respondent led armed thugs who invaded and disrupted
elections at Awotedo, Bank area, Agunla, Ew enla, and quarry I &
II polling units at gun point. That the thugs stuffed ballot papers
already thumb printed for PDP candidates into the ballot boxes.
22.21 Under cross examination of PW 78, he stated that his own written
report given to the chairman is not among Exhibits 78a -g. After
the election had been disrupted, all the agents have ran away .
After the PDP thugs chased us away from the town, we have not
been seeking each other he added. He could not remember all the
names of his agent dictated to him because it had been a long
time but he stated that he has not being seeing them . Witness said
the agents submitted the reports to him on the day of election
after PDP thugs disrupted the election. He said the name of his
collation agent of his ward is Hon. Taiwo Osuolale and that he is
alive.
Evidence of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents in Isokan Local Government

23.1 In Isokan Local Government, 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents called nine
witnesses. They are: RW20 Dr. Kola Akinroye; RW27 Alhaji Azeez
Lateef Adeniran; RW3 2 Kolawole Faesan; RW44 Taof eek Abioye
Makinde; RW46 Alhaji Moshood Lawal; RW47 Alhaji Oladebo
Yissau; RW48 Afolabi Babatunde; RW52 Aminu Adedeji; RW53
Faniyi Kolawole; RW56 Lateef Gbadebori
RW20 Dr. Kola Akinroye
23.2 The testimony of RW20 is that he practices medicine at Humana
Medical Centre and a member of P.D.P in Isokan Local
Government Apomu Osun State. He stated that he casted his vote
at Ward 8 around 11.00a.m on 14th April 2007 and thereafter
went back home and he was not at anytime with Peter Ba balola
175
and Yisa Oladebo as he did not at anytime visited Ward 11. He
stated that on the day of election he did not leave his Ward and
equally did not see Alhaji Lateef Adeniran (A.K.A Mao),
Moshood LawaI (a.k.a Olorun Esan) Hon. Ademola Opadola talk
less of being with them and thugs to disrupt election or thumb
printing of ballot papers and stuffing of ballot boxes. He claimed
that to the best of his knowledge the election in his Ward was
free and fair and there was no incidence of any malpractices.
23.3 Under cross examination, RW20 , Dr. Kola Akinroye In paragraph
4 of the witness statement and under cross -examination by
Counsel to the 1366 t h and 1367 t h Respondents, the witness said he
confirmed that election in his polling unit was free and fair but
under cross-examination by Counsel to 4 t h to 1365 t h Respondents,
the witness stated that he went home after casting his vote and
slept. The witness admitted under cross -examination that he will
not know what happened in his unit after he left the Polling Unit.
The witness certainly cannot give credible testimony as to
whether election was free and fair. The witness claimed that he
voted in Polling Unit 3 of Ward 8 and he initially claimed that he
cannot remember the name of the unit but later under cross -
examination, the witness claimed that his name was displayed on
voters list at Unit 3, Awotedo.
23.4 RW20 lacks any iota of credibility. Even though the witness had
stated in his witness statement that he voted around 11.00 a.m,
under cross-examination, the witne ss initially stated that he he
did not know the exact time he voted and that he cannot
remember. The witness later said that “I did not vote at
11.00a.m., it‟s not true that I voted at around 11.00a.m.”. Yet
when he was confronted with his witness statemen t (paragraph 2)
the witness now said he voted at 11.00a.m. Aside this obvious
contradiction, it is a tissue of lies that the witness voted and went
back home on the election day. This is because the name of the
witness is not on Exhibit 436C which is the V oters Register for
176
Ward 8, Unit 3. Further, whereas the witness initially claimed
that he deferred to his ward chairman on all matters concerning
the party in his ward, he later stated under cross -examination
that he is a leader of PDP in Apomu and by his level of
responsibility, it behooves on him to have the report of conduct
of election in his Ward.
RW27 Alhaji Azeez Lateef Adeniran
Awala Village, Apomu at about 10.00 a.m on 14th April, 2007 for
the Governor and State House of Assembly election and met a lot
of people casting their votes peacefully and he joined them. He
stated that he did not know Abolaji Saheed. He also denied any
of the following people namely; Alhaji Moshood La waI, Hon.
Ademola Opadola, Dr. Kola Akinroye on the day of election as
alleged in the Election Petition shown to him. He denied having
thugs with him, nor carries cutlass and gun on any day or the day
of election as alleged in the aforesaid Election Petiti on. He
claimed that he casted his vote peacefully and returned to his
house.
23.6 Under cross examination, Alhaji Azeez Lateef Adeniran, the
witness admitted that he is the current Local Government
Secretary of Isokan Local Government and a PDP member. He
stated that his nick name is “Mao”. He stated that he knew Alhaji
Moshood Lawal, also known as Olorunesan, Hon. Ademola
Opadola, Dr Kola Akinroye and that these people are PDP
members. Incredibly, even though this witness is a politician and
a political office holder, he claimed that he only knew the result
of the election the following day and that he was not anxious to
know the result for his unit. He stated that he knew was when
people were jubilating that PDP had won. He claimed he knew
the result of his unit on the following day . He said that as the
secretary of Local Government and politician, he was not anxious
about the result . He said that he did not know about the result
177
and that only INEC and p arty agent are supposed to know . Under
cross-examination by 4 t h -1365 t h Respondents the witness stated
that election in his ward was peaceful and orderly. The witness
cannot credibly make this statement in view of his claim that he
left for his house immediately and he did not even know about
the election until the following day.
23.7 There is evidence even gross deficiency in the ballot papers
certified by INEC as having being used by INEC in his polling
unit, unit 2 Awala Market, Ward 10, Isokan Local Government
which belie the claim of a regular electi on in the unit. By Exhibit
315(b)(1-333), there were 333 ballot papers certified by INEC as
having being used by INEC in his polling unit as against 372
ballot total votes recorded on Exhibit 153(1 -7), that is the
particular EC8A for the unit. There is thu s a deficit of 39 ballot
papers in the unit.
RW32 Kolawole Faesan
23.8 The testimony of RW32 is that he is a P.D.P party leader in Ward
9 of Isokan Local Government of Osun State and that on 14th
April 2007 he went to the polling station at 8.00a.m in the
morning but voting did not start until 9.00am and he casted his
vote at Oosa Ekan Ade polling unit. He stated he was not in any
waynear Ward 6 nor did he see Alhaji Moshood Lawal, Yisau
Oladebo and did not use gun, cutlasses and charms on anybody
neither did he partake in the stuffing of ballot boxes or
disruption of voting exercise in his unit as alleged in the Petition
shown to him. He stated that he equally did not aid or abet in the
disruption of voting exercise in all other wards in Isokan Local
Government.
23.9 Under cross examination by the 4 t h – 1365 t h respondents the
witness admitted that he is a leader of PDP and was the first
person to get to the Polling Unit to cast his vote and that when he
left he wouldn‟t know how proceedings went. He claimed that
immediately he voted his wife was the next person that was
178
attended to, but he did not wait for her. Contrary to his statement
above as to not knowing how proceedings went after leaving the
polling unit he went further to state that i t will be unfort unate if
anybody alleges violence at the Polling Unit on Election Day. The
witness still claimed under cross examination by the petitioners
and the 1366 t h – 1367 t h respondent that the voting exercise after
he left was transparently peaceful contrary to his statement that
he wouldn‟t know what happened after he left. When asked why
he left his wife behind he stated that it is a constitutional issue as
it is his right he went to exercise and not under any obligation to
wait for his wife.
23.40 Despite his stance on the transparency of the election the witness
admitted that he would be surprised that ballot paper s supplied
by INEC as used is less than what was recorded on the EC8A for
the unit. Incredibly, even though this w itness is a politician and
a party leader, he claimed that he only knew the result of the
election in the night through people jubilating and that he was
not anxious to know the result for his unit. He said he heard the
result of his Ward in the evening and Unit at 8.00p.m.
23.41 The witness finally agreed later under cross -examination that he
was not there when the result was declared, compiled and
collated, announced and so not in a position to tell the Tribunal
whether the results was collated and recorded in his polling u nit.
The witness however gave a new dimension when he disclosed
that his wife of ten years still bear her maiden name. Though , he
claimed his wife was the next person to vote after him, Exhibit
437C voters‟ register for the unit however shows the contrary as
neither was Omolara Faesan nor Omolara Oguniran as claimed by
him exist on the register.
RW44 Taofeek Abioye Makinde
23.42 The testimony of RW44 is that he is a resident of Ikoyi in Osun
State by virtue of which he is conversant with the facts deposed
to herein. He stated that he participated as an electorate in the
179
election conducted on the 14 t h day of April, 2007 at ward 1
located at AUD Primary School, Ikoyi. He claimed that the last
time he saw Honourable Adio Oyegunle last was on the 13 t h day
of April in his house when he came to inquire about party agents
appointed for the purpose of 14 t h April, 2007 election. He stated
that during the conduct of the election, he did not set his eyes on
Hon. Adio Oyegunle and only met him later in the day at about
6.00pm at the collation centre located at Apomu Town. He denied
seeing kola Ajisafe, Kolawole Faniyi, Akeem Opeola and
Moshood Ambali kamoru Biobaku on the 14 t h day of April, 2007.
He stated that he did not move about on this day as he only
casted his vote and went back home only to come out at 6.00pm
for the collation at the centre. He stated that he did not belong to
ward 2 and therefore cannot be at ward 2 for any purpose at all.
He stated that he knew Lateef Gbadebori and that Gbadebori is
his P.A Personal Assistant b ut was not with him on the 14 t h day
of April, 2007. He also stated that he knew Alhaji Aminu as one
of the party leaders in his Local Government but did not see him
on the 14 t h day of April, 2007.
23.43 RW44 stated further that he only saw Akeem Tibinu on the said
day at about 6.00pm at the collation centre and not during the
elections. He denied locking anybody up anywhere at anytime.
He also stated that he did not lead thug or thugs either as an
individual or with some people to beat any polling agent or
thumb print any ballot papers in the presence of policemen and
INEC Presiding Officers. He finally stated that he has been shown
a copy of the petition and all the allegations made therein as to
his personality concerning the roles he played on the 14 t h day of
April 2007 are false.
23.45 Under cross examination, RW44 claimed in paragraph 3 of the
witness statement that he participated as an electorate in the
election but it became clear under cross -examination that the
witness is a strong PDP stalwart and that he was even a former
180
Commissioner under the auspices of the PDP. The witness
certainly lacked any iota of credibility as he claimed under cross -
examination that he was the collation agent for the PDP at the
Local Government and that he signed the resu lt of the election for
Isokan Local Government. This turned out to be falsehood as
Exhibit 142, Form EC8C the result for Isokan Local Government,
showed that the witness did not sign the result for the Local
Government. The name of PDP collation agent for the PDP on
Exhibit 142 is Alhaji Olaniyi Alabi.
23.46 The witness who had claimed that he did not know the collation
agent for his ward later claimed that Odeniyi Rasaki who signed
the Exhibit 143(1) as Ward Collation agent and Exhibit 144(5) as
polling agent for the unit was appointed as the collation agent for
his ward. The witness also claimed that it was at his house that
the ward collation result was brought to him and at the same time
that he cannot remember the names and how many polling agents
brought the result to his house. The witness admitted that he
could not say whether the result for his unit and ward was
announced and collated because he was not there. Apart from
being shown to be a liar , the admission by the witness that
results were taken to his house is a further evidence of
manipulation of the election procedure to the advantage of the 3 r d
Respondent.
RW46, Alhaji Moshood Lawal
23.47 The testimony of RW46 is that he is a party leader of PDP in
Isokan Local Government of Osun State and on 14 t h April, 2007 at
about 10.00 am he went to ward 11 at St. Jude Aiyepe polling
station, took his turn to cast his vote after which he returned
home to his father‟s house in the village. He stated that after
returning home he did not in company of anybody or thugs
invade the polling units or illegally thumb print ballot papers
and stuffing of same in ballot boxes. He stated that he did not see
Hon. Ademola Opadola, Dr. Kola Akinroye, on the day of the
181
elections and neither did he see Kunle Akindunbi, Adio
Sulayman, Afolabi Babatunde, Yisau Oladebo, Kola Faesan on the
election day as all of the people mentioned were not registered in
his ward.
23.48 RW46 further stated that he has never handled a gun in his life
and his religion does not permit him to engag e in any act of
violence, thuggery and harassment of innocent people. He
claimed that to the best of his knowledge and reports which their
representative gave him in his capacity as a party leader, election
on 14 t h April 2007 was conducted in the most peac eful and
conducive atmosphere free from all act of thuggery, intimidation,
harassment and any known electoral malpractices.
23.49 Under cross examination, this witness admitted in paragraph 6 of
his deposition that he is a PDP leader, he claimed further in the
same paragraph that election was peaceful and conducted in a
conducive atmosphere, the same statement he reiterated under
cross examination by the Counsel to the other sets of Respondent.
This witness who claimed under cross examination to be a
practicing Muslim refused to swear by the Holy Quran, in
answering a question as to why he refuse d to swear with the Holy
Quran he stated that he was used to affirming an answer that
contradicted the deposition he adopted. In showing that this
witness is an embo diment of contradiction he claimed in
paragraph 5 of his deposition that he has never handled a gun in
his life and that his religion abhors same, but ironically under
cross examination it was shown that he was a retired Soldier who
fought wars.
23.50 RW46 admitted knowing those with whom he was alleged to have
disrupted election and under further cross examination he stated
that after voting he went to his father‟s house in the village and
never came out again. We submit that for someone who claimed
to have voted and went away to say election was peaceful can
only be a figment of his imagination and to escape this he
182
claimed it was an unnamed agent that told him election was
peaceful. This witness toward the closure of his cross
examination was asked if he would still maintain the same stance
if he were to swear by the Holy Quran stylishly avoided the
question and became comical. We submit that the testimony of
this witness cannot hold water as he is not a witness of truth.
RW47, Alhaji Oladebo Yissau
Bodude, Apomu about 11.00 am on 14 t h April, 2007, Governor and
House of Assembly Election and met a lot of people on the line
waiting to cast their votes and he joined them. He stated t hat he
did not know one Tajudeen Adebayo and Shina Faisan as alleged
in the Election Petition. He stated the he did not go to Ekan Ade
Mosque on the Election day and did not have anybody with him
when he casted his vote and after casting his vote he for hi s home
alone. He claimed that no electoral malpractices occurred in his
polling unit when he was there as alleged in the Petition.
23.52 Under cross examination, RW47 Alhaji Oladebo Yissau The
witness admitted to be a PDP member and indeed a leader, he
claimed under cross examination by INEC Counsel that election
was peaceful but he admitted under cross examination by the
Petitioner‟s Counsel that he left the polling unit after voting,
when asked if he could see what happen after he left his answer
was that “…how would I know”. For this same witness to now
say election in his unit was peaceful.
23.53 This witness, a former police officer and NC E graduate, could not
calculate the age difference between someone born in 2006 to
2010 just as he did not know how old he was in 2007 though he is
presently 57. This witness claimed to have voted and
unfortunately his name is not on the voter‟s register for the unit
he claimed to have voted, Exhibit 437(F) Voters register for
Bodude unit 6 of ward 9 need no further ex planation for the
unbelievable story he had told as testimony. Finally for a witness
183
who claimed to be party leader to say he was not interested in the
result of election being contested by his party cannot but be
ridiculous.
RW48, Afolabi Babatunde
23.54 The testimony of RW48 is that on 14 t h April 2007 at Alapomu‟s
Palace polling station for the Governorship/House of Assembly
election he went to his polling station and cast his vote at about
12.45 pm after which he went back home and was not at anytime
near ward 8, he stated that he did not see Adio Sulayman,
Moshood Lawal and Kunle Akindunbi, who are all resident of
Ikoyi while he is a resident of Apomu, and he was not in the same
ward with them. He claimed that to the best of his knowledge
election was free and fair and he did not along with anybody arm
himself with weapons to carry out any act of thuggery.
23.55 Under cross examination, this witness claimed he voted at palace
polling unit, but under cross examination he admitted that it is
town hall unit. He claimed in paragraph 3 that to the best of his
knowledge, election was free and fair, and this knowledge of his
was based on the fact that the polling unit was in the palace
which was not true, he went further to state that if anything
happened he wo uld have known, but ironically he admitted that
he left the polling unit and did not returned there. The witness in
answering further cross examination question said he did not
know when election ended in his unit and did not witness
collation, counting an d announcement. It becomes even more
intriguing and incredible when the witness who said the polling
unit is within the palace where he lives to hear result of election
allegedly conducted in the same unit the next day. We submit
there is absolutely nothin g to belief in the testimony of this
witness.
RW52, Aminu Adedeji
23.56 The testimony of RW52 is that he is the Chairman of PDP in Ward
3 of Isokan Local Government of Osun State and on 14 t h April
184
2007, at about 10.30 am he went to his polling station to cast his
vote and went back to his house which is about 5 or 3 electric
poles to the polling station. He stated that he was not in the same
ward with Taofeek Makinde, Hon. Sulaimon Adio Oyegunle,
Kolawole Faniyi, Akeem Opeola, Latifu Ambali and Moshood and
infact some of them are not known to him as alleged in the
Election Petition shown to him. He stated that during the voting
exercise and as a leader of his party he only covered activities of
the voting exercise in his ward but there was no act of thugger y,
thumb printing or ballot stuffing in his ward.
23.57 Under cross examination, this witness by virtue of paragraph 1 of
his statement admitted that he is the Chairman of PDP in the
ward and under cross examination he claimed that election was
peaceful in his ward when cross examined by INEC. Under cross
examination by the petitioner‟s counsel he stated that he voted
and returned home to stay there and further admitted that he did
not monitor any electoral activities hence contradicting
paragraph 4 of hi s deposition. Further into the cross examination,
he agreed that voting twice is an illegal act . The witness was
confronted with the voter‟s register for his unit that is exhibit
433B. A further look at the voters register shows that 530 were
accredited and ticked as having voted whereas EC8A for the unit
disclose less than the number accredited. He admitted being a
member of NURTW and indeed their vice chairman, and it is on
record that members of this organization were deployed in
disrupting the election .
RW53, Faniyi Kolawole
23.53 The testimony of RW53 is that he got to his polling unit at
Library, Ikoyi at about 10.00 am on 14 t h April, 2007 for the
governor and State house of Assembly election and met people at
the unit waiting patiently to cast their votes and he joined them.
He stated that he did not see Isiaka Toromade in his polling unit
on the day of election as alleged in the Election Petition shown to
185
him. Ha also stated that he did not see any of these people
namely; Alhaji Taofeek Abioye Makind e, Hon. Sulaiman
Oyegunle, Koto Ajisafe, Akeem Opeola and Moshood Ambali on
the day of election. He claimed that no thug or group of people
disrupted the election in his polling unit when he was present as
alleged in the Election Petition shown to him and that after
casting his vote, he did not visit any other polling unit but
returned to his house immediately.
23.59 Under cross examination, this witness from the outset pro ved to
be an incredible witness when under cross examination by
counsel to the 4 t h – 1365 t h respondent he stated that his house is
far from the polling unit and for that singular reason he would
not hear if there was any violence at the polling unit, in another
breath he was confirming that there was no disruption or ballot
stuffing and in fact said that election was peaceful. This in itself
is a contradiction coming from the same person who had earlier
claimed that he would not know if there was violence. The
witness‟s incredible testimony continues when answering
question from the Petiti oner‟s counsel. An acclaimed civil servant
who testified in Yoruba and even went as far as saying
transaction in the ministry where he works are done in both
Yoruba and English language. His testimony become ludicrous
when he claimed that his deposition w as taken, typewritten and
printed for him by the secretary of the tribunal. This witness
under cross examination claimed not to have heard nor read
about Moshood Ambali whereas the name was among the names
he listed in paragraph 4 of his deposition. The wi tness still under
cross examination stated that he cannot hear if there is violence
at the unit but still went ahead to say election was peaceful.
RW56, Lateef Gbadebori.
23.60 The testimony of RW56 is that he is a member of the PDP in
Isokan Local Government and that on 14 t h April 2007 at ward 2 he
went to his polling unit to cast his vote after accreditation and
186
went back home. He stated that he did not see Taofeek Abioye
Makinde, Hon. Sulaiman A dio Oyegunle, Kolawole Faniyi, Akeem
Opeola, kamoru Biobaku , Taiwo Ambali and Moshood Ambali on
14 t h April 2007 and did not in any way lead thugs numbering
about 40 to scare people away or directed them to thumb print
ballot papers as alleged in the affidavit of the Petitioner‟s
Witness shown to him.
23.61 Under cross examination, this witness claimed that he is a trader
but in Exhibit 439(b), item 139, the occupation of the witness
stated was civil/Public servant. He claimed to have voted and
under cross examination by INEC, he claimed election was
peaceful. This witness later admitted under petitioners cross
examination that he wouldn‟t have seen anything since he voted
and left the polling unit. A controversial witness who in the face
of documentary evidence before the court argued that the unit he
belonged to was unit 2 where as Exhibit 439(6) shows that the
unit is 3. He admitted that he would not see if election was
conducted peacefully only to still say that he knew votes were
counted because he saw people jubilating.
Boluwaduro Local Government

24.1 In respect of Boluwaduro Local Government, the Petitioners
witnesses were Victor Olasunkanmi Fatoki (PW34), Adewale
Michael (PW35), Ojo Ekundayo Samuel (PW36), R. A. Ibrahim
(PW37), Hon. B. O. Gbadamosi (PW38) and Oludele Fabule
(PW43) and their testimonies are a s follows:
24.2 PW34 is Victor Olasunkanmi Fatoki who gave testimony for Ward
6, and his testimony is that on the day of Election some thugs
numbering about 6 led by Opeyemi Ogundeji, son of Hon.
Akanmu Ogundeji, the PDP Candidate for the House of Assembly
in the Constituency, came in a vehicle belonging to Tunji
Abodunrin (a.k.a. Gbelepawo) and invaded 5 polling units in the
ward. That this group of people were shooting into the air to
187
scare away the people at the po lling units. That at Community
High School polling unit, he saw these thugs, this time led by
Adegbite Segun (a.k.a. Orisa) PDP polling agent at that unit, the
thugs thoroughly beat up the 3 r d Petitioner‟s polling agent with
wheel spanner and the flat part of a cutlass.
24.3 The witness further stated that Adegbite personally carried a gun
which he shot into the air several times. That due to this, all the
electorates and people in the said 5 polling units in the ward took
to their heels and voting was completely disrupted. That the
thugs moved from one polling unit to another, carting away the
ballot boxes, ballot papers and taking away the INEC officials at
the 5 polling units. That at unit 6 and 7 (Irepodun and Araromi -
Edi villages respectively), there was no voting at all as INEC
officials did not come to the polling unit at all. That l ater, at
about 12.30 p.m., at Irepodun Village, the witness and some
others saw some PDP leaders including Bayo Farinde, Fatoki John
in a vehicle laughing at them and saying: “stupid people, we
have completed vo ting in Irepodun village and Araromi Edi
while you are waiting at the polling units”. That he knew that
there was no counting of votes and announcement of results in all
the polling units in the ward
24.4 Under cross examination of PW 34, He stated that he was never
the National President of Igbajo Student union, but he was the
editor in chief of Gog Magazine. Witness stated that he was not
arrested and that it was the Chairman of the committee that was
arrested He also stated that he did not join the thugs , but was at
a distance watching PDP thugs disrupting the election, The
polling units are very close to each other. The PDP thugs were
lead by Ogundeji Opeyemi son of Hon. Akanmu Ogundeji, PDP
candidate and now House of Assembly member representing
Boluwaduro and Boripe constituency he stated.
24.5 PW34 again confirmed that the PDP thugs moved with different
types of guns, locally made guns and other improvised guns,
188
shooting sporadically into the air at each unit, and they moved
away the ballot boxes to u nknown destinations. Witness stated
that he did not know how to use guns nor cutlasses, since he has
never farmed in his life, but he during school days took part in
labour weeding of school compound. He said he attended
Community High School, Igbajo in Os un State he stated. Mr.
Alalade Matthew Soji was the party agent in Community High
School polling unit, but he did not know where he is . Witness
again confirms his parag raph 6 of his deposition as summary of
what happened at the election. He said his report was submitted
to his party chairman Local Government he stated.
24.6 PW34 stated that INEC did not give me him any form of
identification, but a tag was given to him by his party. Witness
said again that he does agree that Ig bajo is fairly large town, b ut
it is surrounded by hills, having a steepy hill that leads to
Kirikiri Grammar school, on the left when entering Igbajo from
Ada. He said Community High School is at I jemu ward 6 in
Igbajo and that there are 21 polling units in Igbajo town and that
if one stands at the centre of I gbajo, you can see those polling
units in ward 6, but it is not possible to see those ones outside
the town He also said he has never attended PDP meetings
before. He added that he was not accredited by INEC, but by his
party. Witness again confirms disruption of election when he said
he was suppose to vote at Lowa -Ikan ward but the PDP thugs did
not allow him to vote.
24.7 It is submitted that the testimony of PW34 was not challenged by
the Respondents under cross -examination.
PW35
24.8 PW35 is Adewale Michael who gave testimony for Ward 10, and
his testimony is that on the day of Election at Nawair Ud Deen
Unit, some thugs armed with guns, axes, machetes, clubs and
other dangerous weapons were led by Dehinde Alalade, a State
Official of PDP and a member of Osun State Water Corporation,
189
Tawakalitu Ayanbode, the woman leader of PDP in ward 10, and
Tunde Oladiran, Ward 10 PDP Chairman to invade the unit. That
the aforesaid people snatched the ballot box for the unit. That in
the remaining 8 units, votes were not counted at the polling units
as one Mr. E. A. Owolabi the INEC official, directed that the
ballot box be taken to Iresi Police Post. That when the electorates
insisted that votes should be counted in their presence at the
police station, they shot several canisters of tear gas into the air
to chase away the electorates and other people around. That these
ballot boxes were later forcefully taken away by armed policemen
led by the Commissioner of Police, Osun State, Sulayman Fa kai
with INEC officials going with them. That votes were not counted
at the polling units and results were not announced.
24.9 Under cross examination of PW 35, he stated that the ballot boxes
were taken to Iresi police post. He further stated that the 8
polling units are close to each other, but when the thugs moved
the ballot box from one place to another, he followed on a bike. It
was Mr. Owolabi that moved the box around 1.00pm and 1.30pm
witness stated. Paragraph 5 of my deposition is another
occurrence of Ballot Box snatching he confirmed under cross
examination.
24.10 Again, witness stated that it was his party that appointed him not
INEC and that he has never gone through the INEC manual
because he was not trained by INEC. He confirmed that he voted
at Malawudi polling unit and that he was neither the 1 s t nor the
last voter. Witness observed people on queue waiting to vote
before the disruption of election. Further under cross
examination, witness stated that ballot papers were ordered to be
taken to the police post in other units when he was suggested to
him that there was no disruption in the other polling units e xcept
Nawarudeen polling unit. He said that he did not know how
many Assistant Commissioner of police in Osun police command
but he identified officers by their ranks.
190
PW36
24.11 PW36 is Ojo Ekundayo Samuel who gave testimony for Ward 5,
and his testimony is that on the day of the Election some thugs
numbering about 20 led by Tolulope Ogundeji, son of Hon.
Akanmu Ogundeji, the PDP Candidate for the House of Assembly
in the Constituency, came in two vehicles, one belonging to the
said Akanmu Ogundeji and the other belonging Tunji Abodunrin
(a.k.a Gbelepawo) to invade 7 polling units in the ward. That
these people were shooting sporadically in to the air to scare away
the people at the polling units. That due to this, all the
electorates and people in the 7 polling units in the ward took to
their heels and voting was completely disrupted. That these thugs
moved from one polling unit to another, carting away the ballot
boxes, ballot papers and taking away the INEC officials at the
polling units. That at Erunromi Compound in Isao Area of Igbajo
Town, these thugs attacked and killed one Mr. Aderemi Idowu,
the 3 r d Petitioner‟s polling agent for Cheru bim and Seraphim
Polling Unit while he went to report the violence perpetrated by
the said PDP thugs in his polling unit to Mr. T.A.B. Olatunji. That
at about 2.00 p.m, the witness with one Dr. Ademola Onifade and
some other persons who are member of the 3 r d Petitioner
attempted to lodge a report of the killing to the police when we
met the said PDP thugs at the Igbajo Police Station with the ballot
boxes snatched at the various polling units in the ward already
filled with thumb -printed ballot papers. That at Unit 8 (Aragba
Village), there was no voting at all as INEC officials did not come
to the polling unit at all. That the witness and some others saw
INEC officials and some of the PDP thugs come out of the bush
close to unit 8 polling unit with ballot boxes filled with already
thumb-printed ballot papers. That he knew that there was no
counting of votes and announcement of results in all the polling
units in the ward.
191
24.12 Under cross examination of PW 36, he stated that he could not
vote as PDP thugs did not allow him to vote. Witness said he was
a ward 5 supervisor. He stated that is not possible for Fatoki and
himself to write report together, because they are not from the
same ward. It is not true that on the day of election some of our
agents were causing trouble at the polling unit and none of them
was arrested. Aderemi Idowu is alive, I attended our party
meeting last on Sunday, and so I know all the members in my
ward including AD members in ward. I also know ANPP
members because we are living to gether in the same community
he stated. Witness could not tell the population of people in his
ward. There are many people on the registers of voters in my
ward. I do not know the voters number in my ward, but I know
that of my unit. Furthermore under cros s examination by counsel
to INEC, witness stated he was accredited by his political party
and not INEC. The evidence of witness was not controverted
under cross examination.
24.13 The grouse of the respondents with the evidence of this witness is
that his evidence is “a lmost verbatim of that of PW34” . It is
difficult to see why this should stand in the way of the credibility
of the witness if the witness saw the same events as PW34 or
better still, if the events which they witnessed followed in the
same pattern, there is no reason why they should not relate the
events as they saw them.
PW37
24.14 PW37 is R. A. Ibrahim who gave testimony for Ward 9, and his
testimony is that on the day of Election some thugs armed with
machetes, clubs, sword and other dangero us weapons were led by
Sule Oyekanmi, the Councillor for ward 9 and Sunday Aina,
Ward 10 Councillor (both prominent members of PDP) to invade
Oju Eri unit and snatched the ballot box there. That in the
remaining six units, votes were not counted at the pol ling units
as the police insisted that the ballot boxes be taken to Iresi Police
192
Post. That these ballot boxes were later forcefully taken away by
armed policemen led by the Commissioner of Police, Osun State,
Sulayman Fakai with INEC officials going with them. That the
police later shot tear gas canisters into the air to chase away the
electorates and other people around.
24.15 Under cross examination of PW37 he stated that he is a teacher in
a private secondary school called Muslim Comprehensive High
School Otan-Ayegbaju. But that he left the school close to 2 years
now voluntarily, as my take home pay could not take me home.
Witness joined AD before AC was formed but does not know his
registration number in Action Congress off hand. Yes, I Adewale
Michael (PW 35), he is older than me but we are friends. On the
day of the election I moved alone from pla ce to place. My report
is what he witnessed I did not copy Michael, I voted at Sabo -olobi
polling unit. I saw uniform ed police men in every polling unit. I
don‟t know their ranks, since I was not a police officer. I have
never in my life held a gun. I am not a hunter but I can recognize
a hunter provided he carries gun. ANPP and PDP party agents
were at the polling units. I only know of two political parties that
took part in the election for the governorship . It was in the
afternoon around 2.00pm that I got to the unit when the police
ordered that the ballot boxes be taken to the police station for
safety. I left the unit around 5.00pm -6.00pm when the former
Commissioner of police and his entourage went away with the
boxes to an unknown destination. I got to the collation centre
around 5.30pm -6.00pm. Yes I know am aware that election should
be concluded by 3.00pm but the election was disrupted . I left the
collation centre around 30 minutes after. I signed my Statement
on Oath. Witness signed 2 times [ EXHIBIT R9 ]. I am also the
collation officer as well as a ward supervisor; I was accredited by
my party not INEC?
24.16 The first complaint of the respondents against the evidence of
this witness is that his evidence is too strikingly similar to tha t
193
of another witness. As we have observed al ready there is not
unusual in two individuals who witnessed an event or a series of
events in relating the event or serie s of events in the very way
they have perceived the events.
24.17 As for the other complaint that the signature of the witness on his
witness statement is different from his signature on another
document, we submit that this is not true.
PW38
24.18 PW38 is Hon. B. O. Gbadamosi who gave testimony for Ward 1,
and his testimony is that on the day of Election about 40 thugs
armed with guns, machetes, axes and other dangerous weapons
invaded all the polling units in the ward. That these thugs
snatched all the ballot boxes in all the polling unit only to
resurface at the INEC office. That voting was disrupted in all the
polling units in the ward and as a result there was no counting of
votes and announcement of results in all the polling units in the
ward.
24.19 Under cross examination of PW38, he stated that his written
statement is correct and accurate. Witness looked at Bashiru
Olokede‟s report Exhibit 34a and read the last paragraph of the
report. The witness said he did not know the total number of
voters on the register for his ward, unit 3 and unit 5 because he is
not INEC official. He said he reported disruption of election to
the DPO in his Local Government Area. The poli ce where there at
the unit and he also reported to the DPO in my Local Government
Area, he stated under cross examination. These were not
controverted.
24.20 The position of the respondents in their written addresses on the
evidence of th is witness is that contrary to his evidence, voting
actually took place in the ward on the day of elec tion. It is
submitted on behalf of the peti tioners that the essence of the
evidence of this witness is that voting was disrupted.
PW43
194
24.21 PW43 is Oludele Fabule who gave testimony for Ward 2, and his
testimony is that on the day of Election about 40 t hugs armed
with guns, machetes, axes and other dangerous weapons invaded
all the polling units in the ward snatching ballot boxes. That
voting was disrupted in all the polling units in the ward and
there was no counting of votes and announcement of results in all
the polling units in the ward.
24.22 The respondents in their written addresses attacked the evidence
of this witness on the ground that he did not disclose the identity
of those who committed the wrong doing and this was why he
was not cross-examined by counsel to any of the respondents.
This observation to say the least is astonishing as the witnessed
having established by his evidence that wrong doings were
committed in the ward on the day of the election as to mar the
voting process and the res pondents having failed to cross -
examine him on his evidence, the consequence in law that his
evidence stands unchallenged and this honourable tribunal is
bound to accept same and rely on it.
Evidence of the 1st to 3rd Respondents in Boluwaduro Local

Government
25.1 The 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents witnesses are four; RW10 Dehinde
Alalade; RW11 Adegbite Segun; RW12 Simeon Falana; and RW16
Alfa Saka Dada
RW10 Dehinde Alalade
25.2 The testimony of RW10 is that he is an Ex -Officio member of
Peoples Democratic Part y and a member of Board of Director
Osun State Water Corporation. He stated that on the day of
election he did not lead thugs or any other person(s) armed with
guns, axes machetes, clubs and other dangerous weapons to
invade and snatch ballot box at Nawair Ud-Deen Unit or any
other unit. He claimed to have registered and voted at Ikinfin /
Ago Fulani Polling unit Ward 9 and I did not go to Ward 10 and
195
did not visit Nawair Ud -deen Unit at all. He stated that he knew
Tawakalitu Ayanbode and Tunde Oladiran of Ward 10 as Party
Members only and that he did not snatch any ballot box.
25.3 Under cross examination, RW10 Dehinde Alalade The witness
both in paragraph 5 of his witness statement and under cross -
examination claimed that he voted at the election Ago Fulan i
Ikinfin even though he did not know the unit number and did not
know the exact time it took him to vote. To test the veracity of
the witness and his credibility, the witness was shown Exhibit
398F Voters‟ Register for Polling Unit 6 Ago Fulani to see
whether his name, Dehinde Alalade was on the voters register.
The witness admitted that Dehinde Alalade was not there but
incredibly the witness said he saw Ademola J Alalade, witness
and that was his name.
25.4 It is submitted that this is an answer of con venience and patent
falsehood calculated by the witness to cover up the fact that he
was not a registered voter at the unit where he claimed he voted
in his evidence in chief and under cross -examination. That this
witness is not a credible witness and cann ot be believed is also
evident from his answer to questions surrounding his career and
age. He said he retired on 1 s t June, 1983 at Ata Oja High School as
a Bursar and that he was 39 years when he retired. This answer
put his date of birth in 1944. Upon f urther cross-examination, the
witness stated that he entered Modern School in 1955 and left in
1957 and that he started primary school in 1946. When it
suddenly dawned on the witness that with his previous answer
that he retired in 1983 at the age of 39 w ith the implication that
he was born in 1944 and that he therefore entered primary school
at the age of two (2), the witness then claimed that he was born in
1939 but his official age is 1944, that is, that December 4, 1939 is
the real date of birth. The w itness is obviously an unreliable
witness that cannot be believed as to his testimony that he did
not disrupt the elections.
196
RW11 Adegbite Segun
25.5 The testimony of RW11 is that he is a farmer and PDP member.
He claimed to have registered and voted in C ommunity High
School polling unit and thereafter returned to his house. He
stated that he did not lead thugs or any persons and did not beat
3 r d petitioners polling agent with wheel spanner and the flat part
of the cutlass as he had no cutlass on him at al l. He further stated
that he did not carry any gun or any weapons and did not shoot
into the air at the unit or any unit at all. He claimed that election
was peaceful at his polling unit throughout.
25.6 Under cross examination, RW 11 Adegbite Segun The witness
claimed that he is a farmer but in Exhibit 402B, item 11, the
occupation of the witness stated was artisan. The witness said
that he was approaching 35 years and that he was older than his
wife but the registration particulars of his wife, Foluke Ad egbite,
in Exhibit 402B, item 16, showed that the age of the wife was
older. The witness who claimed that he was just approaching 35
years also said that he cannot say if he was born before or after
independence. He claimed that it took him about five minu tes to
vote. Even though the witness claimed in paragraph 6 of his
witness statement that “election was peaceful in my unit
throughout”, the witness admitted under cross -examination that
after voting he went to his house and that he would not know
what happened after he left for his house. There is thus no factual
basis for the deposition in the witness statement and thus the
witness ought not to be believed.
RW12 Simeon Falana
25.7 The testimony of RW12 is that he was the party agent for PDP in
Ward 2 Unit 7 Alafe Polling booth for the elections held on 14th
April, 2007. He stated that he was at the unit with another PDP
agent Ademola Kazeem. He stated that he got to the polling
station at 7.30 am in the morning and met AC party Agent at the
polling station. He stated that at about 8.30 am the INEC Officials
197
along with security officers arrived at the polling station and
voting commenced at about 9.00 am while people voted without
any act of lawlessness, harassment or intimidation. He stated that
he knew Oludele Fabule because he is a native of Otan Ayegbaju
but did not see him at his unit on the day of the Gubernatorial
and house of Assembly Election on 14 t h April, 2007. He claimed
that Election was conducted in a free and fair atmosphere and
there was no incidence of violence by any armed thugs carrying
guns, machetes, axes and other dangerous weapons. He further
claimed that election ended around 3.00 pm and the INEC
Officials took the ballot boxes to the collation centre at the court
hall and votes were counted and the agents were made to sign the
result sheet Form EC8A. He finally claimed that the party Agent
to AC and NDP signed Form EC8A and the results of the election
were announced at the town Hall.
25.8 Under cross examination, RW 12 Simeon Falana, the witness
stated under cross -examination that he is a politician and that he
has been in politics since 15 years ago and that his unit is also
called Alafe Okero. The testimony of this witness is
contradictory. In paragraph 10 of the witness deposition t he
witness claimed that the party agent of AC and NDP signed for
EC8A but under cross -examination the witness stated that what
he said was that only himself and AC Party Agent signed and
that he did not know about NDP Agent. He emphatically stated
that it is not correct that other party agent signed form EC8A.
Apart from the contradictory testimony, on Exhibit 176, EC8A for
Alafe Okero Polling unit, where the witness said he was a polling
agent showed that no agent of NDP signed the form EC8A
contrary to paragraph 10 of the witness deposition. Also, there is
AA agent of Exhibit 176. The witness also gave contradictory
testimony as to where the counting of the votes was carried out.
In paragraphs 9 of the witness deposition the witness stated th at
at the end of the election, INEC officials took the ballot boxes to
198
the collation center a t the court hall and votes were counted. Also
in paragraph 10, the witness said that the party agent to AC and
NDP signed form EC8A and the result of the election was
announced at the town hall. Also, under cross -examination, the
witness stated that the votes were not counted at the polling unit
but that the boxes were taken to collation center for counting.
However, under re -examination, the witness stated that after the
voting exercise they counted the votes in my Unit.
25.9 RW16 Alfa Saka Dada; The testimony of RW16 is that he was the
PDP party agent in Ward I, in Unit 03, located at Isale -Obanla, in
Otan Ayegbaju in Boluwaduro Local Government, on 14th April,
2007 Gubernatoria l and House of Assembly elections. He stated
that one Mr. Aliyu Olayemi was the Action Congress agent and
that voting started at about 8.00 am. He stated that he knew Hon.
B.O. Gbadamosi, whom he saw on the major road, passing by on
motor bike with Stephen Dosunmu as passenger with him. He
claimed that votes were casted peacefully in his polling unit and
votes counted at about 3.00 pm without any disturbance. He
claimed to have signed Form EC8A while Mr. Aliyu Olayemi
signed and collected his own copy of EC 8A Form in his presence.
He stated that he followed the INEC Officials collation centre at
Court‟s Hall, Oke -Bale Otan-Ayegbaju, and claimed that the
collation was successful.
25.10 Under cross-examination, the witness insisted that he signe d his
witness statement and his specimen signature taken was admitted
marked Exhibit 463. The witness claimed that the signature o n
Exhibit 463 and the signature on his deposition are the same. The
witness also said that the signature in Exhibit 175(2) is his own.
However, a comparison of the signature on Exhibit 463 and
Exhibit 175(2), the EC8A for Isale Obaala Units are clearly
different. Your Lordships are hereby urged to compare the
signatures under section 108 of the Evidence Act.
199
25.11 Even though the witness claim ed that he did not make any
deposition apart from the one he adopted, the witness was later
shown another witness statement on pages 150 -151 of Record of
court and the witness confirmed that the contents are the same,
that the name same but different sign ature. The witness then
admitted that it was his deposition but different signature. Your
Lordships are also invited to compare the signature on Exhibit
463, Exhibit 175(2) and that on the witness statement on pages
150 and 151 of Record. Refer to Jegede v s. Citicon (2001) 4
NWLR (Pt. 702) 112 at 134.
25.12 Even though the witness claimed he was a farmer, he was shown
Exhibit 405B Item 253 which the witness stated contained his
name and compound and that they wrote trading there. Also,
whereas the witness claimed that his lawyer wrote correctly for
him, he stated, contrary to paragraph 1 of his witness statement
that he worked at unit 2 and not unit 3 as a Party Agent. The
witness admitted under cross -examination that he will not know
what happened in othe r units.
Ife East Local Government

26.1 In respect of Ife East Local Government, the Petitioners
witnesses were Tajudeen (PW23), Kayode Akintifonbo (PW24),
Segun Efunwole (PW25), Sanni Olanrewaju (PW26) and
Agunbiade Victor (PW27) and their testimonies a re as follows:
PW23
26.2 PW23 is Tajudeen Lawal who gave testimony for Okerewe Ward,
and his testimony is that on the day of Election at Okerewe Ward
II, voting was totally disrupted in the various polling units as
Known member/leaders of the 3 r d respondents like Honourable
Basiru Ishola Awotorebo, Former Minister of State for Water
Resources, Hon. Lambe Oyasope, Former Chairman of Ife East
Local Government and other led thugs armed with guns and
machetes to invade the polling stations in the ward. That in
200
Wunmonije, Okiti, Olugbodo, Ladelatan, Jagudu, Agidi 1 and
Agidi 2 the aforementioned thugs scared away voters and agents
of the petitioners and forcefully took over the said polling units
and illegally thumb printed the ballot papers and stuffed the
ballot papers into the ballot boxes and represented same as
lawful votes. That at Loogun unit, voters resisted attempts to
snatch the ballot boxes and ballot box in the unit was abandoned
and was never counted. That at FSP polling unit the aforesaid
persons snatched the ballot box and took it to an unknown
destination. That voting was totally disrupted in all the polling
units as ballot boxes were snatched and taken away and votes
were neither counted and nor was result announced at any of the
polling units in O kerewe Ward II
26.3 Under cross examination of PW 23, he stated that he lives in Ile -
Ife, not Airport Hotel Lagos and I do not have a business in
Lagos. I am staunch member of Action Congress and a
chairmanship candidate of Action Congress. Witness said th at
there was no election on 14 t h April, 2007, the election was
disrupted by Kazeem Ishola. The election did not hold, so it will
be wrong to say he lost the election. I am a farmer and a stake
holder in Action Congress. Yes because I am a statesman, I am a
stakeholder. Yes I am a registered voter at Okiti unit. I can‟t
remember my number now. Yes the post of a ward supervisor is
important to supervise my ward as created by my party. I was
appointed as ward supervisor because I am familiar with the
ward and I know all the 9 polling units in your ward. Hon.
Bashiri & Lambe lead thugs to disrupt the election. So I did not
vote. I got to my unit before the commencement of election,
around 7.30am. Voting and accreditation started around 9.00am. I
can‟t be precise but I know there are some people before me. No,
INEC did not give me tag of Action Congress, because they have
no right. My party gave me. My party agents were at the ir
respective polling unit before and after the election. These agents
201
gave me written r eports. They are still alive. Yes I made my own
report. It is correct to say that my report is not included in
exhibit 20a-i. I submitted the report to my chairman. I don‟t know
if they removed or t ore off my own report from exhibit 20a -i. Yes
I confirm to this tribunal that there is a slip of paper on top of
these exhibits? SLIP IS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE AND
MARKED EXHIBIT R4. It is my ward. It is so small and I saw
everything (malpractice) by myself. Yes voting went well in my
unit until 11.00am when the el ection was disrupted. I was at Okiti
compound (polling unit) around 11am. But the units are close and
I can see about 4 other polling units.
The distance between my polling unit and Wowannije (Exhibit
20e) is a trekable distance. They are v ery close to eac h other. I got
my polling unit in the morning. Immediately , thugs of PDP lead
by Minister of State for Water Resources disrupted the election.
There were no elections in these polling units. Yes in paragraph 6
of my deposition I mentioned 6 polling units. There was no
collation centre. We had the collation centre agent. But there was
disruption. We prepared for the election and we had an agent.
But I can‟t remember his name because it has been a long time.
That place is my father‟s house and I visited Ilobu unit around
8.00am. I cannot be precise as to when I left the unit, it is very
close and trekable. I revisited the unit after the first visit several
times. Hon. Gbenga Owolabi as claimed is the chairman of ife -
East. They appointed him there was not elect ion. I am a
chairmanship candidate because am still contesting for the post.
There was no election. I am not used to signing of documents
because of my irregularit ies of my signature but I thumb print.
Yes, I notified my bank. I don‟t have cheque book. No I don‟t
have cheques. I use savings account not current account. Not
INEC forms, but OSIEC forms. Yes I signed it. Barrister Kunle
Adegoke interpreted my witness statement on oath to me . No his
name is on it, but I know him he stated under cross examination .
202
Evidence of witness was not controverted . The respondents in
their written addresses have argued that the evidence of this
witness has been destroyed because while he said in o ne breadth
that due to the fact that his signature is irregular he usually
thumbprints documents, and that the witness however admitted
that he once signed “INEC documents” when he contested the
chairmanship of his Local Government. This observation is
irrelevant on the issue of reliability of the evidence of the witness
as thumbpr inting, signature and making marks on documents are
all alternative ways of authenticating a document by the maker. It
is submitted that in so far as the person who is said to be the
maker of a document such as PW23 in this case has not denied
that he was the one who had authenticated a particular document
in any of the manners stated above, the genuineness of the
document can not be doubted just because the documents could
have been authenticated by the maker in a different manner than
he has done it in th e particular instance.
PW24
26.4 PW24 is Kayode Akintifonbo who gave testimony for Moore Ward
1, and his testimony is that on the day of Election in Moore Ward
1, voting was disrupted by some armed thugs who were led by
some known P.D.P leaders among whom was the former Vice -
Chairman of Ife East Local Government, Hon. Lanre Awosemo,
Deacon Omoyaayi and the PDP House of Assembly Candidate, Mr
Jide Adeyeye to invade and disrupt voting activities in the
polling units and Ife City II polling unit. While attemp ting to
snatch ballot box at Oranfe Unit, irate mob angrily burnt down
the vehicle (with Registration No. XA 919 FEE, green in colour)
that the said thugs were using to convey thugs and snatch ballot
boxes. A ballot box snatched by the thugs and later aban doned
was discovered in the ward. That voters were molested and
driven away by the sporadic shootings and thereafter, the ballot
boxes in the ward were snatched and taken away to unknown
203
destinations with the exception of Alaro polling unit. That voting
was totally disrupted in all the polling units and as a result votes
were not counted and result were not announced at any of the
polling Units in Moore Ward.
26.5 Under cross examination of PW 24 he stated that there are 10
polling units i.e. LA Primary Sch ool, CAC, St. Gabriel [witness
mentioned all the units.] Yes all the agents from the ten (10)
Local Government Area gave me their reports and I also went to
visit the places. I wrote a report of what I saw in the election. Yes
my report is among exhibit 21 a-m. I submitted my report to my
chairman. And all my report is contained in my deposition. Yes
the party chairman is alive. Yes the 10 polling units are
concentrated in one place, but they are far from each other. About
3 units at a time, if you move 50 meters, you can see another 2,
and within a trek able distance 3 while the last (2) about 250
meters. Ife city 1, Ife city 2 and DPA are the 3 units at a time, the
next 2 are Oranfe and St. Gabriel 1,and the last five(5), are CAC,
L/A Primary School, Alaro and Obanloro polling units. 3 units
are together, 2units are not far from those 3 unit and another 3
units are not far from those 3 units then the other 2 units. Only 2
of the units are a bit far from others. PDP won Alaro polling unit
not AC. PDP scored 1 8 while AC scored 17, yet it was still
disrupted. Witness read the last paragraph of exhibit 21(i). I was
a member of AD before you moved to AC. I registered for Action
Congress in 2006 and my name was put in the membership
register. Yes other parties also have registers of members. No, I
have not read through the PDP register for my area. Am not a
graduate. I was a member of a College of Technology under
Governor Akande‟s Administration (member of Governing
Council] Esa -Oke Campus. I did not receive accre ditation from
INEC apart from my party because it is not INEC that should
accredit me. No I did not vote as the PDP thugs did not allow me
204
to vote. I registered at Ife city 1, he stated under cross
examination which was not controverted.
PW25
26.6 PW25 is Segun Efunwoile who gave testimony for Ilode Ward 1,
and his testimony is that on the day of Election at Ilode Ward 1,
voting was totally disrupted by some guns and machete wielding
thugs who were led by some known P.D.P leaders among whom
were Surveyor Jide Adeyeye, Professor Wale Oladipo, Lambe
Oyasope, and Former Chairman of Ife East Local Government,
Prince Biodun Sijuade. These persons snatched ballot boxes in all
polling units in the ward except Oshogun unit. In Oshogun unit,
already thumb printed ba llot papers were forcefully stuffed into
the ballot box. That he is aware that voting was totally disrupted
in all the Polling units as ballot boxes were snatched and taken
away and as a result votes were not counted and results were not
announced at any o f the Polling Units in Ilode Ward 1.
26.7 Under cross examination of PW 25, he stated that he registered
vote at Seru polling unit. I don‟t know the unit number but it is
the first unit of my ward. Supervisor was written on the tag given
to me by my party. No, INEC did not give me any identification,
because I was accredited by my party not INEC. There are 8
polling units in my ward. They did not allow me to vote. The
thugs led by Prof. Wale Ladipo did not allow me to vote. Hon.
Lambe, Biodun Sijuade and Ji de Adeyeni disrupted the election.
They came out from the palace. Yes am a staunch member of
Action Congress and have been a member from the beginning of
the party. Yes my name is in the register of members and I have
the card here. I can‟t say if other pa rties have membership
registers, but my party has. i got to my polling unit around
10.00am. I know Hekeem Fajuju [ exhibit 22b ] him if I see him. I
can‟t recall the time I visited his polling unit. But I went round in
the morning to make sure my agents we re there. The disruption
started around 10.00am. It will not surprise me that my agent
205
stated that voting went on peacefully at the beginning. There was
no result at Osoghun polling unit as the ballot box was taken
away. I don‟t know where my agents are. I t has been a long time,
since 2007. It is my duty to collate my ward result as a supervisor
and a ward collation agent. I was not accredited by INEC,
because I don‟t need to be accredited by INEC. Yes I made a
written report? Am not sure if my report is he re, it has been
submitted to my party chairman. The people disrupting the
elections y moved from one place to another . The disruption was
not simultaneously. He listed them units disrupted. Yes I
followed them from place to another. They started at Seru un it
where I was supposed to vote. I followed them and hid myself.
My ward is very small. Yes I did not report to the police, because
the police officers assisted them. They were in each polling unit.
And there is no police station in my ward and I was not s upposed
to go out of my ward. There is no paragraph in my deposition
where I stated that I did not report to the police station because
police were there so he stated under cross examination.
PW26
26.8 PW26 is Sanni Olanrewaju who gave testimony for Okere we Ward
3, and his testimony is that on the day of Election at Okerewe
Ward 3, voting was totally disrupted in all polling unit in the
ward as Known members/leaders of the 3 r d respondents like
Kemade Elugbaju, Hon. John Fashogbon, Yaya Adeyela, Marcus
Fadehan and the Special Assistant to Senator Iyiola Omisore,
Adedotun Adebowale (a.K.a Meree) led some thugs armed with
machetes and axes to invade the polling units in the Ward. These
thugs snatched ballot boxes and ballot papers which they took to
an unknown destination. That in the process of the ballot
snatching the duo of Mr. Kehinde Adesoji and Mr. Gani Oladunni
both members of the 3 rd Petitioner were wounded and
hospitalized. That election were totally disrupted in all the 10
polling units in Okerewe Wa rd 3. That Ballot boxes and ballot
206
papers were snatched and taken away hence voting did not take
place and as a result no votes was counted and no result
announced at any of the polling units in Okerewe Ward 3. That he
knew that in St. Phillips 1 & 2, when an attempt to stuff ballot
papers into the ballot boxes was resisted by the witness, one
Lekan Adesanmi who was the PDP youth leader for that ward
slapped him and eventually mobilized Kemade Elugbaju, Yaya
Adeyela, Marcus Fadehan and some other unknown th ugs to deal
with him. That he was fortunate to be rescued by some police
men who moved him down to the Moremi Division C Police
Station.
26.9 Under cross examination of PW 26, he stated that he knows
Kehinde Adesoji, and Ganiyu as Members of his party whe re they
live. confirmed that they are still alive. Yes they were wounded.
Ganiyu was wounded and that Kehinde was wounded at Akorin
unit when he wanted to vote. Yes I a staunch member of Action
Congress. My chairman knows the purpose why he chose me as
the ward supervisor for 10 units. I am a registered voter of
Yekere Araromi unit. Yes my report is not in exhibit 23a, but I
wrote my report and gave it to my party chairman. Yes I know St.
Peter Grammar School polling unit, it is at Omiokun. My party
agent for that unit is Moses Olawoyi. I got to the place around
8.30am when presiding officers and agents were there and there
was nothing happening that time. Yes my name is in the Action
Congress register. I do not know if other parties have register,
but I only know of my party. No I have not seen PDP membership
register before but I know them because we grew up together in
the same place. And one of them brought me up. INEC did not
give me any paper to show I am a ward supervisor he stated
under cross examina tion.
PW27
26.10 PW27 is Agunbiade Victor who gave testimony for Okerewe Ward
1, and his testimony is that on the day of Election at Okerewe
207
Ward 1, voting was totally disrupted by some armed thugs who
were led by known P.D.P. leaders among whom was Hon. K ola
Adewusi, the immediate past chairman of Ife East Local
Government. That these armed thugs snatched ballot boxes in all
the polling units in the ward. That voting was totally disrupted
in all the polling units as ballot boxes were snatched and taken
away and as a result votes were not counted and results were not
announced at any of the polling Units in Okerewe Ward 1.
26.11 Under cross examination of PW 27, he stated is full name as
Victor Agunbiade Oladapo. That he was a ward supervisor for
Action Congress on April 14 t h , 2007 election and was appointed
before the election by his party chairman to monitor the election
of April 14 t h , 2007. He said he was given a tag as a ward
supervisor for the ward and that he has 10 polling agents and
that they were appointed on the same day with him. He said he
saw INEC officers in the morning, but before noon they had
moved away with electoral materials. He said he visited all the 10
polling unit on the day of election. He said he personally visited
all the polling units under his supervision. He said o n the day of
election, he noticed police officers. He said he understands
everything in his deposition and that he did not need interpreter .
Again, under cross examination by counsel to INEC, witness
stated that he was di sallowed by the PDP to vote. Evidence of the
witness was not controverted.
Evidence of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents in Ife East Local Government

27.1 The 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents witnesses are: RW15 Hon. Basiru
Ishola Awotorebo; RW17 Hon. Prince Ebenezer Abio dun Sijuade;
RW18 Yaya Adeyela; RW19 Hon. Lanre Awosemo; RW54 Marcus
Fadehan
RW15 Hon. Basiru Ishola Awotorebo;
27.2 The testimony of RW15 is that his name was mentioned by one
Tajudeen Lawal, a deponent to the Petition and statement dated
208
11th day of May , 2007. He denied knowing neither Tajudeen
Lawal nor any other person bearing such name and stated that
Paragraph 5 of Tajudeen Lawal‟s witness statement is false. He
stated that on 14 t h April, 2007 during the Governorship and
House of Assembly election he left his house around 9.00 am to
Okerewe Ward 2, Okiti unit to carry out his civic duty to wit: cast
his vote and having been cleared by the INEC Presiding Officer
he was given the ballot papers whereof he voted. He stated that
he left the unit for his ho use immediately after casting his vote.
He claimed that during the period of his voting election went on
freely and orderly and that he was neither involved in any act of
thuggery nor led any thug to facilitate disorderliness during the
election.
27.3 Under cross examination, RW 15 stated that he is a member of
PDP, in Ife and a prominent member of the party. He also stated
that he was a leader in Ife, Osun State. Notwithstanding his
admitted prominence, the witness incredibly insisted under
cross-examination that he did not know Tajudeen Lawal who
made allegations against him even though the said Tajudeen
Lawal is a prominent politicians who contested Chairmanship on
the platform of Action Congress and that he did not know that
Tajudeen Lawa l ran under AD in election in the same Ward as
that of the witness. The witness appeared desperate to shut out
the facts. The witness said it took him no longer than 5 minutes
to vote but that he did not know the time that he returned home.
The witness stated that as a t the time he left the Polling Unit
election has not ended and he admitted that he would not know
what happened after he left and that he was not there when the
result was announced.
RW17 Hon. Prince Ebenezer Abiodun Sijuade
27.4 The testimony of RW17 i s that he did not know Segun Efunwole
who alleged him in his witness statement dated 11th May, 2007
and that by virtue of his position, he is conversant with the facts
209
depose to herein. He claimed that paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7, and 8
of Segun Efunwole‟s statement are not true and same denied by
him. He stated that he registered at Okerewe Agidi polling unit
where he voted on 14 t h April, 2007 during Gubernatorial and
Legislative Houses of Assembly and that he did not visit or have
anything to do with Ilode Ward 1. He denied being in the
company of Professor Wale Oladipo, Lambe Oyasope or any thugs
during the election period. He claimed not to be aware of
anybody snatching ballot boxes nor forcefully stuffing ballot
papers into ballot box. He finally stated t hat he voted around
12.00 pm and left the place for his house.
27.4 Under cross examination, RW 17 Prince Biodun Sijuwade Under
cross-examination by INEC Lawyer, the witness said that the
polling unit was “ directly in front” of his house but under cross -
examination by 1366 t h and 1367 t h Respondents the witness said
that the polling unit was “a stone throw” to his house. Again,
under cross-examination, the witness claimed that the polling
unit was in front of his house. The witness said he knew
Professor Wale Oladipo and Lambe Oyasope as member of PDP
but that he did not know them very well. The witness was
challenged that he did not vote but rather distrupted election in
company of Professor Wale Oladipo and Lambe Oyasope.
27.5 Even though the witness denied this allegation and claimed to
have voted in Agidi compound Okerewe 2 which he said was on
Ajamapo Street, the witness was confronted with Exhibit 387D,
voters register for Akodi Agidi II, Ajamapo Streeet, the unit
where he claimed he voted, the witnes s could not however fi nd
his name on the voters register. It is submitted that this witness
lacks credibility having claimed to have voted in the unit but his
name was not on the register for the unit. It is incredible that a
witness who admitted to be a full time politician would claim
that he did not know what happened in other units in his ward on
210
the election day and that he did not know who won in other units
in the Ward.
RW18 Yaya Adeyela
27.6 The testimony of RW18 is that he is a registered voter at Ifelodun
polling unit located at about one hundred meters to his house. He
acknowledged Sanni Olanrewaju as a prominent member of the
Action Congress (AC) in his area whose affidavit her had seen
and read particularly paragraph 3 -7 thereof. He stated that the
statements contained in the said paragraph concerning his person
are totally false and untrue. He stated further that as a registered
voter he went to the Ifelodun polling unit to cast his vote on the
14 t h of April, 2007 during the Governorship and Hou ses of
Assembly election in Osun State and soon after casting his vote,
he returned home as directed by the election officials who
conducted the exercise. He finally claimed not to see anyone
disrupting the voting exercise or snatch ballot box neither did he
singly or in concert with anyone snatch any ballot box.
27.7 Under cross-examination, RW 18 claimed that it took him 2 – 3
minutes to vote. He admitted knowing Kemade Olagbaju, Hon.
John Fashogban and Marcus Fadehan as PDP members. Under
cross-examination by counsel to 4 t h to 1365 t h Respondents, the
witness claimed that he confirmed that the election in his Unit
was excellently free and fair. However, under cross -examination,
the witness admitted that after casting his vote he went back
home and stayed a t home and that he did not come back and that
he did not know anything that happened at the polling unit since
he did not go back. This is clear contradiction for a witness to
state that election was “excellently free and fair” and at the same
time to state that he did not know anything that happened at the
polling unit.
27.8 Also, the witness in paragraph 2 of his witness statement, the
witness said that he registered as a voter at Ifelodun polling unit
“located at about one hundred meters” to his house. Contrary to
211
this, the witness, under cross -examination stated that the polling
unit is about 300 -400 meters. There are also discrepancies in the
age of witness stated before the Tribunal and that on the voters
register. The witness, under cross -examination stated that he was
born on 17 t h October, 1960, and that he was now 49 plus and that
he will be 50 this year. However, Exhibit 390J, Item 306, which
has the name and photograph of the witness, has 40 years written
on it. The witness admitted that he is a m ember of PDP. The
witness stated that is wife, Olawunmi Adeyela, registered with
him in the same unit but that he cannot say if his wife voted. He
claimed that he left the wife at home in the morning while he
went to vote and that as at the time he came b ack she was not at
home. If indeed, the witness had gone to the polling unit and
returned back home immediately, he should at least be in a
position to know the whereabout of his wife or possibly meet the
wife on the way back from the unit. The story of th e witness is
incredible.
RW19 Hon. Lanre Awosemo
27.9 The testimony of RW19 is that one Kayode Akintifonbo in his
witness statement of the petition dated 11 t h May, 2007 alleged
him in paragraph 5 therein and that by virtue of his position he is
conversant with the facts therein. He stated that paragraphs
1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 of the witness statement of that Kayode
Akintifonbo are not true. He claimed to be registered after for the
said election at Ife City college unit where he claimed he voted
on 14 t h April, 2007 during the Governorship and Legislative
Election. He stated that on 14 t h April, 2007 around 9.00 am he
went to the polling unit to cast his vote and upon voting he
immediately left the polling unit and went back to his house
where he was throughout the day. He denied being in the
company of deacon Omoyayi, Oladosu, Jide Adeyeye or thugs to
disrupt election and voting.
212
27.10 When being led to adopt his witness statement by counsel to 1 s t
to 3 r d Respondents, the witness claimed to be an hotelier and
politician and under cross -examination by the Petitioners‟
Counsel, he maintained that he is an hotelier and politician and
that while hotelier is his permanent occupation, politics is part
time. This is contrary to his witness deposition where he gave his
occupation as being a politician. The witness admitted that he
was a former vice chairman of Ife East Local Government. Under
cross-examination by counsel to 4 t h to 1365 t h Respondents, the
witness had claimed that election was free and fair in his unit b ut
under cross-examination by the Petitioners‟ Counsel, the witness
admitted that from his house he was not able to see the Polling
Unit as his house was very far from the polling unit.
27.11 He claimed to have stayed in bed and that it was one Mr.
Aderanti, the party agent that came to his house to tell him that
PDP won. However, when confronted that no party agent signed
the result for his unit, the witness said he will not know since he
went home and that he will be surprised that the party agent did
not sign because the agents were on ground. An examination of
Exhibit 209(1-9) containing Form EC8A for Ife City College where
the witness claimed to be his unit was not signed by any party
agent including that of the PDP even though the witness claimed
that it was the PDP agent for that unit that informed him of the
result.
RW54 Marcus Fadehan
27.12 The testimony of RW54 is that he is a registered voter in CAC
Primary School, Iloro Polling Unit Ile -Ife where he voted in the
Governorship and legislative H ouses Election on 14 t h April, 2007.
He stated he returned to his house which is about 300 meters
away from the polling station. He also stated tha t he has read the
statement on oath of one Sanni Olanrewaju of Okerewe Ward 3
dated 11 t h May, 2007 and that pa ragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 are
false and same denied by him. He stated that himself as a person
213
or in company of other person or persons did not invade any
polling station with offensive weapons and did not disrupt the
election on the day.
27.13 This witness claimed to have voted on the day of the election and
under cross examination by counsel to the 4 t h – 1365 t h respondent
claimed that election was peaceful. This witness stated that he is
a trader and did not state what parameter he used in denying
paragraph 1 – 9 of the Petitioner‟s witness in the person of Sanni
Olanrewaju (PW26). Contrary to his assertion, under cross
examination by INEC that election was peaceful, he admitted
under Petitioners Counsel cross examination that he was not in a
position to know what happened at the unit when he was not
there. This witness was however shown not to have voted as his
name was not ticked as having been accredited for voting.
Ifedayo Local Government

28.1 In respect of Ifedayo Local Government, the Petitio ners
witnesses were Tunde Awoyale (PW42), Adebisi Azeez (PW56)
and Babatunde Rauf (PW57) and their testimonies are as
follows:
PW42
28.2 PW42 is Tunde Awoyale who gave testimony for Ward 4, and his
testimony is that on the day of Election One Major Omotara (rtd),
one Yemi Faronbi (Chairman of Osun State Broadcasting
Corporation) and one Funmilayo Olasehinde who are known PDP
members/leaders led soldiers and mobile Policemen to invade all
the 5 polling units in ward 4. That the aforementioned people
scared away the voters, agents and members of the 3 r d Petitioner s
and then stuffed the ballot boxes with already thumb -printed
ballot papers in favour of their PDP candidates. That when the
witness challenged them at Unit 1, they descended on him by
beating him mercilessly before carting away the ballot papers and
boxes.
214
28.4 Under cross examination of P W 42 he stated that he is from W ard
4 Ifedayo Local Government Area with 5 units in his ward. I
write your statement yourself. He confirmed that his statement is
correct. The witness clarified the units in his ward. He said
Adeoti Adegboy ega was his polling agent in unit 1 and that all 5
agents presented reports of what happened on that day of
election. Witness read paragraph 6 of his deposition and also
looked and confirmed exhibit 37(j) report of the party agent in
unit 1
28.5 It is submitted that the observation of the respondents on the
evidence of this witness to the effect that since the other agents
of the AC did not indicate in their report that any body was
beaten, the evidence of this witness in which he stated this
should not be believed. The respondents have however ignored
the evidence of the witness under cross-examination where he
stated clearly that he reported what he saw. We refer this
honourable tribunal to the proceedings of the 26 t h day of August,
2009.
PW56
28.6 PW56 is Adebisi Azeez who gave testimony for Ward 2, and his
members/leaders led soldiers and mobile policemen to invade 3
of the 6 polling units in the ward 2, namely Alagbede, Abalagemo
and Ominla polling units where they scared away voters and
members of the 3rd petitioners and then stuffed the ballot boxes
with the already thumb printed ballot papers in favour of their
PDP candidates. That votes in the above named three units were
not counted in the units as required, furthermore, voting was
totally disrupted in all the polling units while at Idi Odan and
Ominla units, these invaders did not allow anybody to vote but
rather engaged in multiple voting among their limited but armed
215
few in favour of PDP candidates. That during the invasion of the
following unit namely: Abalagemo and Alagbede polling units.
Messrs Taye Abidoye, Gboyega Adeniyi, Rafael Awoyemi were
wounded by these thugs when their efforts at carting away the
ballot box were resisted.
28.7 Under cross examination of P W 56 stated he knew one Mr.
Awoyale of Oke-Ila who is an Action Congress member and that
both of them are Action Congress members of Ifedayo Local
Government Area. We meet in Court when we came to sign our
deposition in Court that was when he knew him as an agent of
Action Congress. He w as an Action Congress agent of ward 4. It
was not possible for us to be together because the problem was
too much and the ward was a bit far apart. I was working in ward
2 while he was working in ward 4. No, ward 4 is in Oke -Ila while
ward 2 is in another place. I know whether he has testified
before. Yes, there are many villages under ward 2. In my ward 2
were I worked. There is one village having one unit. The units are
scattered in villages. We have about 3 villages under one unit.
The villages are not far from the polling unit. Ominla polling unit
is far from the centre of the place (village). I registered to vote at
Ada-obalumo polling unit. My unit (Ada -obalumo polling unit)
where I worked was the first unit I went to. I got there at about
7.30am waiting for INEC officials. INEC officials arrived at after
8.00am but before 9.00am. When they came we inspected election
materials voting commenced around 10.00am. Yes I was at Ada -
obalumo till 10.00am after I cast my vote I moved to other units.
It is not possible to know what was going on at other places, not
until I visited all the other polling unit that I know what was
going on. I did not visit Ominla on the day of election, it was
after the election that I went there. It was my agent that told me
what happened at Ominla unit. I got to Alagbede polling unit at
about 12.00pm. But at time the election had been disrupted. I had
visited another unit before I got to Alagbede. It could not take
216
beyond few minutes to get to Alagbede. I got to Abalagbemo
polling unit before 11.00am because it is closer to my unit. I know
all that transpired in Abalagbemo between 7.30am and 11.00am
because my agent there called me on phone that PDP staunch
member have called PDP thugs to come and disrupt election at
the polling unit . I know Taiwo Abidoye (paragraph 7) and also
Gboyega Adeniyi, and Raphael Awoyemi. They are alive, but
after election they were and driven away. We have not heard any
bad report about them. By INEC rules election closes by 3.00pm,
but PDP thugs disrupted the election. At 3.00pm on that day after
chasing us away we thought they will take the snatched ballot
paper to the collation centre. Only for us to hear they announce
result. I was at the collation centre expecting the stolen Ballot
Boxes. As at 3.00pm I was at the collation centre but nothing was
collated. Yes I know that result should be announced before being
taken to collation centre after announcing results in units, but
there was not free and fair election, they scared us away. Shot in
to the air, machete agents and people and people ran into the
bush. At 3.00pm when election was to finish and result
announced, it is not possible to be at 6 places but I was at
collation centre. I voted at my unit. At 3.00pm . I was supposed to
be at the collation cent re and I was there. Aiyetoro is the
headquarters of my ward. I am the ward supervisor. It is my
party that nominated me. Yes it is true that INEC should accredit
the agent of the collation centre but a thug lead by Omotara did
not allow that to happen. It is true but the PDP thugs did not
allow all these to happen. Am fasting I can not lie that there was
disruption of election because my party lost the election. The
witness said all his report content is included in his deposition.
28.8 The respondents counsel in their written addresses have argued
that the admission of the witness that “the 6 poll ing units in the
ward (ward 2) are scattered give the lie to his testimony that he
visited all the polling units”. While the witness agreed that the
217
villages are scattered, the witness gave a clear answer even under
cross-examination that after he has cast his vote, he went to other
units in the ward. We refer the tribunal to the answer to the
cross-examination question of the counsel to the 1 st -3 r d
respondents during the proceedings of the 27 t h day of August,
2009.
PW57
28.9 PW57 is Babatunde Rauf who gave testimony for Ward 1, and his
members/leaders led soldiers and mobile policemen to invade the
various polling units in ward 1, Ifedayo local government where
they scared away voters and agents and members of the 3rd
petitioners and the n stuffed the ballot boxes with the already
thumb printed ballot papers in favour of their PDP candidates.
That voter were molested and driven away by sporadic shootings
of guns into the air and thereafter, the ballot boxes in the wards
were snatched and t aken away to unknown destinations together
with the presiding officers. That during their invasion of I sinmi
Olotu polling unit, Mr Segun Emmanuel T aiwo was wounded by
these thugs when he resists their efforts at carting away the
ballot box for that unit. That voting was totally disrupted in all
the poling units and as a result votes were neither counted and
nor results announced at any of the polling units in the ward.
28.10 Under cross examination of P W 57 he stated, I am from ward 1
Ifedayo Local Government Area. I was born in ward 1 and I
reside there in Onifare Village. There was no polling unit at
Onifare village but a polling unit was at Asa -Oye village. I
registered at Asa-oye village that was were I voted. On the day of
election I did not travel fro m Onifare village to Asa -oye village.
They match the villages together and there is only one polling
unit for both. My is ward 1 not ward 4. I know ward 4 in Ifedayo
218
Local Government in Oke -ila. I can‟t answer how far ward 4 in
Oke-ila to ward 1 because am not a surveyor. Ward 4 in Oke -Ila
and ward 1 in less city both in Ifedayo Local Government Area.
Both wards are in different towns. In Ifedayo Local Government
Areas election was held on the same day in all the three (3)
wards. I registered at Asoye polli ng unit. I got there in the
morning I don‟t know the ex act time because I did not have a
watch. I was not wearing a wristwatch but we were accredited in
the morning. I can‟t say for how long I was in the polling unit
because there was no watch but we were there till the presiding
officers brought election materials. INEC brought voting
materials. I voted before the PDP thugs disrupted the election. It
was in the morning that I voted before the PDP thugs came.
Nobody had wristwatch among us. Not 6 (six) poll ing unit in my
ward but eight (8). I don‟t tell lies we have 8 polling units in
ward one. The 8 polling units are under our ward but the villages
are not far. I know Adebisi Azeez (PW 56) he is from ward 2 not
ward 1. I know Tunde Awoyale (PW 42) he is fro m Oke-Ila. He
was a ward supervisor in his Local Government Area. The 8
polling unit are (a) L.A. Primary School Ajegunle unit 1, (b) L.A.
Primary School Ajegunle unit 2 beside unit 1, (c) Akinrun unit 3,
(d) Asa-oye unit 4, (e) Ajebamigbele unit 5, (f) Oy i Araromi unit
6, (g) Oyi Adio unit 7, (h) Oyi Adunni unit 8. I voted in Asa -oye
polling unit before the PDP thugs disrupted the election. There is
no free and fair election in other polling unit. PDP thugs did not
allow election to go peacefully in those unit. I had agents in other
polling units giving me accurate information and thereafter I too
went to see all that happened. Yes I was at Asa -oye I was not at
other polling units but my agents informed me all that happened.
The 8 polling units they are sca ttered in the village but are not
far from each other. Oyi -Adid and Asa-oye unit is not far to each
other. It is only a surveyor that can know the distance. It will
take 20 minutes if you trek. From Asa -oye to Akinrun polling unit
219
3, about 5 minutes if I t rek. There is not unit called Isimi -olotu in
my ward it is a village. At 3.00pm on the day of election I was at
collation centre at L.A. Primary School polling unit 2.
28.11 The grouse of the respondents with respect to the evidence of this
witness is that his evidence is similar to that of the PW56. As we
have argued in response to similar arguments of the respondents
with respect to evidence of some other of the petitioners‟
witnesses, we submit that there is not hing wrong in two
individuals giv ing accounts of an event which they witnessed in a
similar version or even in the same language.
Evidence of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents in Ifedayo Local Government

29.1 Only two witnesses were called, RW8, Major Samuel Olufemi
Omotara and RW9 Dr. Yemi Farounbi
RW8 Major Samuel Olufemi Omotara
29.2 The testimony of RW8 is that he is the person referred to as Major
Omotara in the statements of Babatunde Rauf of Ward 1; Adebisi
Azeez Ward 2, Tunde Awoyale Ward 4 and Babatunde Joshua of
Ward 5 of Ifedayo Local Govern ment Area all belonging to Action
Congress which statements were made and sworn to on 11th May,
2007. He stated that on the 14th day of April during the
Governorship and Legislative Houses Election he went to his
polling unit in ward 8 at Ora to cast his v ote around 11 am alone
and not in company of anybody. He stated that he did not invade
any polling unit with thugs nor engage in any election
malpractice as alleged in the statements referred to above. He
claimed to be a law abiding citizen as he returned home
immediately after casting his vote. He denied vehemently all the
allegations levied against him in the statements referred to and
claimed that while he was at the polling unit, election went on
smoothly without any hitch. He finally stated that all th e
locations mentioned in those statements are outside Ora township
and he never went out of Ora that day.
220
29.3 Under cross examination, RW8 Major Samuel Olufemi Omotara
testified in English Under cross-examination, the witness claimed
that he voted at Oke Alafia Polling Unit Ward 8 but that he did
not know the Polling Unit Number. He said he did not know the
people that he mentioned in paragraph 2 of his witness statement
even though he referred to them as “all belonging to the Action
Congress” in paragrap h 2 of his witness statement and he
admitted under cross -examination that he had gone to Abuja
twice in respect of allegation of brutalization. Notwithstanding
the testimony on record before the tribunal against the witness,
the witness said under cross -examination that it was not true that
somebody testified that he was brutalized by me and that he will
surprised.
29.4 He admitted that he was not the only person in my Ward that
allegation should be made against him. He further admitted that
he is a leader in PDP and hold visible and rewarding office in the
State and that the office might have been given to him because of
his position in the party. He also admitted that due to his high
office he was able to issue a circular for a 100 person per Local
Government for purpose of the Tribunal. The witness is a
henchman for PDP. The witness cannot be believed that that he
did not disrupt voting. He was also confronted with evidence of
his multiple registrations in Exhibit 352D Item 485 – and item 492
on Exhibit 352D with two different voters identification number.
RW9 Dr. Yemi Farounbi
29.5 The testimony of RW9 is that he voted during the Governorship
and Legislative Houses Election on 14th April, 2007 at Ward 9,
Ora in Ifedayo Local Government Area, osun State. He stated that
he has been shown and read the statements sworn to by
Babatunde Rauf of Ward 1, Adebisi Azeez of Ward 2, Tunde
Awoyale of Ward 4 and Babatunde Joshua of ward 5 of Ifedayo
Local Government Area of Osun State - all belonging to Action
Congress and which statements were sworn to on 11th day of
221
May, 2007. He stated that on the day of the election which was
14/4/2007 he went alone to the polling unit and not in company
of anybody at all and voted at around 2 pm. He stated that all the
allegations levied against him as contained in those statements
referred to are totally false and categorically denied them. He
claimed to be a law abiding citizen who did not engage in any
election malpractice as he went home after casting his vote. He
stated that all the locations mentioned in those statements are far
from his polling unit and he did not visit any of those locations
on that day knowing full well that there was restriction of
movements. He claimed that while he was at the polling unit the
election went on smoothly.
29.6 In paragraph 2 of his witness statement, the witness claimed that
he voted on the day of election and under cross -examination, he
claimed to have voted at Unit 1, R.C.M. School Ward 9 Ifedayo
Local Government. He claimed it took him about 4-5 minutes to
vote. The witness was clearly hesitant in admitting that his
position as Chairman of Osun State Broadcasting was a political
appointment. He admitted that he was reappointed Chairman, by
Governor Oyinlola‟s PDP on 21/7/2008, that is, a fter the 2007
election. He stated that he is a foundation member of PDP; I am
one of the leaders of PDP in Osun State and indeed in Nigeria
and that his daughter, Mrs. Ayonide Seriki Farounbi, is the Hon.
Commissioner of Osun State Ministry of Commerce, Co rporation
and Industry. To test the veracity of the witness and his
credibility, the witness was shown Exhibit 351D, voters register
for RCM Ora Primary School where the witness claimed to have
registered and the witness admitted that his name was not ther e.
The witness was also shown Exhibit 351A -G, the voters register
for all the units in Ward 9 and he also could not found his name
in any of the register.
29.7 Even though the witness claimed that he had a voters‟ card and
that he voted, the witness canno t be believed as his name was not
222
on the register for the unit where he claimed to have voted and
indeed in all the register for Ward 9, Ifedayo Local Government.
Despite the facts that the name of the witness was not on the
register, the register was repl ete with multiple registration of
family members of the witness - See Exhibit 351A-G.
Evidence of Subpoenaed witnesses Tendering Video Evidence

30.1 The Petitioners also called four witnesses by way of subpoena
and they all tendered video clips on the o ccurrence on the day of
election. These are, PW67, PW68, PW69 and PW70.
30.2 Precious Chigbu, from T.V. Continental , formerly known as
GOTEL TV stated that he was served a subpoena on Monday the
24 t h day of August, 2009 requesting that he make a written
statement concerning this case which he complied with. The
subpoena was admitted as Exhibit 63. He stated that on April 14,
2007, he was scheduled by his office to cover the Gubernatorial
and House of Assembly Elections in Osun State. He stated that he
specifically covered Odo Otin Local Government Area of Osun
State. He stated that during the course of his coverage, he visited
several polling units in the local government Area and that one of
the polling units he visited on the election day was a polling uni t
at Araoye Hall, Unit 7, Ward 13, Osi/Bale Ode, Odo Otin Local
Government where he made a video recording of the voting
activities he saw. He stated further that in the said polling unit
many voters were voting more than once. He then tendered the
Video cassette of his recording which was admitted as Exhibit 64.
30.3 Exhibit 64 was shown in the open Court and from the picture one
could see INEC officials in their light green vest fiddling with
what appears to be a register, the ballot box was conspicuously
shown with one man continuously filling the ballot box with
casted votes, and subsequently others joined him in these
223
nefarious activities. Amongst the crowd was someone wearing a
uniform.
30.3 Under cross examination, PW67 stated that the organization he
works for is a private one, and that as a professional he does his
job as required and that knowing the board of directors has
nothing to do with his competency as a journalist. The witness in
response to a question of date stated unequivocally that it is a
matter of preference and the tape is tagged for its purpose. He
was asked about the number of people on the recording, we
submit that the document speak and show for itself and any oral
contradiction cannot affect the quality of the job. On the issue of
identification we submit that outside the usual INEC poster there
was really nothing to show as the place being a rural settlement
does not have signage to show where it is being done and the
respondents have not punctured the fact that it was done on the
election day at the location. The value of the evidence of the
witness is that it confirms the alleged malpractice in the election.
PW68
30.4 Titus Morakinyo Fapohunda, a Cinematographer in the
employment T.V. Continental (formerly known as Gotel
Television). He stated that he was served on Monday 24 t h day of
August, 2009 with a Form1A requesting that he make a written
statement concerning this case and this he did. The subpoena was
admitted as Exhibit 65. He stated that on April 14, 2007, he was
scheduled to cover the gubernatorial and house of assembly
elections in Osun State. He stated that he covered the election in
Odo Otin Local Government Area of Osun State. He stated that
during the course of his coverage, he visited several polling units
in the local government amongst which is the polling unit at Ile
Ogun in Okuku where he saw that many of the voters at the
polling unit were voting more than once. He stated that he hid
himself in an uncompleted building where he had a vantage view
of the events at the said polling unit and made his video
224
recordings from there. He tendered the Original video recording
made at the polling unit in Ile Ogun, Okuku, Odo Otin Local
Government Area of Osun State recorded and was admitted as
Exhibit 66.
30.5 Exhibit 66 was played in the open court and from the picture it
appear to be a normal voting activities until several people were
shown engaging in the act of multiple thumb printing, we humbly
urge your lordship to see the video again.
30.6 Under cross examination the w itness was asked about the name
of his editor whom he simply called Mr. Stanley, we submit that
not knowing the surname of one‟s superior has no bearing on the
competence of a professional, we submit further that in an
average working environment colleague s call themselves by
either their first name, surname or nickname and in any event the
respondents have not come with another name to debunk the fact
that the witness‟ editor is Mr. Stanley. Further into the cross
examination he was asked to confirm the re lationship between
the C.E.O of his organization and the first Petitioner which he
did. The respondent did not confront the witness that his
relationship with his boss affected his professional competence
nor how it determines who to deploy to car ry out an official
assignment.
30.7 The witness was asked whether he has been to Osun State to
cover any event aside the election, we submit that in any
organization, it is the boss that direct who to do what and it has
not been shown by the respondents the releva nce if any, a
previous coverage in Osun State has to do with the testimony of
the witness. The issue of date remains a matter of preference as
the tape has enough description of its content. He was also asked
question as to landmark, to this we submit that polling unit has
no peculiar landmark and the respondent have not led any
contrary evidence to show that the unit is not where the witness
claimed to have done the recording and being a rural settlement
225
we wonder what kind of landmark the witness is expec ted to look
for.
PW69
30.8 EROGBOGBO OLAWALE, a Journalist with Lagos Television, was
subpoenaed and the subpoena was admitted as Exhibit 67. The
witness stated that journalism has been his work for about 21
years. He stated that he was deployed by his off ice to monitor
and record the Osun State April 14, 2007 Gubernatorial and
House of Assembly Elections. He stated further that on the day of
the said election, his area of focus was Ile -Ife in Osun State and
in the course of my official duties; he observed an electoral
officer and a police officer riding a motorcycle. He stated that the
Electoral Officer had in his possession a ballot box containing
ballot papers. The witness stated that he followed the motorbike,
and made a video recording of the ensuing sc ene with his camera.
He tendered the video recording that he made of the incident on
the day of Election and it was admitted by this Honourable
Tribunal as Exhibit 68. The witness not knowing the particular
scene of the recording made enquiries and was inf ormed that the
recorded scene was Moore area of Ife Central Local Government.
30.9 Exhibit 67 was played in the open Court and a man wearing
police uniform was shown on a bike with an INEC official
carrying ballot box, and upon questioning by the journalis t, the
man informed them of a disruption going on and that they were
taking the ballot box to a Police station.
30.10 Under cross examination PW69 was asked about the organization
and who the boss was, he was further ask question in relation to
where his former boss now works and he gave his answer, we
submit that the respondents have failed woefully to show the
bearing the information sought has on the competence of the
witness in relation to his testimony. The witness was further ask
the issue of date and footage which the witness gave his view and
the witness also add that situation determines whether data can
226
be included in the recording, at this juncture it is our humble
submission that data input on a recording requires setting as it is
not automatically done, we submit further that newsworthy items
does not give advance notice as can be seen from the scene of the
video and should the witness start setting the camera he would
not have capture the scene.
30.11 We submit further that the type of camera u sed also has a role to
play as to data insertion on recording and the respondent having
not cross examined the witness to ascertain whether the camera
used was one that can automatically insert data cannot use the
absence of data to impeach the witness.
PW70
30.12 Abayomi Kazeem Oni -Orisani, a Cameraman with Lagos
Television was subpoenaed and the subpoena was admitted as
Exhibit 69. He stated that in April, 2007, he was sent from his
office, Lagos Television, to monitor and record the Osun State
April 14, 2007 Gubernatorial and House of Assembly Elections.
He stated that he covered Odo -Otin Local Government in Osun on
the election day and that during the course of his official duty, he
got to a polling unit where he observed some young men armed
with cutlasses and other weapons. He stated that he immediately
proceeded to a nearby uncompleted building where he could have
a clear shot of the activities of the armed men as well as the
polling unit. He stated that he made the video recording of what
he observed from the uncompleted building and tendered the
video cassette which was admitted as Exhibit 70. The witness not
being familiar with environment made enquiry as to the polling
unit and was informed that the unit is Oba Otegbola in Odo Otin
Local Government .
30.13 Exhibit 70 was played in the open Court and from the display it
was obvious that the recorder was trying to get a stable angle to
do the recording, the picture shows a particularly disturbing and
chaotic scenes with men armed with weapons. Gunshot could also
227
be heard which led to further pandemonium and in the ensuing
melee an INEC officer could also be seen.
30.14 Under cross examination, PW70 the respondents tried to use the
witness‟ testimony to discredit others but the basis upon which
they cho se to discredit them cannot hold water as the witnesses
including PW70 stated emphatically that it is a matter of
preference and absence of data does not render the recordings
invalid.
30.15 On the issue of giving the recorded cassette to his editor does not
in any way suggest any manipulation and the respondents has
not even led any evidence to contradict same. Also on issue of
time fluctuation that the respondent pick cannot for various
reason amongst which is the fact that the witness is not expected
be recording irrelevant scenes in the name of not breaking the
timing, it is also a known fact that pressmen are interest ed in
news items and once a good scene produces itself a good
cameramen should not hesitate to capture same, another valid
reason is that the camera runs on battery which a good
professional must know how to conserve all these and can easily
account for a time fluctuation in any recording. On the issue of
not knowing Mr. Dele Alake, we submit that knowledge of Mr.
Dele Alake does not in any way add or remove from the
authenticity of the testimony of the witness and the video
evidence.
Evidence of PW80 Paul Jobbins

Summary of Evidence of Paul Jobbins, Fingerprint Expert
31.1 The evidence of PW1 relate to findings in respect of incidence of
multiple thumb -printing by an individual or some individuals.
The evidence covered ten local governments to wit; Atakumosa
West, Ayedaade, Boluwaduro, Boripe, Ife Central, Ifedayo, Ife
East, Ife South, Isokan and Odo -Otin Local Governments.
31.2 The findings are:
228
31.2.1The comparison revealed great numbers of instances of multiple
voting where there were long runs of consecutive ballot papers
bearing same thump impressions that had been made by the same
person.
31.2.2That the significant level of the evidence discovered shows that
many thousands of multiple votes had been cast and that many
people had been involved in the process of multiple voting.
31.2.3That by the sheer volume of the multiple votes identified, it was
clear that they were not random instanc es of persons merely
seizing the opportunity of casually casting more than one vote
but the result of a determined and systematic operation.
31.2.4The overall result of the fingerprint examination and comparison
for the aforesaid ten local governments was as follows:
a) Total Ballot Papers Examined = 203,574

b) Total Ballot Papers with Multiple Votes = 85,177
c) % Of Total Ballot Papers Examined With Multiple Votes = 41.84
%.
d) Total Ballot Papers with No Images Including Poorly Scanned
Ballot Papers = 40,353
e) Total Ballot Papers that had impressions with either Insufficient

Detail to Reliably Confirm Multiple Voting or Others that
disclosed detail that could not be matched = 78, 044
31.3 The finding of multiple votes affected 524 polling units across the
ten local governments: Exhibit 90(1-35) contain the breakdown of
the findings at it affects the polling units .
31.4 PW80 further testified t hat if images with insufficient detail were
to have been recorded as multiple votes the final figure disclosed
in the report wo uld be significantly higher.
Evaluation of Evidence of PW80, Paul Jobbins
31.5 One of the most successfully used methods of election -rigging in
Nigeria is multiple -thumb printing of ballot papers. Riggers seize
or collude with INEC officials to obtain ball ot papers still in
booklet form and each rigger can thumb print hundreds, even
229
thousands of ballot papers. It is this heinous malpractice that the
1 s t – 3 r d respondents committed widely and deliberately in at
least 10 local governments, namely: Atakumosa W est, Ayedaade,
Boluwaduro, Boripe, Ife Central, Ifedayo, Ife East, Ife South,
Isokan, and Odo - Otin.
31.6 The petitioners perhaps for the first time in the history of election
petitions in Nigeria sought the most competent expert assistance
possible to hel p determine scientifically the extent if any of
multiple thumb printing at the gubernatorial elections in Osun
state held on the 14 t h of April 2007. The petitioners engaged 51
British police finger print experts led by the world renowned,
now deceased Adri an Forty.
31.7 Their investigation and analysis as contained in the report of
Adrian Forty (deceased) and the testimony of Paul Jobbins (PW
8O) who led the team after the death of Mr. Forty contained some
of the most astonishing facts ever to be revealed a bout an
election.
31.8 These facts are contained in Paragraph 39 -44 of the sworn witness
statements of PW80 (Paul Jobbins). In paragraph 39, PW80
categorically states inter alia that;
“The overall result of the finger print examination and
comparison for t he aforesaid ten local governments was as
follows:
(a) Total ballot papers examined 203,574
(b) Total ballot papers with multiple votes 85,177
(c) % of total ballot papers examined with multiple votes
41.84%”
31.9 PW80 (Paul Jobbins) then goes on in paragraph 40, 4 1 and 42 of
his sworn witness statement to include the breakdown of his
findings by local government, ward and polling unit respectively,
full details of which are in the schedules attached to the witness
statements as exhibits 88,89 an d 90 respectively.
230
31.10 Exhibit 88 is a breakdown by local government area of number s
and percentages of multiple votes found in 10 local governments
of Osun state:
31.11 Atakumosa West, of 17,349 ballot papers purportedly cast for the
1st and 2nd respondents 6,685 multiple votes were found
representing 38.5% of the purported votes cast for the 1 s t and
2 n d respondents in that local government.
31.12 In Ayedaade local government of the 34,991 votes purportedly
cast for the 1 s t and 2 n d respondents, 13,552 multiple votes were
found, represent ing 38.75% of votes purportedly cast for the 1 s t
and 2 n d respondents in that local government.
31.13 In Boluwaduro local government of the 6996 votes allegedly cast
for the 1 s t and 2 n d respondents 1,309 were multiple votes
representing 18.7% of votes purportedl y cast for the 1 s t and 2 n d
respondents in that local government.
31.14 In Boripe local government of the 12,231 votes allegedly cast for
the 1st and 2nd respondents, 6,227 were multiple votes
representing 50.9% of the votes purportedly cast for the 1 s t and
2 n d respondents in that local government.
31.14 In Ife-central local government of the 34,565 votes allegedly cast
for the 1 s t and 2 n d respondents 19,550 were multiple votes
representing over 50.6% of votes purportedly cast for the 1 s t and
2 n d respondents in that loc al government.
31.15 In Ifedayo local government of the 10,339 votes allegedly cast for
the 1 s t and 2 n d respondents 1,929 were multiple votes, i.e. 18.5%
of votes cast for 1 s t and 2 n d respondents.
31.16 In Ife-east local government of the 23,741 votes allegedly cast f ot
the 1st and 2nd respondents 12,508 were multiple votes
representing over 52.7% of votes purportedly cast for the 1 s t and
2 n d respondents.
31.17 In Ife-south local government of the 13,692 votes allegedly cast
for the 1 s t and 2 n d respondents 4,215 were multipl e votes
231
2 n d respondents.
31.18 In Isokan local government of the 13,956 votes allegedly cast for
the 1st and 2nd respondents 3,770 were multiple votes,
representing 27.0% of the votes purportedly c ast for the 1 s t and
2 n d respondents.
31.19 In Odo-otin local government of the 35,654 votes allegedly cast
for the 1 s t and 2 n d respondents, 15,432 were multiple votes
2 n d respondents.
31.20 In sum, the testimony of PW80 (Paul Jobbins) concluded that of
the total 203,574 votes allegedly cast fo the 1 st and 2nd
respondents in the 10 contested local governments, 85,177
representing 41.84% were multiple votes!
31.21 No part of the testimony of PW80 (Pau l Jobbins),neither his
breakdown of numbers of multiple votes found on a local
government by local government basis (EXH 88) or on a ward by
ward basis (EXH 89), or on a polling unit by polling unit basis
(EXH 90) was controverted either expressly or tacit ly in cross-
examination by any of the respondents. His testimony having
been admitted without objection, and not having being
controverted in cross -examination is admissible to show that
elections in the ten local governments regarding which evidence
was led through the report and the votes cast for the 1 s t and 2 n d
respondents were fraught with overwhelming cases of multiple
voting.
31.22 Regarding the issues raised by the respondents, especially at
pages 206-209 of the Joint final address of the 1 s t , 2 n d and 3 r d
respondents, it is quite evident that the respondents had great
difficulty with attempting in their address to discredit a witness
they had practically runaway from in cross -examination. The
respondents‟ claim that the witness‟s expertise was never
demonstrated before the tribunal is simply absurd. Here is a
232
witness whose testimony regarding his qualifications, experience
and expertise was never challenged before the tribunal. In
paragraphs 1 -7 of his testimony PW80 said
(i) I am an independent finger - print consultant
(ii) That I have for over 35 years been involved in the
examination and comparison of finger, thumb, palm and
foot impressions.
(iii) I am qualified as a finger - print and handwriting analyst
having attended the Advanced finger print course a t New
Scotland Yard London.
(iv) In my career, I have examined thousands of impressions
since qualifying as a finger print expert in 1973.
(v) As part of my qualification and experience, I attended
fingerprint Bureau trainer course in 1991 at the National
Training Centre, Durham.
(vi) In 1991, I served as finger print expert on the United
Nations Mission to Cambodia to verify voters ‟ identity.
31.23 None of these clear and categorical assertions, were ever
contested in cross-examination, except for a nit -picking mention
in their address that PW80 said in his testimony that he had over
35 years experience as a finger print expert, whereas Exhibit 81
(page 1) puts his experience at 30 years. It is noteworthy that the
PW80‟s witness statement clearly indicates tha t he qualified as a
finger print expert in 1973. There is little doubt that Mr. Jobbin‟s
experience is clearly over 35 years as he stated in his witness
statement.
31.24 Of even greater moment is the fact conveniently ignored by the
respondents, that PW80 had previous experience in finger print
investigation in election matters having worked for the United
Nations as a finger print expert to verify “voter‟s identity”. This
clearly qualifies him as an expert in electoral matters.
31.25 The respondents‟ sub mission in respect of Exhibit R14, a
document they claimed was generated from the internet is again
233
simply ludicrous. The said document was a report of a medal of
bravery and integrity awarded to PW80 for his work as a marine
reserve in the Congo. But even the report and citation – Exhibit
R14 noted that:
“In his civilian occupation, Paul Jobbins served as a
finger print officer with Avon and Somerset constabulary
until his retirement in 2001.”
31.26 The report further noted that even his reserve engagemen t with
the army required cooperation from the Police, his employers at
the relevant time:
“With the support of the police, he was able to make a
substantial commitment to Royal Marines Reserve
Bristol...”
31.27 Furthermore in re-examination, (which was str enuously opposed
by respondents but allowed by the tribunal) PW80 (Paul Jobbins)
explained that in the U.K. being a reserve in the army merely
meant that aside from keeping a regular job, the „reserve; (as the
name implies) could be called up for military duties in the service
of the nation. His primary occupation as he noted, which he
worked on at least 5 days a week was as a finger print expert, the
reserve training which was part time, was done at the weekends.
31.28 On the issue of whether the PW80 use d originals of ballot papers,
the use of scanned images is perfectly acceptable in finger print
comparison and identification. Indeed under cross -examination
respondent‟s witness RW61 (Dr Ndara Abasi Ekong) admitted
that at the Federal Bureau of Investigat ion (FBI) where he trained
as an expert, using IAFIS, a thousand finger prints could be
matched within a second, he then went on to say:
“That final identification is by the use of what FBI had in
their record. They are copies produced from IAFIS, they
would be scanned but would not be manipulated copies”
234
31.29 Furthermore, RW61 admitted that at scenes of crimes fingerprints
are photographed for comparison purposes. He then said
categorically:
“I have used photographs before several times”
31.30 Indeed RW61 (Dr Ndara Abasi Ekong) admitted in court that he
himself had tendered scanned copies before the court. He said in
his testimony:
“I have seen R19(2) containing an example of a clear
finger print on the right hand side… Both were tendered
as evidence of a clear print. The two clear prints tendered
in this court case are scanned copies”
31.31 More importantly, RW61, (Dr. Ekong) under cross -examination in
response to the question whether he ever saw the scanned copies
used by Paul Jobbins said:
“I did not see the scanned copies of Paul Jobbins…”
31.32 None of the respondents witnesses in anyway impugned the
quality or authenticity of the scanned copies used. Even RW61,
never even saw the scanned copies. Without seeing the scanned
copies used, or demo nstrating that there was something wrong
with them in the cross -examination of the expert witness, it is
strange indeed that the respondents in their final address would
now seek to achieve what they woefully failed to do at the trial.
31.33 The suggestion that the scanned copies could have been
manipulated is one that is at best speculative, but more
poignantly it amounts to desperately clutching at straws. The
whole point of the trial which has gone on for close to a year was
to ensure that their hypothe sis that scanned copies could be
manipulated was tested. Each time the opportunity to do arose,
they shied away from it, hoping as it is now apparent to use the
cover of an address to kill a report which shows beyond
reasonable doubt that well over 40% of votes cast in the 10
contested local governments were multiple votes.
235
31.34 Regarding the respondents‟ submission that there is nothing to
confirm or corroborate or verify the qualification of the other
experts listed in Exhibit 81 (pages 1 -35) (Adrian Forty‟s written
statement) Again this submission demonstrates the failure of the
respondents to impugn the qualifications and expertise of the
experts at the appropriate time i.e. when PW80 (Paul Jobbins)
testified. Not only did he affirm the written stateme nts of their
expertise, their being serving U.K. Police Finger print experts
(see para 10) of his witness statement PW80 states that:
“A list of finger print experts involved in this enquiry with
their qualifications and years of experience in the field et c is
attached as Exhibit PJ4”
31.35 The respondents submit without authority of course, that aside
from his sworn statement where he showed the qualification of
each expert, the schedule ought to have been signed again by
him! At no time was the qualificat ion of the experts questioned.
Rather the respondents seemed more interested in discerning
which of them were married to each other! As it turns out and
even by their own evidence R14, PW80 and one of the other
experts Nicola Jobbins are husband and wife , clearly showing
that there was nothing sinister about husbands and wives being
in the same profession.
31.36 Regarding the submission that PW80 (Paul Jobbins) only
„verified‟ 10% of the analysis done. This is a distortion of the
evidence of the PW80, to ob fuscate the issues clearly testified
upon by the witness.
31.37 It is crucial to note that PW80‟s testimony and his report was
based entirely on the report of Adrian Forty (now deceased) who
supervised, and directed the work of the other 48 experts.
31.38 Paragraphs 15-17 of PW80‟s witness statements clearly lays out
his testimony and the proper sequence of facts and events:
“15. I know that Mr. Adrian Forty, upon completion of the
fingerprint analysis, swore to a witness statement to
236
which was attached s chedules of our findings as experts
who participated in the fingerprint analysis of the ballot
papers and the witness statement was filed on the 22 n d
January 2008 at the registry of the Election Petition
Tribunal at Osogbo. Now produced, shown to me and
marked as Exhibit PJ2 is a certified true copy of the said
witness statement of Mr. Adrian Forty and the attached
exhibits which included schedules of our findings as
experts in the fingerprint analysis as crosschecked and
certified by M Adrian Forty. I reco gnize the signature on
the said certified true copy of the witness statement as
that of Mr. Adrian Forty ”.
16. I know that the sa id Mr. Adrian Forty died on the 2 n d
January 2009 at Ravenswood, 522 Cleevehill, Downend,
United Kingdom. A copy of the death c ertificate of the
said Mr. Adrian Forty is hereby attached as Exhibit PJ3
17. Consequent upon the death of the said Mr. Adrian
Forty, in partnership with Mr. John Gendle I took over the
fingerprint consultancy established by Mr. Adrian forty.
The instruction from Action Congress remained
outstanding. I assumed responsibility for the
investigation and rechecked a sample of the results
contained in the schedules of the findings of the said
experts in relation to the following ten local governments
out of the initial twelve local governments covered by the
said findings of the experts as crosschecked and certified
by Mr. Adrian Forty.
31.39 As clearly stated by PW80 in paragraph 17 above, PW 80 using
Adrian Forty‟s report extracted only the results of 10 local
governments (as opposed to twelve in the report) and went the
further step of cross -checking samples of Adrian Forty‟s report
again. It is to the number of samples rechecked that he gave the
figure of 10%. No change whatsoever was made by PW80 in the
results of the fingerprint investigation in 10 local governments
237
as found produced by Adrian Forty, either on a ward by ward or
polling unit by polling unit basis. The only difference was that 2
of the local governments investigated by Adrian Forty were lef t
out of PW‟s report as only 10 local governments were needed to
establish the petitioners case. Whether PW80 did a sample check
or not, the report was the joint work of 51 experts including
himself, under the direction of the now deceased Adrian Forty.
The rechecking of a sample again strengthens the quality of the
work rather than diminishes it in any way. PW80‟s role as one of
his principal assistants made him suitable to lead the team and
present the report on the death of Adrian Forty.
31.40 The respo ndents in another spurious conclusion submitted that
PW80 admitted that wetness of the thumb or perspiration or
improper handling of scanned images could affect the quality of
thumbprints examined, and that since evidence was not led that
the thumbs of wit nesses were not wet nor scanning perfectly
handled the evidence could not be relied upon!
31.41 In both Adrian Forty‟s and PW80‟s written statements, they
professionally and truthfully acknowledged ballot papers that
were smudged or contained insufficient details and categorically
stated that they were satisfied with the quality of prints they saw
upon which their conclusion on multiple voting was based. When
such clear testimony has been given and reports tendered, it is
surprising to the say the least, th at the respondents would
suggest that an answer to a hypothetical question about the
possibility of wet thumbs or improperly scanned images is
sufficient to displace clear evidence on the point.
31.42 Surely, all that the respondents could have done would have been
to demonstrate that those hypothetical events took place either in
cross-examination of PW80, or by rebuttal evidence of their own
expert(s). Indeed in answer to a question from respondent‟s
counsel to the effect that if the person handling the machine did
not handle it well it could affect the qualit y of scanned images
238
PW80 said „ That is basic truism, but in this particular instance
there were a good number of quality images”.
31.43 On the issue of a purported log book for the movement of ballot
papers, PW 80 not only denied the existence of any such book but
clearly detailed the chain of continuity in his testimony and
under cross-examination.
31.44 As to the issue of why the other experts were not called as
witnesses the PW 82 stated under c ross-examination that the
reason was that it would have cost too much in terms of time and
finances to have all t he witnesses in court. He said :
“Secondly at the end of the analysis there was a collective truth
clear from the analysis that 51 experts and myself, they could
have been here to defend and attest but for time and expenses
such will consume” .This is in consonance with the exception
created by Section 91(2) of the Evidence Act to the effect that
the statement of a witness not called to testify is admissible if
tendered through another where there is evidence that undue
delay and expense would be incurred if the witness is called. It
is clear that calling 51 experts to testify on examinations that
could be reduced and were reduced to one r eport would
inexorably waste time and money. It stands to reason therefore
that this is an excellent case to apply the exception against the
possibility of hearsay by section 91(2).
31.45 Further, the condition that the maker of a document need be
called as a witness needs not be satisfied where the witness is
“beyond the seas and it is not reasonably practicable to secure his
attendance”(Section 91(1)(i) of the Evidence Act. )There is no
doubt from the testimony of PW80 that all the other 49 experts
reside in the United Kingdom and it would not be reasonably
practicable to secure their attendance.
31.46 Indeed the legal justification for PW80 to present Adrian Forty‟s
report is founded on the same proviso, where it provides that
239
requirement that the maker of a document sought to be tendered
must be called as a witness is waived where the maker is dead.
31.47 Regarding the testimony of RW61 (Dr. NdaraAbasiEkong) there is
little doubt that the entire testimony is of precious little use to
the respondents.
31.48 First RW 61, admitted that he carried out hi s own investigation
2 years after the elections were concluded and that the ballot
papers were “gummed together”, “wet” and “even smelling”. He
further admitted that “…. the purple ink used in some local
governments is not ideal ink most of it is water based and will
faint and migrate into the paper,….. Yes…the storage can affect
the quality if proper ink was not used….the longer the time o f
storage when good ink is not used the poorer the material”. It is
not surprising therefore that most of the ballot papers examined
by RW61 were smudged. On the other hand the scanning process
conducted by PW82 for the use of the team of experts led by
Adrian Forty commenced on May 31 s t 2007 a month after the
elections. Clearly the quality of prints available to the petitioners
was vastly superior to that available to RW61.
31.49 Secondly, and more importantly RW61 admitted that he did not
specifically examine the respondents votes in the contested local
governments as was done by the Adrian Forty team who
examined all the votes purportedly cast for the 1 st and
2 n d respondents.Any comparison of the results of PW80 and RW61
is therefore a comparison of apples and oranges.Thirdly,RW61
admitted after reading Exhibit 90 page 4 that in:
“Ayedade Paul J obbins examined 121 polling unit while
examined 11 units.
Boluwaduro Paul jobbins examined 58 units while I examined
11 units
Ifedayo PJ examined 60 while I examined 11
Ife East PJ examined 39 units while I examined 7
units… ..(complains)
240
Ife South PJ examined 83 polling unit while I examined 27 units
Isokan PJ examined 41 while I examined 10 units
Odo Otin PJ examined 96 polling unit while I examined 23
units… ”
31.50 Fourthly, RN16 admitted that even in the local Government in
which he claimed to have examined ballot papers, he examined
only a few.
31.51 Under cross-examination RW61 finally concluded that his opinion
about the poor quality of the ballot papers was based on the
general way that Nigerians tended to thumbprint ballot papers!
31.52 Fifthly, R W61‟s testimony as to the number of ballot papers he
examined within a 35 day time frame working from 9a.m. to
5p.m. showed that he either lied about that number or did not
examine the documents with minimal care or diligence.
31.53 RW61 claimed that he examined 40% of the ballot papers
amounting to over 60,000. He also claimed that even after
examining each ballot paper, he saw to it that his conclusion was
recorded in writing by his assistants. The entire process he said
(even for smudged documents) took over 30 seconds per ballot
paper. For the other categories, of prints he examined, he claimed
that he spent at least over a minute and up to 4minutes. It was
put to him in cross -examination that even if he spent only an
average of 30 seconds on each print, including (recording),
working from 9a.m. to 6p.m. without even a second of rest, he
would need 57 days to conclude the 65…ballot papers and not 34
days which he claimed he spent.
31.54 Sixthly, the RW61‟s report was fraught with misstatements,
misrepresentations and errors which he admitted to repeatedly in
cross-examination. Some of the more poignant examples are
where under cross -examination, he was confronted with Exhibit
19(3) which when compared with the figures in his repor t showed
that he had purportedly examined more ballot papers than were
actually used in the particular local governments!.
241
31.55 Seventhly, RW61 admitted under cross -examination that “I am
aware that there are several multiple votes in the PDP votes of
2007 Governorship Election” .
31.56 Undoubtedly the testimony of RW61 which was meant to rebut
the testimony of PW80 and was even prepared after hearing Pw
80‟s testimony prove d to be an unmitigated disaster .
Evidence of RW61 Ndara Abasi U. Ekong

32.1 The 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents had called RW61 purportedly to
contradict the evidence of PW80 but as can seen in the evaluation
of evidence of PW80, evidence of RW61 is worthless and cannot
contradict the evidence of PW80.
32.2 In his evidence-in-chief, the witness claimed that when the INEC
officials brought the ballot papers used for the Governorship
Election of 14th April for the disputed Twelve (12) Local
Government Areas of Osun State, namely - Atakumosa West Local
Government, Boripe Local Government, Ede North L ocal
Government Area, Ife Central Local Government Area, Odo -Otin
Local Government Area, Ife - East Local Government Area,
Ayedaade Local Government Area, Ife South Local Government
Area, Isokan Local Government Area, Boluwaduro Local
Government Area, Ola - Oluwa Local Government Area and
Ifedayo Local Government Area to his team, they were full of
dust and the ballot papers were folded together with rubber
band.
32.3 He also said that he observed that correct procedure was not
adopted in affixing the fing er print which by scientific standard
is not good for forensic examination. He therefore said because of
his observations, he could only get poor images because most of
the prints were smudged. He claimed that from his observation
of the poor impressions on the ballot papers, he produced a
scientific report on why it will be difficult to use the poor
242
impressions on the ballot paper to arrive at a good forensic
analysis report.
32.4 He claimed that incorrect procedure of obtaining fingerprint,
tampering and poor storage had affected the said ballot papers
and no Automated Finger Print Identification System (AFIS)
could produce good and correct result in the circumstance. He
said that he resorted to employing the use of visual and
instrumental analysis of t he original finger print impression of
the ballot papers rather than the scanned copies to avoid
distortion and errors.
32.5 He said that he decided to classify the impressions into: Smudged
(S); Faint (F); Partially Clear (CP.); Clear (C) . and No Vote (NV).
32.6 He said that his overall findings showed that most of the
impressions on the entire ballot papers he examined were blurred
or faint, a negligible percentage were partially clear, even smaller
percentage were clear while no vote accounted for some . He
therefore claimed that it is scientifically impossible to determine
with certainty that multiple votes were involved since less than
10% of the total votes were clear whereas partially clear,
smudged and faint impressions were over 90% of the total
impressions on the ballot papers.
32.7 He also claimed that in the circumstances under which the thumb
printing were made and the conditions under which the ballot
papers were kept it is not possible to get accurate fingerprint
ridge patterns of majority of the ballot papers examined.
32.8 The evidence of RW61 cannot be said to be contradicting evidence
to that of PW80. The evidence of RW61 is totally unreliable as he
claimed that he could not analyse multiple finger prints in ballot
papers because accordin g to him, more than 95% of the total
votes in the election were smudged or faint impressions. It
however became clear under cross -examination that the witness
(RW61) did not even know the total number of votes as he
243
admitted that he did not know the total number of ballot papers
used in the 12 local governments.
32.9 The witness later admitted under cross examination that the total
votes in the 12 LG that he claimed to have examined is 347, 965
and that he examined only 156, 367 ballot papers leaving a
difference of 191, 618 not examined.
32.10 Further, contrary to the evidence in chief of RW61 and in his
report (R22) that more than 95% of the total votes could not be
analysed. It became clear under cross -examination that the
percentage of what the witness claimed to have examined relative
to the total votes is just 44.93%. So the conclusion of RW61 is
totally false and calculated to deceive the tribunal.
32.11 Also, the evidence and report of RW61 is full of errors and
falsehood.
32.12 The witness gave exam ples of what he called examples of Clear
Print. In Exhibit R22 the witness exhibited what he called a clear
print from Unit 4 Ward 3 in Boluwaduro Local Government. But
in his findings as stated in Exhibit R24(21) the Witness reported
that there was no Cle ar finger print for ward 3 Unit 4. A clear
contradiction of what he had exhibited in R22 of having example
of a clear finger print in ward 3 Unit 4 .
32.13 When the witness was asked under cross examination by the
Petitioners that his report for Boluwaduro as contained in Exhibit
R24 is wrong or not, the witness did not respond and merely
stated that the Counsel to the Petitioner should proceed to
another cross examination.
32.14 It is submitted that where a witness evades a question under
cross examination the court will presume that the answer to the
question if given will be prejudicial to the case of the party on
whose behalf the witness testifies –see per Ogundare JSC in
Orianwa v. Oken 2002 14NWLR Pt 786, pg. 157at 165 Para b -c
and pg 187 para G.
244
32.15 Also, in Exhibit R19(13), the witness said the finger print in the
exhibit was taken from the ballot paper in Ward 4 Unit 2 of
Olaoluwa Local Government and that it is an example of a clear
finger print from that unit. The witness was then shown Exhibit
R24(21) which shows that in the column for clear print for Ward 4
Unit 2, zero (0) was recorded for the column for clear finger print
in that unit. It was then that RW61 admitted that the information
that no clear finger print in Ward 4, Unit 2 of Ola Oluwa Local
Government as stated in exhibit R24(21) was not correct.
32.16 It thus appear that in only two instances where the witness
exhibited good examples of clear finger prints, he falsely
reported in his findings that there were no clear finger print in
the same unit. There is thus an irresistible conclusion to any
reasonable person that all his other claims of absence of clear
finger prints for the purpose of testing whether there is multiple
finger printing in the election are tissues of lie.
32.17 It is also submitted that the evidence of RW61 cannot be a
rebuttal of the testimony of PW 80 because even in the instances
where he claimed to have found clear prints, RW61 did not bother
to examine whether there were multiple printing.
32.18 It also became cle ar under cross-examination, that the RW61 did
not examine ballot papers in most of the polling units where
PW80 reported finding some multiple thumb printings.
32.19 The testimony of the witness -in-chief with regards to the use of
original finger prints i s not reliable and under cross -examination,
the witness admitted that scanned images of fingerprints can be
used. He admitted that FBI used scanned electronic image for its
integrated automated finger print identification system or IAFIS.
The witness also admitted the he had personally used
photographs of finger prints impression to do finger print
analysis.
245
32.20 Furthermore, the claim that finger print analysis cannot be
carried out on scanned image is also contradicted by the finger
print in exhibit R19(13) and R19(11).
32.21 RW61 admitted that the finger print in exhibit R19(13) was
scanned by his Assistant and the charting or identification of the
ridges on exhibit R19(13) was done at his office. RW61 also stated
that the two examples of clear print ten dered in his report were
clear prints.
32.22 Any statement by RW61 on the quality or character of the images
of ballot papers used by PW80 will be hearsay and speculative as
he admitted under cross -examination that he never saw the
scanned images of ballo t papers used by PW80 and that he was
not there when the images of the ballot papers were used by
PW80.
32.23 Still further, the witness gave contradictory testimony as to the
reasons for what he claimed to be smudged ballot papers.
Whereas he claimed unde r his evidence in -chief that smudge
ballot papers was caused by application of too much ink and
under cross examination by the counsel to the 4 t h to the 1365 t h
Respondents. However under cross -examination by counsel to
1366 t h and 1367 t h Respondents, he claimed that the condition
under which the ballots papers were delivered to him were
gummed together and in semi -wet conditions as the ballot papers
smelt.
32.24 Under cross-examination, RW61 admitted that a damped paper
will be smudged depending on the ink a nd that the storage can
affect the quality if proper ink was not used. He admitted that
purple ink was used in some local government and that it was
water based which will faint and migrate into the paper.
32.25 Aside his contradictions on the issue of smu dged ballot paper,
Your Lordships will take judicial notice that the Petitioners
obtained the order of scanning and inspection in August 2007 and
carried out the scanning and inspection immediately thereafter.
246
However, RW61 admitted that he examined the ba llot papers
more than two years after the election. RW 61 can therefore not
be in a position to truthfully testify on the state of the ballot
papers in 2007 when the election was just done and the ballot
papers still fresh which was the period the Petition ers scanned
the images of the ballot papers used by PW80 and his team of
experts.
32.26 Your Lordships will also note from the records of the court that
RW61 admitted so many errors in his reports.
32.27 There is also evidence obtained under cross examinat ion of RW61
which shows that either the witness should be disbelieved or that
the elections in Ataku nmosa West and Boripe Local Governments
are invalid. Under cross-examination, the witness asserted that
by his exhibit R19(3) he examined 20,941 ballot pape rs in
Atakunmosa West Local Government Area, whereas, exhibit 92
Form EC8D showed the total votes for Ataku nmosa West is 18,
550. Also, under cross -examination and by exhibit R19(3), RW61
claimed to have examined 15,233 ballot papers in Boripe Local
Government Area, whereas in exhibit 92, the Form EC8D, the
total number of votes for Boripe Local Government is 14,839.
32.28If this evidence is true, it supports the case of the Petitioners that
no valid election was conducted in at least the two local
governments concerned here.
Evidence of PW81, Adeola Akintunde Olayiwola

33.1 Pursuant to the court order granted by the Tribunal in favour of
the Petitioners, the Petitioner made use of the orders in respect of
inspection and making copies of electoral documents. It is in this
behalf that the Petitioners has called PW81 as a witness to give
evidence of the state of electoral materials during the inspection.
33.2 The evidence of PW81 covered ten of the thirty local governments
in Osun State. These are: Atakumosa West, Ay edaade,
247
Isokan, and Odo -Otin local governments and the evidence are as
follows:
33.3 No EC8A for 114 Polling Units across seven local governments
and yet results were supposedly collated and allotte d to the said
polling units on the Forms EC8B, EC8C and EC8D: Exhibits 451
and 452.
33.4 86 Blank Form EC8As were certified and supplied by INEC in
Odo Otin Local Governments and yet results were supposedly
collated and allotted to the said polling units on the Forms EC8B,
EC8C and EC8D: Exhibits 453 and 454.
33.5 Ballot papers supplied by INEC as used were less than the total
number of ballot papers recorded on Forms EC8A as having been
used for the respective polling units affecting 560 polling units
cutting across the ten local governments. That there was a deficit
of 90,372 ballot papers found in the said 560 polling units:
EXHIBIT 455.
33.6 Ballot papers supplied by INEC as used were more than the total
number of ballot papers recorded on Forms EC8A as having been
used for the respective polling units affecting 116 polling units
cutting across nine local governments. In this regard, there was
excess of 10,561 ballot papers found in the said 116 polling units:
EXHIBIT 4566.
33.7 That there were discrepancies in the total num ber of votes and
the number of voters purportedly accredited to vote as well as
the total number of registered voters in the ten local governments
as follows.
33.8 That in 201 polling units in eight of the local governments the
total number of votes recorded on the Forms EC8A was more
than the number of persons ticked to have been accredited to vote
on the voters register produced for inspection and certified by
INEC: EXHIBIT 457.
33.9 That in 368 polling units in eight of the local governments the
total number of vo tes recorded on the Forms EC8A was less than
248
the number of persons ticked to have been accredited to vote on
the voters register produced for inspection and certified by INEC:
EXHIBIT 458.
33.10 That in 71 polling units in eight of the local governments, the
total number of votes recorded on the EC8A is more than the
number of registered voters on the voters‟ register produced for
inspection and duly certified by INEC: EXHIBIT 459.
33.11 That in 172 polling units in eight of the local governments, no
voters register wa s produced for inspection by INEC: EXHIBIT
460.
33.12 Forms EC8B produced by INEC for inspection and certified by
INEC for Ife Central Local Government revealed that it was one
Alhaji S.O.A. Nofiu whose name and signature appeared as the
agent for the Peoples De mocratic Party (PDP) in nine out of
eleven wards in Ife Central Local Government whereas ward
collation of results is supposed to be held simultaneously in the
respective wards. See Exhibits 97(1-11).
33.13 PDP votes for Boripe Local Government recorded on For m EC8D
(which is 14, 497) is more than the number of registered voters as
recorded on the same form EC8D (which is 12, 631).
33.14 These evidence of irregularities, affected 879 polling units in the
ten local governments
Evaluation of the Evidence of PW80
33.15 The respondents in evaluating the evidence of Mr. Adeola
Akintunde Olayiwola the PW81 have made certain observations
as to why the evidence of this witness should not be relied on in
these proceedings. It is submitted that these observations are
most irrelevant and ought to be discountenanced by the Tribunal.
33.15 The first reason according to the respondents is that this witness
claimed in his written deposition that to be an IT expert,
statistician and management consultant, whereas according to the
respondents “…cross -examination revealed that his basic
qualifications arte BA English and PGD in advertising and Public
249
relations and he is not skilled in the field in respect of which he
adduced evidence before the tribunal”
33.16 Furthermore, that none of the reports prepared by the witness
and tendered as exhibits 451 - 460 was signed by any of the 20
persons that were said to have prepared the exhibits.
33.17 The respondents claimed further that the claim of the witness to
being an IT expert collapse furt her when under -cross
examination, the witness could not according to the respondent
understand concept connected to statistical analysis, his claim
that he analysed electoral documents was thus contradicted.
33.18 His inability to appreciate common English / Linguistic
terminologies such as syntax and morphologies “… portrays him
as a potential danger of an expert witness when he is not familiar
with common terminologies in English Language where he
alleged he possessed a Degree”
33.19 That the admission o f the witness under cross -examination that
he once described himself as Analyst to the petitioner negate his
earlier testimony that he was not an agent or analyst to the
petitioners.
33.20 The respondents also contend further in their written address
that the admission of the witness that his organisation was paid
by the petitioners made his evidence “ …suspect which must be
approached with a lot of caution and circumspection. His
evidence that that he does not know the directors of the Institute
for which he work negates his earlier denial that Dr. Kayode
Fayemi who is the AC Gubernatorial candidate in Ekiti State was
not a Director of the Institute”. The respondent argues that this
further shows the witness as inconsistent.
33.21 The respondents also argue that Exhibit 217 at pages 5 and 10
brings out the lie in the testimony of the witness that the Form
EC8A for the ward was blank.
250
33.22 The respondents also argue that the certification by INEC of some
of the electoral forms belie the claim of the wit ness as to the non-
availability of the form i.e. Form EC8A for the period.
33.23 The respondents finally argued in their written addresses that in
any case the witness does not qualify as an expert since he la cks
the requisite qualification and that all told he is an untruthful
witness.
33.24 It is submitted that the observations of the respondents on the
evidence of this witness are highly misplaced. In the first
instance, while the witness described himself as an analyst, this
witness never described hi mself as an expert. This nonetheless
would not render his evidence valueless.
33.25 As to the argument that the reports which were tendered by this
witness were not signed by him or any other person, it will be
recalled that this witness was only assiste d by the other
individuals in his team . In any case, the said reports were
attached to his witness statement on Oath which he duly
authenticated by signing his name on the document and he
identified them in the said witness statement on oath.
33.26 The record also shows clearly that it is not true that the witness
could not understand English/Linguistic terminologies like
syntax and morphologies.
33.27 In addition, we submit that the fact that a witness was paid for
the services which he has rendered to t he party who has called
him as a witness will not render the evidence of such witness
unreliable.
33.28 We also contend on behalf of the petitioners that the issue

relating to the relationship between Dr. Fayemi and the
organisation to which the witness belongs are totally irrelevant to
the issue before the court.
33.29 On the issue of Exhibit 217, Your Lordships are humbly urged to
peruse Exhibit 217 which clearly supports the evidence of PW80
251
on blank EC8A from Odo Otin Local Government. Also, Exhibit
R18 tendered by the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents support the evidence
of PW80 on this issue.
33.30 The plethora of anomalies with respect to electoral documents
highlighted in several parts of this Address supports the
evidence of PW80.
33.31 Furthermore, contrar y to the submissions of the Respondent that
the court cannot take cogn isance of the evidence of PW80 on the
ground that the witness is usurping judicial function. It is
submitted that that is not tenable as the evidence is predicated on
order of inspection granted by the Tribunal.
33.32 In Aregbesola v Oyinlola (supra), the Court of Appeal held that
when a Tribunal granted an order for inspection pursuant to
Section 159 of the Electoral Act, 2006, it is expected that there
should be a report on the inspect ion. In any event, the 1 s t to 3 r d
Respondents also applied for and obtained orders of inspection
but did not call rebuttal evidence. The 4 t h to 1365 t h Respondents
also elected not to call rebuttal evidence.
33.33 On the essence of the provision of section 159(1 ) of the Electoral
Act, 2006 the Court of Appeal per Omage J.C.A in the case of
Aregbesola v. Oyinlola [2009] 14 NWLR (pt 1162) 429 at 478
paragraph B – D
“… the above provision enables a petitioner to inspect
documents in the custody of INEC for the purpo se of Instituting
or maintaining an Election Petition to my mind, it is so obvious
that the intention of the Legislature is that evidence obtained
upon the orders for inspection/scanning will support the
petition.”
Evidence of PW 82, Tunde Yadeka, an Inde pendent Information

Technology Expert and Software Data Analyst
34.1 The evidence of PW82 relate to findings in respect of the ten
Local Governments to wit: Atakumosa West, Ayedaade,
252
Isokan and Odo-Otin Local Governments and the findings are:
34.2 From the analyses of the serial numbers of the original ballot
papers supplied by INEC as having been used and the serial
numbers of ballot papers in the EC40C and/or EC25, it was
revealed that 38,908 (Thirty Ei ght Thousand, Nine Hundred and
Eight) ballot papers which have their serial numbers on EC40C
and/or EC25 were found to have been used in polling
units/wards/local governments other than the polling
units/wards/local governments that the ballot papers were
supposed to be used: See Exhibit 461(4). These ballot papers were
found in a total number of 326 polling units across the affected
local governments: Exhibit 461(5).
34.3 Another analysis carried out was whether or not a single booklet
of ballot papers was used in more than one polling unit. From the
analyses of the serial numbers of ballot papers supplied by INEC
as having been used in the polling units/wards in the said local
government areas, it was found that ballot papers from a single
booklet were used in two or more polling units and this incidence
of using ballot papers from split ballot paper booklets in two or
more polling units affected 69,401 (Sixty Nine thousand, Four
Hundred and One) ballot papers: Exhibit 461(6). The affected
ballot papers were fou nd in a total number of 592 polling units:
Exhibit 461(7).
34.4 PW82 also carried out an analysis to determine whether the ballot
papers used in a polling unit came from more than the number of
ballot paper booklets supplied for the polling unit on the
EC40C/EC25 and/or whether the ballot papers used in a polling
unit came from more than the number of ballot paper booklets
that could have been used to produce the number of ballot papers
used in the polling unit. From the analysis carried out, it was
found out that:
253
 in 509 polling units, the ballot papers used in a polling unit
came from more than the number of ballot paper booklets
supplied for the polling unit on the EC40C/EC25 and/or that
the ballot papers used in a polling unit came from more than
the number of ballot paper booklets that could have been used
to produce the number of ballot papers used in the polling
unit. This finding involved a total number of 176,512 (One
Hundred and Seventy Six thousand, Five hundred and
Twelve) ballot papers in the said loc al governments. Exhibits
461(8) and 461(9).
34.5 The evidence of irregularities in the misuse of ballot papers by
PW82, the Computer expert, further corroborates the evidence of
irregularities in Electoral Materials discovered in physical
inspection repor t by PW81 and finding of multiple thumb -
printing by PW80.
Evaluation of Evidence of PW82
34.6 The witness made a 37 -paragraph statement on oath accompanied
with ten exhibits, TY1 – TY10 (all admitted in evidence as
Exhibits 461 1 - 1 0 ) to establish the Petiti oner‟s case to the effect
that:
a. The result of the Governorship election in Osun State was
conducted on 14/4/2007 and out of 30 Local Government Areas
in the State where election took place, the results from ten (10) of
the local Government Areas are questi onable. The affected Local
Government Areas are Atakumosa West, Ayedaade, Boluwaduro,
Boripe, Ife Central, Ifedayo, Ife East, Ife South, Isokan and Odo -
Otin Local Government Areas;
b. The Ballot Papers used in the election for each of the affected
Local Government Areas were obtained from the proper custody
(INEC) and all the parties agreed that the ballot papers should be
scanned for the purpose of forensic inspection and analysis by
expert(s); Please refer to paragraphs 7, 8 and 12 of the Statement
on oath;
254
c. The gathering, scanning and certification of the ballot papers
used was done in the presence and under the scrutiny of:
(i) Counsel to the 1 s t – 3 r d Respondents;
(ii) Two Information Technology experts representing the
1 s t – 3 r d Respondents;
(iii) INEC Officials;
(iv) State security operatives; and
(v) Police officers.
d. The witness created and designed a software which was capable
of sorting, listing and analyzing the numbers and numbering
patterns of the ballot papers.
e. The Forensic inspection and analysis were done and a
report/outcome of the exercise was presented and filed before
this Honourable Tribunal.
34.7 The report/outcome of the forensic inspection and analysis of the
ballot papers in respect of the affected Local Governments show:
i. A sum of 38,908 ballot papers with the ir serial numbers on
EC40C and or EC25 were found to have been used in polling
units/wards/local governments other than where the ballot
papers were supposed to be used; Please refer to Exhibit
461 4 . The ballot papers were found in a total of 326 polling
units across the affected ten local government; Please refer
to Exhibit 461 5 .
ii. A single booklet meant for the use of a single polling unit
was found to have been used for two or more polling units
and the affected ballot papers totaling 69,401 ( Exhibit 461 6 )
spanning from 592 polling units in the affected ten Local
Government Areas; Please refer to Exhibit 461 7
iii. The number of ballot paper booklets used in a polling unit
in many of the affected ten local government areas was
more than the number that could have been used. A total
number of 176,512 ballot papers were affected in 509 polling
units. Please refer to Exhibit 461 8 - 9 .
255
34.8 The entire evidence of PW82 as presented in paragraph 1 above
was corroborated by some other witnesses particularly, PW80 and
PW81. More importantly, the evidence of PW82 remains
unchallenged and uncontroverted under cross -examination. It is
an established principle of law that where a piece of evidence is
neither challenged nor controverted, such evidence is credible
evidence which the co urt must act upon. In the locus classicus
case of Uku v Okumagba [1974] 3 S.C. 35 , it was held as follow:
Evidence that is related to a matter in controversy that is
neither successful debunked , nor controverted at all , for that
matter is good and credib le evidence that ought to be acted
upon by trial judge
34.9 It is not in doubt that PW82 was presented as an Expert Witness
as permissible under Section 57 of Evidence Act. The Petitioner has
established the competence of PW82 as an expert in paragraphs 2
and 3 of the Statement on Oath. It was established that PW82 has
depth of training and skills in “ Information Technology Solutions
practice and Software Data Analysis ” in addition to his first degree
in Chemical Engineering for the past 25years. These statement s
were never discredited by the Respondents in anyway under
cross-examination. It should be noted however that what is
required of an expert lies not in the number or form of certificate
obtained but “ acquisition of special skill(s)”.
34.10 In ANPP v Usman (20 08) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1100) 1 at 72 para D – F,
the Appellate Court in a similar Governorship Election Petition
described an expert as follows:
An expert is a person who in the opinion of the court has
got sufficient practice or experience in the particular fie ld
of knowledge as a professional or amateur. It follows
therefore that it s not only academic qualifications or
formal training that can make one an expert in a particular
field.
34.11 See also Ajani v Comptroller of Customs (1952) 14 WACA 34;
Aigbadion v State (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 586) 284.
256
34.12 PW82 in paragraph 3 of his Witness Statement deposed to the fact
that he received training in ASCOM/MONETEL in France,
Softpro Corporation in Germany, amongst others, in MICR
document processing solutions, fingerprint bi ometric
programming, process design, modeling and simulation.
34.13 PW82 in open court also demonstrated practically his strong
analytical skill and expertise when asked in cross examination
how he arrived at his results.
34.14 PW82 by all standards is therefore an ex pert with the required
special skills to give evidence on analysis of documents generally
which are electronically serialized including but not necessarily
limited ballot papers. The Petitioners‟ case amongst others is that
there were electoral malpractice s relating to ballot stuffing,
multiple voting and irregularities that substantially affected the
conduct of the Governorship election held on the 14 t h of April,
2007 in Osun State. See paragraph 4 of the Statement on Oath .
34.15 PW82 having given evidence in th is case, the kernel of
admissibility of the expert opinion particularly in an Election
Petition as in the instant case is the factual basis upon which such
opinion is made and the factual basis must be supplied to the
Court.
34.16 This is the position of the la w as re-established recently by the
Court of Appeal in the Election Petition that arose from the April
14 t h 2007 Kebbi State Governorship Election as contained in
ANPP v Usman (2008) (supra) 1 at 68 para E – H where it was
held:
Where evidence presented to the court or tribunal is based
on the opinion of an expert, the factual basis of such opinion
must be supplied to the court as it will enable the court to
determine the admissibility of the opinion and the weight to
be attached to it.
34.17 PW82 in his testimony, particularly in paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27,
28, 29, 30 and 32 of the Statement on Oath, demonstrated the
257
source, steps taken and findings that formed the basis of arriving
at his opinion contained in paragraph 33 in his Statement and
which remains uncontroverted. Importantly, even under cross -
examination of PW82, no contrary evidence was presented to
discredit or contradict the source, steps and findings.
34.18 Beyond preponderance of probability, the Petitioners through
PW82 established that in the affe cted ten local governments areas
in Osun State, ballot papers and booklets of ballot papers which
ought to have been used in a polling unit were found used in two
or more polling units. The implication of PW82‟s evidence is that
there was ballot stuffing, and irregularities in the conduct of the
election that substantially affected the outcome of the election.
34.19 In his evidence, PW82 using his expertise and inviolable
unaltered material (scanned ballot papers used for the election in
the polling units in the affected local government areas), from the
proper custody (INEC) demonstrated that each of the polling
units was issued a booklet containing certain serial numbers
which can only be found in a specific polling unit as evidence in
Form EC25 and Form EC40 a nd except by allusion, a booklet
issued for Polling Unit A cannot and must not be found in Polling
Unit B. Where this happens, it means that the ballot papers to be
found in Polling Unit B will be more than what it ought to
contain. Hence, the ballot paper s must have been stuffed in
Polling Unit B.
34.20 PW82 was therefore entitled and justified to express his opinion
upon the factual basis to assist this Honourable Tribunal. Of
course, drawing inferences from facts fall within the judicial
power of the Court. H owever, in cases of foreign law, native law
or custom, or of science or art or as to identity of handwriting or
finger impressions, the opinion of an expert may be required.
This is the purport of Section 57(1) of the Evidence Act.
34.21 PW82 did not stop at sta ting that ballot papers and booklets
meant for a polling unit were found in two or more polling units
258
but also went further, uncontroverted, to demonstrate the number
of polling units and ballot papers affected in all the affected ten
local government area s. The ballot papers which ought to be in
Polling Unit A but found in Polling Unit B represents illegally
vote cast. The only flimsy point raised at cross -examination was
whether or not PW82 signed the attendance sheets. All PW82
said was that there were times he signed the attendance sheets
and times he did not signed.
34.22 No evidence led that any visitor who failed to sign attendance
sheet could not be allowed into the INEC‟s premises; No evidence
was led that certain percentage of attendance must be obtain ed.
More importantly, it was never controverted that PW82 was
introduced to INEC Officials alongside with other parties. It is
therefore not surprising that ballot papers were released to him.
The Respondents‟ intention is to paint a picture that PW82‟s
attendance at the inspection exercise was irregular but their
intention would be baseless if juxtaposed with paragraphs 7 – 18
of PW82‟s Statement on Oath. Assuming that there was a
requirement for percentage of attendance for PW82 to be met
(which is denied ); this did not vitiate the findings and this
explains for it not being controverted by the Respondents as there
are no reasonable ground(s) to defeat PW82‟s evidence. Please
refer to ANPP v Usman (supra) on page 68. It was further held by
the Court of App eal that in appropriate cases, the opposing
Counsel is expected to cross -examine the expert witness in order
to raise doubt to the witness expert. Where the opposing party
fails to elicit facts to create the doubt, such party is at his own
peril and he wil l be deemed to have admitted the expert
evidence.
34.23 Having established ballot papers stuffing in several polling units
in the affected ten local government areas, the reasonable
conclusion and necessary implication is that all the votes cast
using the stuff ed ballot papers are invalid votes and must be
259
severed from the total number of the votes cast at the election. To
this end, there is no doubt as to the purported total number of
votes cast as announced by the 4 t h Respondent but this does not
represent the valid number of votes cast.
34.24 Professor Babatunde Adeleke, RW62, who was engaged for the
sole purpose of discrediting the testimony of PW82 failed
woefully in this attempt. He clearly came across as a very
careless statistician and dishonest witness:
 He claimed in his Witness Statement to have made several
visits to INEC office but during cross examination admitted
that he only visited the INEC office once.
 He also admitted that he did not see or inspect any of the
ballot papers or documents used by PW82 in reaching his
conclusions but merely did a critique of PW82‟s report on
highly suspicious and subjective parameters.
 RW62 also admitted in Table 2A (which he claimed to have
extracted from EC25) that the spectrum of serial numbers
which INEC put there were outrageous. This confirms,
rather than contradicts, PW82‟s contention of ballot
splitting.
 He further corroborates PW82‟s testimony by admitting that
ballot papers from the same booklet could be found in more
than one polling unit.
 He admitted several err ors in his testimony and made false
claims against PW82
 He could no longer remember several of the documents
made available to him which he found his report on and
later said one of the documents had unclear numbers and
considered it over stretching himsel f to do a proper or
thorough job
34.25 Applying the doctrine of severance in election matters of this
nature particularly where the Petitioner‟s case involves ballot
stuffing and multiple voting as recognized in the case of
260
Nwobodo v. C. C. Onoh and 2 Ors [1984] All N.L.R 1 where Bello
JSC held as follows:
However, the provisions of section 137 (1) are subject to the
principle of severance of pleadings which may be stated
thus: If in any civil proceeding the averments alleging a
crime are severable and if a fter such severance there still
remain in the pleadings of the plaintiff or the petitioner
sufficient averments devoid of the criminal imputation
against any party to the proceeding and on which the
plaintiff or the petitioner can succeed in his claim or
petition, then the burden of proof upon the plaintiff or
petitioner is to prove his case within the balance of
probability.
34.26 Due to the inability of the Petitioner to establish that the
remaining parts of the Petition could not sustain the Petitioner‟s
claims as contained in the Petition, the Supreme Court went
further to hold that:
With these considerations in mind, when I applied the
principle of severance to the petition and disregarded all
the averments alleging crimes against the respondents, I
found what remained of the petition could not be sustained
having regard to the totality of the evidence adduced by the
parties
Non-Signing of Exhibit 461 1 - 9
34.27 The Respondents contend that failure to sign Exhibits 461 1 - 9
renders them useless and that the oral evidence of PW82 cannot
cure this defect. This argument is completely misconceived:
 The exhibits form part of the Witness Statement of PW82.
The Witness Statement was duly signed by PW82. The
Witness Statement is merely an abridged version of the
contents of the exhibits. It is trite law that exhibits attached
to documents form part of the document. See …..
 PW82 rightly declared under examination –in- chief as well
as cross examination that the exhibits were prepared by
261
him. The authorship of the said exhibits was never in
dispute.
34.28 The provision of Section 91(4) of the Evidence Act is most relevant
here:
“For the purposes of this section, a statement in a
document shall not be deemed to have been made by a
person unless the document or the material par t thereof
was written, made or produced by him with his own
hand, or was signed or initialed by him or otherwise
recognized by him in writing as one for the accuracy of
which he is responsible .” (Emphasis ours)
34.29 The import of this provision is that wh ere a document is
acknowledged in writing by a person, such document is deemed
to have been made by such person. Though the exhibits in
question are unsigned, PW82 has formally acknowledged in his
Witness Statement that the exhibits were prepared by him. T his
puts paid to the entire question. The Supreme Court in Ordia v.
Piedmont (Nig) Ltd (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 379) 516 at 528
considered the admissibility of a document which was tendered
by a person who did not sign the document. The document was
signed by another official of the company. The Court held, per
Iguh, JSC at page 535:
“In the first place, Exhibit P1, on the unchallenged
evidence before the trial court, was prepared by PW1. It
was therefore a document, the accuracy for which he was
responsible. Alt hough it was signed by his managing
director and not by himself, it is in law a document made
by the witness. See section 90(4) of the Evidence Act [now
91(4)].”
34.30 The purport of the case is quite clear. The mere fact that a person
tendering a document did not sign the document does not make
the document inadmissible if the person tendering it
acknowledges responsibility for making the document.
262
 The law is that where a document is not inadmissible per se
but is only admissible subject to certain conditi ons, the
admission of such a document without objection constitutes
a waiver of the conditions to which its admissibility is
subject. This was the position taken by the Supreme Court
in A.G Oyo State v. Fairlakes Hotels (No.2) [1989] 5 NWLR
(Pt.121) 255 . The exhibits are ordinarily admissible. Had the
Respondents intended to object to their admissibility, such
objection should have been raised at the time the exhibits
were to be tendered. Not having raised any such objection,
it is too late in the day for t he Respondents to raise such
objection at this stage.
Payment of Expert Fees
34.31 The Respondents have also observed in their summary of
evidence that PW82‟s fees for the job were paid by the Petitioners
through the late Adrian Forty. This is, no doubt, m eant to cast
doubts on PW82‟s testimony and independence. However, it is
our contention that the payment of an expert‟s fees by a party is
not proof of the expert‟s partiality or incompetence. It is not
enough reason for a court to reject an expert opinion .
34.32 The Court of Appeal has taken this position in Ize-Iyamu v.
Alonge (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1029) 84 where it was held that the
fact that an expert is paid by the person who procured his service
is immaterial. We deem it pertinent to quote the decision of the
court on the point at page 115 where the court held as follows:
“In resolving this point, it is worthy to note the provisions
of S. 91(3) of the Evidence Act which provides as follows: -
(3) Nothing in this section shall render admissible as
evidence any statement made by a person interested at a
time when proceedings were pending or anticipated
involving a dispute as to any fact which the statement
might tend to establish”.
263
In other words, by virtue of section 91(3) of the Evidence
Act, Cap. 112, Law s of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, any
statement made by a person interested at a time when
proceedings were pending or anticipated involving a
dispute as to any fact which the statement might tend to
establish is inadmissible. See Salako v. Williams (1 998) 11
NWLR (Pt. 574) 505. However, as rightly submitted by
respondent‟s counsel, expert evidence is treated as an
exception to section 91(3) of the Evidence Act. In Apena v.
Aiyetobe supra it was held that a surveyor or any expert in
his field of knowled ge who makes a statement in any form
in respect of a matter in court at any stage of the
proceedings is generally regarded as a person who has no
temptation to depart from the truth as he sees it from his
professional expertise. The submission of appellant s
counsel on this issue is not tenable as there is no evidence
to support the conclusion that DW2 as handwriting analyst
made the report to favour the respondents because they
paid him. There must be real likelihood of bias before a
person making a stateme nt can be said to be a “person
interested” within the meaning of section 91(3) of the
Evidence Act”.
34.33 In the same vein, we respectfully submit that the fact that PW82
was allegedly paid by the Petitioners is irrelevant to the veracity
of his testimony .
RW62 Babatunde Lateef Adeleke

35.1 This witness was called by the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents purportedly
to rebut the testimony of PW81 but as has been seen herein and in
the subsequent evaluation of the evidence and report of RW62,
the evidence of RW2 can never be said to be a rebuttal evidence
to that of PW81. In his evidence -in-chief claimed that he was
engaged to critically examine all relevant electoral documents
used in the conduct of the gubernatorial election of 14 t h April,
264
2007 in Osun State as wel l as scrutinize the claim or reports of
PW82 in order to confirm the correctness or otherwise of the
evidence of PW82. He claimed that he also visited “INEC office,
Osogbo on diverse dates in furtherance” of his instructions. He
claimed that he perused and analyzed relevant electoral materials
during the conduct of the gubernatorial election on 1 4th April,
2007 as well as the reports of PW82. He claimed that himself and
his colleague examined the said relevant electoral materials in the
“ten (10) disputed L ocal Government Areas”.
35.2 He claimed that the findings of PW82 are not correct. He claimed
that it is not true that there were 5099 polling units or any
polling units where ballot papers that were found at any such
polling units came from ballot papers not assigned to such
polling units of From EC25A and/or EC40C. He also claimed that
“it is not verifiable or true that there is stuffing of ballot papers
in the disputed local governments/wards/polling unit”.
35.3 This witness is the most unreliable witne ss and his testimony
cannot in any way be said to contradict the expert testimony of
PW82. Contrary to the claim of RW62 in paragraphs 15 and 16 of
his witness statement that he perused, analysed and examined
“relevant electoral materials/documents” but un der cross-
examination, he admitted that he did not examine any ballot
papers and that it was not part of his assignment to examine
ballot papers. For a witness who came to court to seek to give
evidence and opinions on use and misuse of ballot papers, what
more electoral material can be r elevant than the ballot papers.
35.4 Also, while RW62 in paragraph 14 of his witness statements
claimed that he visited INEC office on “diverse dates”, admitted
under cross-examination that he visited INEC office only once.
35.5 RW62 in paragraph 21 of his written disposition claimed the
PW82 had made some claims in respect of 5099 units. But when
confronted to point out where PW82 made claims to 5099 polling
units, RW62, had crossed out the last 9 from the 5099 in the
265
witness statement with him in the witness box. But the crossing
out was not initialled and is not reflected in any other copies
before the court and with the parties. This definitely shows that
RW62 lacks all forms of credibility.
35.6 The table 1a is based ent irely on RW62 speculations as the
testimony of PW82 was that he was supplied by INEC with ballot
papers for the polling unit where the serial numbers of those
ballot papers appeared and he discovered that there was
misapplications of ballot papers. The onl y credible way that the
evidence of PW82 of misapplication of ballot papers can be
contradicted is by bringing the actual ballot papers on unit -by-
unit basis and demonstrate that the ballot papers with serial
numbers as reported by PW82 were not for the po lling unit he
claimed that INEC gave him the ballot papers for but not be
merely making a remark on the table as done by RW62.
35.7 It is submitted that the evidence of RW62 cannot be said to be
rebuttal evidence to that of PW82 because by his own admissio n,
RW62 did not carry out any independent analysis of ballot papers
with a view to making his own findings. RW62 admitted that
what he has done was to offer a critique of the report of PW82.
Assuming without conceding that RW62 could be said to be an
expert in the relevant field, what will be a contradicting evidence
from him will be evidence of analysis of the same materials used
by PW82 but arriving at a opposite or different conclusions.
35.6 Whereas PW82 based his report and findings on ballot papers
supplied to him by INEC on a polling unit -by-polling unit basis,
RW62 by his admission only examined the report of PW82 and
was never given any ballot paper by INEC. Therefore the whole
report and so called findings of RW62 were based on his own
assumptions and speculations.
35.7 It is incredible for the witness to state under cross -examination
that inability to get relevant documents for the ten local
governments in dispute is clearly not an impediment to be able to
266
contradict Pw82‟s evidence. This is becau se according to him he
relied on assumptions and that to be able to nullify the
hypothesis you are required to fault the hypothesis in just one
out of the several possibilities. Therefore having not based his
findings on concrete facts and the same kind of materials used by
PW 82, the evidence of RW62 is entirely unreliable, speculative
and cannot in any way be said to contradict the evidence of
PW82.
35.8 Furthermore, even though RW62 claimed not to be a very careless
statistician, he later admitted to som e errors in stating figures in
his report. For instance, in the footnote of table 2(b) of exhibit
R27(19), RW62 made a false allegation against PW82 based on his
(RW63) errors in setting out the correct serial numbers of ballot
papers in item 16 of table 2 (b) of exhibit R27(18).
35.9 The witness (RW62) admitted under cross -examination that the
formula to be used in arriving at the quantity of ballot papers
distributed to a unit is by deducting the lower range of serial
number from the upper range. The witne ss was then led to apply
this formula to the ranges of serial numbers he set out in his table
2(a). For instance, in item 1 on the table, (St Phillips Pry School),
deducting the lower range of 51554301 from the upper range of
51558500 leaves a difference o f 4,200. In item 2 on the table (Isale
Obaala) deducting the lower range of 51560701 from the upper
range 51558101 leaving a difference of 3700. This is against the
claims of RW62 that INEC ballot papers has a limit of 500 and at
the most 1000 leaves.
35.10 Further, in setting out his table 2(a) and 2(b), RW62 merely set
out negligible information. For instance RW62 claimed that his
table 2(a) is extracted from exhibit 186 but he only listed
information for only 11units out of 74 polling units. Further, the
evidence in paragraph 22 of the witness statement is
contradictory. The paragraph reads:
267
“That we found that it is not verifiable or true that there
is stuffing of ballot papers in the disputed local
governments/wards/polling units”
35.11 It is submitted that it is contradictory to state that stuffing of
ballot papers is not verifiable and that it is not true that that
there is ballot stuffing. At the best, it would be said that RW62 is
equivocal in his position on existence of stuffing of ballot papers
and as such has not given reliable testimony on this issue.
35.12 By the end of cross -examination, RW62 admitted that many of the
ranges of ballot papers which he extracted from exhibit 186 and
put in table 2(a)contained number of ballot papers that are
„outrageous‟ going by INEC specification. This is clearly an
admission of the whole essence of the evidence of PW82 by RW62,
a witness of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents.
LEGAL SUBMISSIONS
Burden and Standard of Proof
36.1 There are two issues to address under th is heading viz:
(1) what is meant by proof beyond reasonable doubt
(2) what is meant by proof on the balance of probability
Proof beyond reasonable doubt
36.2 In Akalezi v State [1993] 2 NWLR Pt. 273 Pg. 1 at 13, the Supreme
Court per Ogwuegbu J.S.C . adopted the following dictum of Lord
Denning in Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER Pg.
372, where he said,
“Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond
shadow of doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if
it admitted fanciful possibi lities to deflect the course of justice.
If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a
remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the
sentence „of course it is possible, but not in the least probable,‟
the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt but nothing short of
that will suffice.”
268
36.3 Further in State v Akpabio [1993] 4 NWLR Pt. 286 Pg. 204 at 224 -
225, Oguntade J.C.A. said,
“For the purpose of my opinion here it is important to
emphasise the import of the words „beyon d reasonable
doubt‟ used in Section 137 (1) of the Evidence Act. A doubt
is a reasonable one when (1) there is evidential basis for it
– and in this connection, I am talking of the evidence
concerned being credible and accepted as true and (2) when
in consequences therefore the mind of the court is thrown
into a state of unsureness or uncertainty as to the true
circumstances in which the crime imputed to the prisoner
occurred and in particular as to whether the suspect had
committed it. It is not every dou bt that leads to the
acquittal of an accused. Only „a reasonable doubt‟ borne
out by the evidence can do so. In the sa me way a fanciful
and unreal doubt cannot have that consequence .”
36.4 It has also been held that the doubt being emphasised in the
requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt is reasonable, not
slightest or fanciful or all doubt; Ezike v Ezeugwu [1992] 4
NWLR (pt 236) 462 at 472 -3.
36.5 In GRANVILLE I ABIBO vs. GODWIN TAMUNO & ORS (1999)
4 NWLR [Pt. 599] 334 at 339 Opene JCA, held:
“A proof beyond reasonable doubt has been taken to mean such
a degree of cogency which is consistent with and equivalent to a
high degree of probability. It does not eliminate the possibility
of any doubt whatsoever including remote possibility."
36.6 It is submitted that the evidence of Petitioners‟ witnesses provide
the evidential basis for proof „beyond reasonable doubt‟ as
enunciated in the above cases, particularly when their evidence
was not challenged under cross -examination. In addition, the 1 s t –
3 r d Respondents have not been able, by credible and reliable
evidence, cast „any doubt‟ and/or „reasonable doubt‟ on the
allegations of disruption of election, stuffing of ballot boxes with
illicitly thumb printed ballot papers etc as alleged in the Petition
269
and established by the evidence of PW1-PW66 AND PW71 -PW79
and Exhibits 12(A – F), 13(A – E), 14(A – D), 41(A – E), 55(A – D),
56(A – C), 62(A – D), 44(A – C), 45(A – O), 46(A – S), 48(A – D),
72(A –G), 73(A – E), 32(A – H), 33(A – F), 34(A – I), 35(A – O),
38(A – G), 8(A – G), 9(A – G), 10(A – F), 11(A – E), 53(A – H),
57(A – F), 58(A – G), 61(A – J), 74(A – E), 15(A – W), 16(A – P),
17(A – L), 18(A – P), 19(A – N), 20(A – I), 25(A – N), 26(A – Z),
21(A – M), 22(A – M), 23(A – N), 24(A – J), 27(A – V), 29(A – T),
36(A – V), 60(A – X), 71(A – T), 37(A – K), 51(A – L), 52(A – K),
47(A – E), 49(A – F), 50(A – F), 54(A – F), 75(A – H), 77(A – G),
78(A – D), 1(A – E), 2(A – H), 3(A – H), 4(A – G), 5(A – G), 6(A –
G), 39(A – N), 40(A – I), 42(A – E), 43(A – G) and 79(A – H).
36.7 We submit that the Tribunal should hold that the Petitioner have
proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt.
Proof on balance of probability or preponderance of evidence
36.8 The Petitioners pleaded in paragraphs 19.1, 19.3, 23, 24, 2 9(d), 41
and 42(d) and several other paragraphs of the petition and led
evidence, oral and documentary (as well as video evidence) to
show that there were wide spread irregularities contrary to the
provisions of the Electoral Act, 2006 and that the electio n was
vitiated by substantial non -compliance with the mandatory
statutory requirements of the Electoral Act 2006 which non -
compliance substantially affected the validity of the said election
such that none of the candidates in the said elections can be
validly returned as having validly won the elections in the
affected Local Government Areas.
36.9 The Petitioners have also pleaded that elections were not
conclusive and votes were not counted and results were not
recorded in Form EC8A and were not announce d and/or declared
in most polling stations and wards in the 1 0 Local Government
earlier mentioned.
36.10 The position of the law on standard of proof in an election
petition is proof on the balance of probabilities or on the
270
preponderance of evidence ; Buhari v. Obasanjo [2005] 2NWLR
(pt. 910) 241at 518. See also Omoboriowo v. Ajasin (1984) 1
SCNLR 108. It is humbly submitted that the Petitioners have
been able to prove all the above -mentioned allegations through
their oral and documentary evidence on balan ce of probability .
This is more so, when none of the Respondents led any contrary
evidence to debunk the evidence of the Petitioners‟ witnesses.
The Nature and Cogency of Testimony of the Petitioners‟ Witnesses
37.1 Faced with the cogent and credibl e testimony of the Petitioners‟
witnesses, the Respondents have deployed some untenable
arguments against the nature of the testimony and the capacity of
the Petitioners‟ witnesses. It will be demonstrated anon that there
is no substance whatsoever in the conte ntions of the Respondents
against the testimonies of the Petitioners witnesses.
37.2 Section 155 of the Evidence Act provides that everyone is deemed
to be competent, to testify in a court except the court considers
the person unfit to testify as a result of the person‟s inability to
understand the question put to him, or is unable to give rational
answers to them, either as a result of the person‟s tender age or
extreme old age, physical inability of either the body or the mind,
or any other course of the same kind.
37.3 It is submitted that there is no provision in the Electoral Act of
2006 which prevents officers of a political party from testifying
on behalf of a party in an election. Every political party is
entitled to design her party structure in wha tever manner it
pleases. It is further submitted that whether a political party
appoints polling agents, ward agents, monitors or supervisors,
ward collation officers, local government area monitors or
supervisors or collation officers, state supervisors a nd agents, by
whatever name they are called is her own internal business.
37.4 All that the Tribunal should be and ought to be concerned with is
whether the witnesses brought forward have come to give first
271
hand evidence of what they saw and or did or did not do - Section
77 of the evidence Act.
37.5 It is submitted that competence to testify in a law court is
determined by the substantive rules of evidence and not the
Electoral Act- Section 1 of the Evidence Act. It is further
submitted that by the combine d provisions of Section 77 and 155
of the Evidence Act PW1-PW66 AND PW71 -PW79, are competent
witnesses. Moreso, the evidence that they have given is as regard
what they positively assert as having witnessed directly and
personally - Section 77 of the eviden ce Act.
37.6 It is submitted that a testimony will only be regarded as hearsay,
where the person making the statement is not the one who either
saw it, heard it, perceived it, nor gave it as his own personal
opinion, but rather as what was said to him by another person;
See Omonga v. State(2006)14 NWLR (pt.1000)532 C.A;
Obinwunne v. Tabansi -Okoye (2006) 8 NWLR(pt.981)1004 C.A.
37.6 Furthermore, the petitioners need not call polling agent as
witnesses. It has long been settled by case law that the number of
witnesses called is not material but whether the evidence is
cogent and compelling thus a party does not need to present a
galaxy of witnesses to prove his case. See OSAZUWA vs. ISIBOR
(2004) 3 NWLR [Pt. 859] 16 at 37. It is submitted that the Supreme
Court decision in MUHAMMED BUHARI & ANOR vs.
OLUSEGUN OBASANJO & ORS (2005) 13 NWLR [Pt. 941] at
page 1 esp. at page 315 para B -D is not authority to say that only
party agents can be called to testify in an election matter.
37.7 It is submitted that by Secti on 62(1) of the Electoral Act, 2006
aside from voters, the following are entitled to be at the polling
units: candidates, polling agents, poll clerks, persons lawfully
entitled to be admitted and observers. Section 62(1) of the
Electoral Act provides thus:
“The Presiding Officer shall regulate the admission of
voters to the polling station and shall exclude all other
272
persons other than candidates, polling agents, poll clerks
and persons lawfully entitled to be admitted including
accredited observers, and the Presiding Officers shall keep
order and comply with the requirements of this Act at the
polling station.”
37.8 It is further submitted that persons lawfully entitled to be
admitted include party supervisors. Besides the aim of the
provision is to prevent unruly behaviour within the polling unit
or station hence the presiding officer is empowered to remove
anyone who behaves in a disorderly manner. No presiding officer
has testified before this Tribunal that he ordered the removal of
any of the ward superv isors as in PW1-PW66 AND PW71-PW79 as
to render them incompetent to give evidence.
37.9 It is further submitted that the nature of the responsibilities of
PW1-PW66 AND PW71 -PW79 as ward supervisors and the fact
that they testified that they moved from one polling unit to
another cannot render their testimony as inadmissible hearsay.
The evidence of PW1-PW66 AND PW71-PW79 is evidence of what
they directly witnessed .
37.10 Furthermore, all the witnesses deposed to the fact that as ward
supervisors their resp onsibility was to monitor, supervise and
coordinate all the activities of their polling agents in all the units
in their respective wards. They were also to monitor election
results at the ward level during collation and to receive written
reports from their polling agents in the ward after the election.
They further stated that on the day of election they moved
around visiting one unit after the other in the ward under their
supervision in order to discharge their responsibilities. They then
proceeded to depose to the facts and violent acts that allegedly
occurred in each of the units they visited.
37.11 It is submitted that the testimon ies of the witnesses were not
debunked under cross examination by the Respondents. The
testimony of the witnesses were not seriously challenged by the
273
1 s t to 3 r d Respondents who called some witnesses, while the same
testimony should be deemed admitted by the 4 th -1367 t h
Respondents who elected not to give evidence .
37.12 It is further submitted that apart from the direct and positive
testimony of the witnesses of the Petitioners, there is also
corroborative evidence in Exhibits 12(A – F), 13(A – E), 14(A – D),
41(A – E), 55(A – D), 56(A – C), 62(A – D), 44(A – C), 45(A – O),
46(A – S), 48(A – D), 72(A –G), 73(A – E), 32(A – H), 33(A – F),
34(A – I), 35(A – O), 38(A – G), 8(A – G), 9(A – G), 10(A – F), 11(A
– E), 53(A – H), 57(A – F), 58(A – G), 61(A – J), 74(A – E), 15(A –
W), 16(A – P), 17(A – L), 18(A – P), 19(A – N), 20(A – I), 25(A –
N), 26(A – Z), 21(A – M), 22(A – M), 23(A – N), 24(A – J), 27(A –
V), 29(A – T), 36(A – V), 60(A – X), 71(A – T), 37(A – K), 51(A –
L), 52(A – K), 47(A – E), 49(A – F), 50(A – F), 54(A – F), 75(A – H),
77(A – G), 78(A – D), 1(A – E), 2(A – H), 3(A – H), 4(A – G), 5(A –
G), 6(A – G), 39(A – N), 40(A – I), 42(A – E), 43(A – G) and 79(A –
H) which are reports of the Petitioners‟ polling agents submitted
to the Petitioners‟ witnesses in their capacity as Ward
Supervisors.
37.13 All the witnesses testified in the following terms that “ apart from
my personal knowledge of these events when I visited the
polling units in the ward, I also received written reports from
the polling agents in all the polling units in the ward ”… They
then proceeded to tender the reports submitted to them by their
polling agents and marked as Exhibits listed in paragraph 37.12
above.
37.14 In addition many of the witnesses were able to establish in cross
examination that the units are not far apart and they in fact
visited the units several times over.
37.15 The 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents, had argued in paragraph 3.23 that
some of the witnesses have observed exactly the same thing in the
ward and local governments and that this is not supposed to be
the case. It is submitted that the premise of the argument of the
274
1 s t to 3 r d Respondents is speculative. Similarly, the argument by
the Respondents that the Petitioners witnesses gave incredible
testimonies is speculative and not supported by the evidence of
these witnesses on the records. It is a matter for evaluation by the
Tribunal whether what the witnesses said they witness ed
happened as has been narrated or not.
37.16 It is submitted that the cases of Ajadi v Ajibola [2004] 16 NWLR
(pt 898) 91 at 201 per Umoren JCA who delivered a concurring
judgment and Esangbedo v The State ( 1998) 4 NWLR (pt. 113) 57
at 83 do not support the proposition canvassed by the
Respondents in paragraph 3.23 that witnesses cannot give similar
account of similar incidents witnessed by them even though the
similar incidents occurred at different wards an d local
governments. Indeed, what the cases of Ajadi v Ajibola (supra)
and Esangbedo v The State (supra decided) was that the facts
that there are minor variation in accounts by witnesses of a single
event would not be held to be that the evidence of the w itnesses
are contradictory and it was in that context that the
pronouncement quoted by the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondent s was made. It
is thus submitted that the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents deliberately
quoted the passages of the judgment out of context.
37.17 It is also submitted that the submission in paragraphs 3.24 and
3.25 of the Respondents written address that failure by the
Petitioners to call registered voters prevented from voting is fatal
to the case of the Petitioners failed to take into cognisance the
pleadings of the petitioners and the evidence led in support. The
case made out from the pleading and the evidence of the
Petitioners was that even though election commenced in most of
the polling units but that the election were disrupted around
noon or afternoon and that votes were not counted, announced
and recorded on the relevant electoral forms at the polling units
and that the results were not collated and announced at the Ward
275
collation centres. Also, that there were multiple thumb -printing
of ballot papers, among others.
37.18 It is submitted that the Petitioners‟ witnesses, who in the main
are ward supervisors, gave direct, positive and credible
testimony in support of the allegations in the Petition: See per
Ogunbiyi J.C.A in the case of Lasun v. Awoyemi [2009] 16 NWLR
(pt. 1168) 513 at 553 paras. D -H. It is submitted that the cases of
Awuse v Odili [2005] Alll FWLR (pt 261) 248 at 287 and Chime v
Onyia (2009) 2 NWLR (pt 1124) 1 at 42 are not apposite in this
context. Further, the Petitioners have ca lled oral evidence of
PW1-PW66 AND PW71 -PW79 who said they were present at all
the relevant polling units in th eir wards and that the election
were disrupted and that notwithstanding the disruption, results
were declared. These include the evidence of PW67-PW70 who
tendered upon subpoena video evidence of electoral irregularities
and disruption recorded on the election day.
37.19 Further, the Petitioners called PW80, PW81 and PW82 who also
gave evidence in respect of analysis of documentary evidence in
support of the Petition. It is thus submitted that the case of Engr
Ahmed Yusuf & Anor v Danbaba Danfulani Suntai [2010] All
FWLR (pt 502) 1002 at 1032 cited by the Respondents in
paragraph 3.25 is in support of the Petitioners herein.
Furthermore, the Petitio ners are entitled to tender relevant
documents and the court can act on such documents - See INEC v
Oshiomole [2009] 4 NWLR (pt 1132) 607 .
37.20 Faced with the compelling testimony of the petitioners‟
witnesses, the 1 s t -3 r d Respondent have argued in paragra phs 5.12
to 5.21 that the evidence of Ward Supervisors are not helpful and
that the Polling agents reports tendered by the Petitioners
witnesses are of no value. The Respondents in the main seek
refuge in what Akintan JSC said in Buhari v Obasanjo (2005) 1 3
NWLR (Pt.941) 1 at 315 to the effect evidence of persons who
were in the field should have been called.
276
37.21 With respect, the reference to this case is not helpful to the
Respondents for the following reasons:
37.22 In that case, unlike in this case, PW1 and PW2 did not receive any
written report from those at the field. They were giving evidence
on a form given to PW1 and later passed to PW2.
37.23 In the instant case, apart from there being a written report from
persons under him, which he received i n the course of his duty,
each of these witnesses also witnessed much of what is contained
in the reports admitted. One paragraph common to the deposition
on oath of each of those witnesses reads:
”apart from my personal knowledge of these events when I
visited the polling units in the ward, I also received
written report from the polling agents….
37.24 This constitutes a very remarkable departure from what
happened in Buhari‟s case.
37.25 As what was tendered by these witnesses who were ward
supervisors were written report and in consideration of their
probative value, these reports have been properly admitted and
ought to be utilized in the light of Section 91(1)(b) & (2) of the
Evidence Act which provides that the condition that the maker of
the statement shall be called as a witness need not be satisfied.
(2) In any civil proceedings the court may at any stage of the
proceedings, if having regard to all the circumstances of the case
it is satisfied that undue delay or expense would otherwise be
caused order that such a statement as is mentioned in subsection
(1) of this section shall be admissible as evidence or may without
any such order having been made admit such statement in
evidence (a) not withstanding that the maker of the statement is
available but is not called as a witness. (underlining mine)
37.26 It is trite that election petitions are sui generis with great
emphasis on speed and avoidance of delay. Indeed, many of the
interlocutory decisions of this Honourable Tribunal have echoed
277
the need for speed or avoidance of delay in election petitions. If
the position of Akintan, JSC in his concurring judgment were to
be interpreted the way Respondents would want us believe, much
absurdity will be the result. First, it will mean that for a single
local government with about 15 wards, each ward having about 5
polling units, about 75 witnesses will be required just to tender
reports.
37.27 In the light of the foregoing authorities, it is clear that the
Respondents have misconceived the position of the law a nd we
urge the Honourable Tribunal to ignore this belated objection to
the reports.
37.28 It is further submitted that, as against the contention of the
Respondents in paragraph 5.12 -5.21, the witnesses of the
Petitioners who are Ward Supervisors who gave direct evidence
of what they saw, heard and perceived during the conduct of the
election in line with section 77 of the Evidence Act. It has been
held that Ward Supervisors are competent witnesses to give
evidence in relation to the conduct of an election. Per Ogunbiyi
J.C.A in the case of Lasun v. Awoyemi [2009] 16 NWLR (pt. 1168)
513 at 553 paras. D -H held thus:
“In other words, the tribunal found as a fact that all the
witnesses called by the Petitioner were ward supervisors in
their respective wards. It also went further to specify their
responsibilities which were, to supervise and coordinate all
the activities of the Action Congress polling agents in all
the polling units and monitor election result at the ward
levels during collation, and to receive w ritten reports from
the agents in the wards after election. Having specified and
concluded thus far, it is out of place for the same Tribunal
to find at page 720 that the Electoral Act, 2006, does not
recognize a ward supervisor and has no place for such a
person or office. This I say especially in the light of the
phrase “persons lawfully entitled to be admitted to the
polling station” as provided for by section 62(1) of the
278
Electoral Act, 2006. With the schedule and responsibilities
of the Ward supervisor s so specified by the lower Tribunal,
one wonders who else other than such officers, should be
those persons lawfully entitled to be admitted. I hold
therefore that it is totally out of place for the 1 s t and 2 n d
respondents counsel to submit that the ward supervisors
were illegally present at the various wards indicated. The
use of the word “shall” in section 62(1) of the Electoral Act
is certainly mandatory and the operation which I hold is in
favour of the ward supervisors being lawfully entitled to be
admitted.”
37.29 Also, Per Ogunbiyi in page 554 para A -B further held thus:
“It is totally alien to our law I hold, to say that only
polling agents, presiding officers, polling clerks, voters and
observers that are competent to give evidence of what
happened at a polling unit or collation centre. Any person
can qualify as a competent witness upon satisfying the
conditions laid down in sections 77 and 155 of the Evidence
Act.”
37.30 As matter of fact, the rejection of the evidence of Ward
Supervisors called by the Petitioners that was one of the reasons
for order of retrial by the Court of Appeal in Lasun v. Awoyemi
[2009] 16 NWLR (pt. 1168) 513.
37.31 It is pertinent to note that in making the pronouncement in
Senator Ibikunle Amosun v INEC & Ors, quoted on pa ges 118 to
189 of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents‟ written address, Garba JCA did
not advert his mind to the decision in Lasun v Awoyemi (supra).
However, Ogunwumiju JCA who adverted to the case of Lasun v
Awoyemi (supra) held on pages 16 to 17 of His Lordship
judgment held:
“As to who can give evidence of what transpired at any
polling unit, I think that anyone who satisfies the
requirement of the combined effect of S. 77 and S. 155(1) of
the Evidence Act- that is anyone who witnessed (saw,
279
perceived or heard) the event is qualified to give evidence
during trial, be it in relation of any of the parties, a bye -
stander, voter, party agent, INEC official etc. the Electoral
Act contains no special provisions on evidence and is
therefore governed by the Evidence Act. I cannot agree that
party agents or members of the political party cannot give
evidence of what they saw, or heard. It would be a
ridiculous interpretation of S. 91(3) of the Evidence Act to
exclude witness statements on oath made pursuant to the
Practice Directions simply because they were made by
party members. Excluding them from giving evidence
defeats their purpose at the polling stations and the
collation centres‟. See Lasun v. Awoyemi (2009) 16 NWLR
Pt. 1168 Pg. 513”.
37.32 It is our humble submissi on that the petitioner‟s witnesses gave
direct oral evidence of what happened during the conduct of the
election and having satisfied the provision of sections 77 and 155
of the Evidence Act, their evidence should be believed. See also
the cases of Contract Resources Nig Ltd vs. Wender (1998) 5
NWLR pt.549 @ 243; Omorinbola II v. Mil. Gov., Ondo State
[1995] 9 NWLR (part 418) 201 at 221 B -C.
37.33 It is also submitted that during cross -examination of the
Petitioner‟s witnesses, additional facts were elicite d which
supported the allegations in the Petition. We submit that these
facts are of equal strength with those averred in the evidence –in-
chief. We refer Your Lordships to the Supreme Court case of Gaji
v. Paye [2003] 8 NWLR (part 823) 583 at 611 A -B (per Tobi, J.S.C.)
where it was held that:
“It is new learning to me that evidence procured from
cross-examination is inadmissible. Evidence procured from
cross-examination is as valid and authentic as evidence
procured from examination -in-chief. Both have th e potency
of relevancy and relevancy is the heart of admission in law
of Evidence”
280
37.34 The Respondents even conceded in paragraph 5.18 that “a Ward
Supervisor is not disqualified ab initio from giving evidence”.
Having made this concession, the bottom is knocked off the entire
contention of the Respondents and whatever concerns they are
raising are matters of evaluation and ascription of probative
value which is within the province of Your Lordship s‟ judicial
powers.
37.35 It is finally submitted that th e testimony of Petitioners‟ witnesses
who are Ward Supervisors were not impeached under cross -
examination. The witnesses stood firm and gave additional facts
that confirms their testimony in examination in chief.
37.36 The Respondents have also argued in p aragraph 5.29 that since
the witnesses of the petitioners who gave those gripping account
of violence and hooliganism perpetrated by agents of the 3 r d
Respondent, were mostly members of the 3 r d Petitioner, their
evidence should be dismissed, as some neutra l persons ought to
have been called.
37.37 In pursuit of this curious argument, the petitioners cited Azubia
v Ogunewe(2004) ALL FWLR (Pt. 205) 289 at 301 . Even from the
portion of this case cited by the Respondents, it is apparent that
it is inapplicable in the circumstances of this case. Hear the court
stated in that case:
“Among the neutral people he could have called are the
police and other security officers who were known to have
been posted to monitor the election. The agent, of other
political parti es and INEC officials are also among those
who could have been called to give such evidence”
37.38 But this is a case where the petitioners pleaded that the police
and INEC officials thoroughly compromised themselves , apart
from the fact that they were eve n parties to the Petition . The
evidence on record also shows that the police and INEC officials
connived with those who sabotaged the election. It therefore does
not make sense that the Petitioners should call INEC officials and
281
the Police as witnesses as they are not neutral in the instant case.
Indeed INEC and Police that frontloaded witness decided at the
end of the day not to call any evidence and thereby to abandon
their pleadings. In any event, the petitioners‟ witnesses gave
cogent and credible evide nce which were not even challenged
under cross-examination.
37.39 More importantly, it is not the law that members of a political
party cannot testify for that political party. The election in
question is guided by the Electoral Act, 2006 and proceedings o f
the Tribunal are regulated by the Electoral Act and Practice
Directions as well a s the Evidence Act. There is no where in these
laws where a member of a political party is precluded from
giving evidence for the party. No wonder the Respondents did
not cite any authority!
37.40 Competence to testify in a law court, including the Tribunal is
determined by the substantive rules of evidence. By the combined
provisions of Sections 77 and 155 of the Evidence Act, all the
witnesses are competent to testify.
ON EFFECT OF FAILURE OF INEC TO CALL EVIDENCE IN

REBUTTAL OF ALLEGATIONS OF ELECTORAL IRREGULARITIES
AND NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
ELECTORAL ACT
38.1 The allegations of irregularities and non compliance with
mandatory provisions and principles of the Electoral Act is a
complaint made against the Commission i.e. 4 th -1365 t h
respondents. Rather than the Commission challenging these
allegations they elected not to call any witness in support of the
denials they made in their reply. It is submitted that the legal
consequence is that the commission abandoned the averments in
their reply. Thus, it is the law that were a party fails to call
evidence in support of its case, the court is entitled to resolve the
matter against that party unless there be so me other legal reasons
282
to the contrary. See: Ali Lawan v Yama. (2006) 2 EPR Pg.642 @
663, F-G. In the circumstance of this case, there is no legal reason
to hold the contrary.
38.2 It is further submitted that whatever is not denied by a party who
had the opportunity of denying same is deemed admitted and a
trial court is bound to rely and act upon same; NEWBREED ORG.
LTD vs ERHOMONSELE (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 974) 499 at 527;
AGBI vs OGBEH (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt.926) 40 . In Leadway
Assurance Co. Ltd v Zeco Nig. Ltd. (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt.884) 316
at 329, the Supreme Court, per Katsina Alu JSC put it this way:
“Where evidence is given by a party to any proceedings was
not challenged by the opposite party who had opportunity
to do so, the court of trial has a duty to act on the
unchallenged evidence before it”
38.3 It is further submitted that by electing not to call any evidence,
the 4 t h -1365 t h Respondents have abandoned their pleadings with
the attendant consequence that the 4 t h -1365 t h Respondents will be
deemed to have accepted the facts of electoral irregularities and
substantial non -compliance with the provision of the electoral
Act adduced by the petitioners. It is further submitted that, in the
circumstances, the burden of proof on the petitioner is minimal.
See HONIKA SAWMILL NIG LTD vs MARY (1990) 5 SCNJ 186
at 195.
38.4 Furthermore, as a matter of law, the burden of proof is not static
but shifts. Section 135 -139 of the Evidence Act (supra). The
position of the law is that where an adversary fails to adduce
evidence to put on the other side of the imaginary scale of justice
minimum evidence adduce by the lat ter side would suffice to
prove its case.” Per Mukhtar JSC in NEWBREED ORG. LTD v
ERHOMOSELE (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 974) 499 @ 527 paras F -G. See
also BURAMMOH v BA MGBOSE (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 352.
38.5 It is further submitted that the effect of not leading evidence in
support of their pleadings is that the 4 t h – 1365 t h Respondents as
283
well as the 1366 t h and 1367 t h Respondents have abandoned their
pleadings thereby leaving the evidence of the Petitioner as
unchallenged, uncontroverted and hence, admitted.
38.6 We submit that failure of the 4 t h – 1365 t h Respondents as well as
the 1366 t h and 1367 t h to adduce evidence in support of their
pleadings have far -reaching effe ct on the Petition. As recently
held by Belgore, J.C.A. in Alhaji Muhammadu Maigari Dingyadi
& Anor. v. Aliyu Magatakarda Wamako [2008] 17 NWLR (pt
1116) 395 at 431 G -H:
“…the tribunal ought to have struck out the 3 r d to 43 r d
Respondents‟ reply having righ tly found that no evidence
was led in respect therefor. If that has been done, the
tribunal would have discovered that the evidence led by
the appellant in respect of the allegation against those
respondents stand unchallenged, uncontradicted and
uncontroverted. In the premise, the tribunal would have
found for the appellants in respect thereof. ”
38.7 The foregoing clearly brings to fore the effect of the failure to
adduce evidence in support of pleadings. We further refer My
Lords to the case of Ajibade v. Mayowa & Anor [1978] NSCC Vol.
11 page 458 at 461 line 10 -20. We also find it pertinent to refer
My lords to the holding of Nnamani, J.S.C. in FCDA v. Naibi
[1990] 3 NWLR (Pt. 138) at 270 at 281 D -F where he held thus:
“I think it is necessary to refer to some well settled and now
trite principles of pleadings in order to resolve this matter.
Pleadings cannot constitute evidence and a defendant who does
not give evidence in support of his pleadings or in challenge of
evidence of the plaintiff is deemed t o have accepted the facts
adduced by the plaintiff notwithstanding his general traverse. ”
38.8 We submit that the foregoing clearly establishes the fact that the
4 t h – 1365 t h Respondents as well as the 1366 t h and 1367 t h
Respondents admitted all the allegat ions made against them by
the Petitioners as contained in the Petition and adduced in both
oral and documentary evidence.
284
38.9 In paragraphs 19.3, 22, 23, 24, 27.2 of the Petition, the Petitioner
made allegations against INEC (i.e. 4 t h – 1365 t h Respondent s) to
the effect that the declared results in the said Governorship
election for the ten Local Government Areas of Osun State are
invalid and ought to be cancelled on the ground inter alia that
there were no counting and announcement of result at the polli ng
stations and there were also no collation of ele ction results at the
ward level and that the conduct of the election in the said Wards
was marred by wide spread irregularities . See also paragraphs 32,
34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42d, 43, 44, 45 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52d, 53, 57,
59, 61, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70.6, 71, 89a, 86.3, 87.2, 88.2, 89, 91, 92.1, 95,
96, 97.d, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105d, 106, 107, 108, 109,
110, 111, 112, 115, 116e, 117, 119, 122, 123, 124, 131, 132,133, 135,
136, 137, 139, 140, 1 41, 142, 143, 145, 146, and 148. E vidence was
led by the Petitioners in support of the allegation .
38.10 It is submitted that all these allegations in the paragraphs
mentioned above were made against INEC (i.e. 4 t h – 1365 t h
Respondents) presupposing that e lections were not properly held
in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2006 and
consequently, the Petitioner led evidence (both oral and
documentary) in proof of the said allegations mentioned in the
said paragraphs thereby shifting the on us of proof to INEC: Ukpo
v Imoke [2009] 1 NWLR (pt 1121) 90 at 175 . The fact that INEC
failed to adduce evidence in proof of its pleadings (in which they
denied the allegations made against it by the Petitioner)
obviously shows that there is sufficient ba sis for the nullification
of the results for the Ten Local Governments as was done in the
case of Amgbare v. Sylva [2009] 1 NWLR (pt 1121) 1.
38.11 We submit that as not only did the 4 t h – 1365 t h Respondents and
the 1366 t h and 1367 t h not adduce any evidence, the cross
examination of the Petitioner‟s witnesses by the 4 t h – 1365 t h
Respondents as well as the 1366 t h and 1367 t h did not elicit any
evidence in support of the averments in their joint reply. We
285
therefore urge Your Lordships to strike out the replies of the 4 t h –
1365 t h Respondents as well as the 1366 t h and 1367 t h . We refer to
the case of Alhaji Muhammadu Maigari Dingyadi & Anor. v.
Aliyu Magatakarda Wamako (supra) at page 433.
38.12 My Lords, we submit that where Your Lordships strikes out the
4 t h – 1365 t h Respondents as well as the 1366 t h and 1367 t h replies,
the effect would be as stated by Belgore, J.C.A. in Alhaji
Muhammadu Maigari Dingyadi & Anor. v. Aliyu Magatakarda
Wamako (supra) at page 433:
“There ceased to be a contest between the appellants and
the 3 r d to 43 r d respondents before the tribunal, the 3 r d to 43 r d
respondents having admitted the claims of the appellants
as regards the conduct of the elections. This is by operation
of the law. If the appellants are required to prove the
averments r elating to the allegation against the conduct of
the election, by the 3 r d to 43 r d respondents, only minimal
proof is required.”
38.13 We humbly urge y our lordships to follow the decisions of the
above cases.
Linking the Perpetrators of the Proved Elec toral Malpractices to the
1 s t , 2 n d and 3 r d Respondents
39.1 The Respondents had argued that the allegations that agents of
the 1 s t , 2 n d and 3 r d Respondents were invol ved in thugge ry, ballot
snatching and stuffing had not been proved (See paragraph 5.25
to 5.27 of the Written Address of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents). It is
humbly submitted that the contentions of the Respondents are
not in line with the evidence o n the Records. Nearly all the
witnesses called by the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents were the people
that the Petitioners alleged in the Petition to be members,
chieftains, or stalwarts of the 3 r d Respondent. Almost all these
witnesses admitted under cross -examination that they are
members or chieftain of the 3 r d Respondent. As it turned out, they
gave incredible testimony in an attempt to disprove the
286
allegations (refer to evaluation of the testimony of RW1 -RW60
which leads to an irresistible conclusion that their real activities
on the day of election was to disrupt the elections and engage in
ballot snatching, stuffing and multiple thumb printing.
39.2 It is submitted that the names mentioned by the petitioners‟
witnesses as being the ringleaders of these electoral crimes and
members of the 3rd respondents have not been cleared. Since the
names mentioned are sa id to be known members of the 3rd
respondents, the onus shifted to the respondents to show that
they did not do what the petitioners said they did. It is further
submitted that since the 1st and 2 n d respondents were sponsored
by the 3 r d respondent, the act s of the 3rd respondent and her
agents or members, are the acts of the 1st and 2 n d respondents.
39.3 In paragraph 65 and 66 of their reply the 1 s t - 3 r d Respondent
pleaded as follows:
The respondents deny all the allegation of violence,
intimidation, perpe tration of breaches of the Electoral Act made
and set out in the paragraphs of the petition aforesaid.
Further still, the Respondents state that the individuals named
in the paragraphs of the petition aforesaid were neither their
agents not helpers at the election.
39.4 The Respondent never suggested to Petitioners witnesses that any
of the various persons named by the witnesses as chieftains and
members of the 3 r d Respondents were not their members.
39.5 It is further submitted that t he argument of the Re spondents that
it must be shown that electoral offences were committed by the
candidate or someone sponsored or authorised by him, again
appear to smack of a lack of appreciation of the quantum of
evidence in court over this issue.
39.6 Providing an answer to this argument, we first set out what the
Supreme Court said in Amaechi v INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt.1080)
227 at 317-318, per Oguntade, JSC:
“Now section 221 of the 1999 Constitution provides:
287
No association, other than a political party shall canvass
for votes for any candidate at any election….
The above provision effectually removes the possibility of
independent candidacy in our elections and places
emphasis and responsibility in elections on political
parties. Without a political party a candidate cann ot
context…. It is only a party that canvasses for votes… in
mundane and colloquial terms, we say that a candidate
has won an election in a particular constituency but in
reality and in consonance with Section 221 of the
Constitution, it is his party that has won the election.”
(underlining mine).
39.7 The import of the foregoing is that the actual entity who contested
the election and must bear emphasis and responsibility for all that
transpired is the political party , the 3 r d Respondent herein.
39.8 In this case, the evidence that violence, brigandage resulting in
acts such as snatching of ballot boxes w as great indeed. In some
units, evidence was led to the effect that even though elections
started peacefully they became disrupted by invasion of polling
units and booths by armed thugs and hoodlums of the 3 r d
Respondent. That in this disruption, ensuing chaos, mayhem and
voters‟ intimidation, the hoodlums and thugs engaged in other
malpractices such as ballot box snatching, illicit thumb printing of
ballot papers and so on.
39.9 In their evidence, the witnesses of the petitioners gave a graphic
account of how these offences were committed. Indeed, the
witnesses mentioned the names of the ring leaders of these thugs
adding that they are known members and lea ders of the PDP and
in some instances stating the public or party office they currently
occupy. In appropriate cases, these witnesses gave the registration
numbers of the buses in which these thugs were conveyed.
39.10 Weighed beside the Supreme Court posi tion in Amaechi‟s case
that it is the political party that has the emphasis and
288
responsibility in elections and seeing that it is this same political
party that has caused the violence through its officers, members
and agents, we submit with respect that t hese acts of violence
were acts of the party that contested the election and they ought
not to benefit from it.
39.11 The party which in any case must always act through its leaders,
officers and members, cannot now wash its hands like Pontius
Pilate off t he acts of its agents.
39.12 It is instructive to note that the Respondents did not quite deny
the facts of violence as pleaded by the Petitioners and illustrated
by evidence.
39.13 No wonder therefore that none of the witnesses who captured the
incidences of violence was cross examined on this point. In this
wise, it is too late for the Respondents to chase shadow as the
failure to cross examine these witnesses on these vital issues
amount to acceptance and what is accepted is deemed proved. See
Gaji v Ipaye (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 823) 583 at 605.
39.14 We submit that since the 3 r d Respondent sponsored the 1 s t and 2 n d
Respondent s, the acts of the 3 r d Respondents are the act of the 1 s t
and 2 n d Respondents.
39.15 Furthermore there is no merit in the submission t hat the
Petitioners have not linked the acts of disruption to the 1 s t
Respondent. In this regard, there is unrebutted and
uncontradicted evidence of evidence of PW7, Jonathan Adewunmi.
Part of the evidence -in-chief of the PW7 was that when he got to
Opa Arin unit on the election day, the Governor of Osun State,
Oyinlola, the 1 s t Respondent, came to the unit and carried away
the ballot box for the unit.
39.16 It is submitted that the contention of the Respondents against the
evidence of PW7 lacks merit and is totally unsupportatble by the
evidence on the records. For the following reasons: The fact that
PW7 was attacked by PDP cannot be a basis to disbelieve PW7. In
any event PW7 tendered medical report, Exhibit 7 in respect of the
289
injury sustained; there is no requirement in law that such evidence
as that given by PW7 must be corroborated by a polling agent in
the unit where the event occurred. The court can rely on the sole
testimony of a witness on a matter so far as same is credible - see
Ogboru v. Ibori ( 2007) Vol. 34 WRN 52 at 106 - 107 lines 45 - 15,
(CA).
39.17 Contrary to the claim of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondent in paragraph s
5.27(3) and 5.27(4), PW7 never, under cross-examination, gave the
testimony ascribed to him in paragraph s 5.27(3) and 5.27(4). The
witness was not asked any question about his evidence -in-chief
while being cross -examined by all the Respondents - See the
Proceedings of 4 August, 2009 . Therefore, although the point
being made by the Respondents on the issue of evidence of PW7
and pleading is not supported by the Records , it is submitted that
it is not the law that oral evidence must tally with pleadings with
mathematical exactitude : See Ejimadu v. Delta· Freeze Ltd. (2007)
13 NWLR (Pt. 1050) 96 C.A.
39.18 The issue of remembering the a ctual year of call or the name of
Director General of the Nigerian Law School is absolutely
irrelevant to the testimony of PW7 about the conduct of the
election. It may well be that the witness could not immediately
remember. In any event, as your Lordships will see from the
Records, none of the Respondents challenged the evidence -in-chief
of PW7 under cross-examination. The evidence is thus
uncontradicted and ought to be accepted: See lze-Iyamu v. Alonge
(2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1029) 84 C.A.
39.19 In Omman v. Ekpe (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt 641) P. 365 at 372 p aras, G –
A, it was held that evidence which is not contradicted by positive
testimony and is not inherently improbable or unreasonable
cannot be arbitrarily or capriciously discredited, disregarded,
despised, rejected, even though in the particular case the witness
is a party or an interested witness and unless such evidence is
shown to be untrustworthy, it is taken as conclusive and binding
290
on the court or at least it is entitled to and should ordinarily be
accorded substantial weight.
39.20 It is too late for the Respondents to chase shadow as the failure to
cross examine PW7 on the vital issue of involvement of the 1 s t
Respondent in the disruption of the election amount to acceptance
and what is accepted is dee med proved. See Gaji v Ipaye (2003) 8
NWLR (Pt. 823) 583 at 605.
The Issue of Non-Tendering of Stuffed Ballot Boxes
40.1 It is submitted that there is no merit in the submission of the 1 s t to
3 r d Respondents in paragraph 5.28 of their written address tha t
failure to tender the stuffed ballot boxes is fatal to the case of the
Petitioners.
40.2 It is submitted that the submission failed to take into cognisance
the totality of the pleadings and evidence of the Petitioners that
the stuffed ballot pa pers were carried away by the thugs led by
members and chieftains of the 3 r d Respondent. In view of these
pleadings and evidence where did the Respondents want the
Petitioners to fin d the already snatched ballot boxes.
40.3 It is also submitted that the case of Buhari v Obasanjo [2005] 12
NWLR (pt 941) 1 does not affect the case of the Petitioners here as
in that case what the Supreme Court held was that it was wrong
for the Tribunal to have held that ballot boxes containing ballot
papers were tendered before it whe reas same was not the case.
The Alleged Dumping of Documents on the Tribunal
41.1 It is submitted that there is no merit in the submission of the
Respondents that the Petitioners merely dumped documents on
the Tribunal. Most of the documents tendered by t he Petitioners
were certified true copies of electoral documents obtained by the
Petitioners consequent upon orders of inspection by the Tribunal
and the Petitioners called the evidence of PW81 who relate d in his
evidence and Exhibits 451-460 the electoral documents with the
Petitioners case. PW81 also identified some other electoral
documents already in exhibits before the Tribunal.
291
41.2 Ironically, it is the Respondents that are complain ing about
purported dumping that are also urging your Lordship to
discountenance the evidence of PW81 that amply related the
documents with Petitioners‟ case.
41.3 Aside, the evidence of PW1, the Petitioners also advert to relevant
documentary evidence in cross -examining the Respondents
witnesses and have fully addresses your Lordship on the
relationship of the documentary evidence to the case of the
Petitioners in several palaces in this address. It is submitted that
contrary to the submissions of the Respondents, your Lordships
have the power and are under a duty to eval uate the documentary
evidence tendered once your Lordships have been addressed upon
them.
41.4 It is submitted that contrary to the submissions of the
Respondents, your Lordships have the power and are under a duty
to evaluate the documentary evidence ten dered once your
Lordships have been addressed upon them.
41.5 In INEC v Oshiomole [2009] 4 NWLR (pt 1132) 607 at 663 -664, it
was held that once a document is received in evidence, and is so
marked, it becomes an evidence before the court or tribunal and it
has the duty to evaluate the probative value of every evidence
tendered before it.
41.6 In response to a similar argument now canvassed herein by the
Respondents, the Supreme Court in Arabambi v. Advance
Beverages Ind. Ltd. [2005] 19 NWLR (Pt.959) 1 at 29A and 30 H
and 31 A-B, which by some curious coincidence was also handled
by the lead counsel for the 1 s t to 3 r d respondents herein Yusuf Alli,
SAN the Supreme Court emphatically rejected the submission that
documents were just dumped on the court and he ld as follows:
“As for the argument of learned Senior Advocate that
exhibits P1 -10 were merely dumped on the court, I fail to
find substance in this argument. It is on record that most
292
of the exhibits were admitted in evidence, without
objection………………………… …………………………
As for the learned trial Judge privately investigating the
exhibits especially exhibit P10, I cannot see that the
learned trial Judge did any such thing as this is not
reflected in the judgment. I cannot fathom what gave the
learned Senior Advoc ate the idea, for I sniff some
mischief in that submission, the learned Senior Advocate
with due respect certainly went too far and I don't hesitate
to express the view that he was most unfair on the learned
trial Judge. A trial Judge whilst evaluating evi dence is at
liberty to examine and peruse most carefully documents
and oral evidence before him. That is part of his judicial
function, and if he fails to do so then he is failing in this
duty. In fact, even where necessary, a Judge ought to comb
any crucial evidence before him with the finest tooth
comb to ensure that the credibility and reliability of the
evidence is ascertained and applied towards the just
determination of the case. If doing that is what the
learned senior counsel say is tantamount to pr ivate
investigation, then it is most unfortunate”.
4.17 See also, TOBI JSC decision in Buhari v. INEC (2008) 19 NWLR
(Pt. 1120) 246 at 415 E -F where in answer to a similar contention
as herein raised by the 1 s t to 3 r d respondents held as follows:
“The basic aim of tendering documents in bulk was to
ensure the speedy hearing of election petitions and that is
good because it facilitates the speedy hearing of the
petition. But that does not ipso facto permit the court to
attach probative value to documents th at lack such value.
At the end of the day and the end of the day is the writing
of judgment, the trial Judge will remove the chaff from the
grain by scrupulously examining the documents to see
whether they have the content of probative evidence.”
293
41.18 It is also clear from this passage that just as held in the Arabambi
case (supra) it is still the trial judge that will have to scrupulously
examine the documents allegedly dumped on the court to
determine their probative value. So contrary to the arguments of
the respondents, in election matters documents can be tendered in
bulk to promote speedy hearing.
41.19 It will be recalled that it was even the tribunal during the
tendering of ballot papers that directed that ballot papers be
tendered together on war d basis to promote speedy hearing of the
petition.
41.20 Further, submit, the arguments of the Respondents appear to be
confused and self contradictory because in attacking the evidence
of PW1 they then argued that it is the function of the Tribunal to
evaluate documentary evidence thus that the tribunal should
“refuse the attempt to usurp the functions of this court by the said
same witness” - see page 213 of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents‟ Written
Address.
41.21 It is submitted that your Lordships can look at the documentary
evidence and the address of counsel and tables prepared linking
the documentary evidence tendered with the case of the
Petitioners.
41.22 Support for this submission is derived from the illuminating
judgment of Aikawa JCA in Terab v Lawan ( 1992) 3 NWLR (pt
231), 569 at 592D where it was held:
“But one has to bear in mind the nature of Forms EC8A and
EC8B as exposed in Decree No. 50 of 1991. The two forms
show the polling station, the code number, the ward and
the local government area they r elate to. They are statutory
forms and when tendered give full and conclusive
information needed for a polling unit. A petitioner who
tendered them in proceedings has by so tendering them
given all the necessary evidence which is discoverable
from the forms. Is it reasonable for a tribunal to expect that
294
when a Form EC8A or EC8B is tendered the party tendering
either will have to read the contents of each form to the
court as further evidence? I think not. The forms
themselves carry bold information to the polling units to
which they relate. They can therefore be easily linked with
particular areas and facts pleaded . It is a misapplication of
the principle in Duriminiya v C.O.P. (supra) to expect the
petitioner to come and read afresh to th e court the same
evidence already contained in the Exhibits which were
tendered and received without objection. The Tribunal
erred seriously by failing to see that Forms EC8A and EC8B
are statutory forms complete on their own as to their source
and purport and which cannot therefore be equated with
ordinary documentary Exhibits”. (underlining ours)
41.23 See also Ajadi v Ajibola [2004] 16 NWLR (pt 898) 91.
Newspaper Reports
42.1 The Petitioners also tendered Exhibits 93(1-2), the certified true
copy of This Day publication of the 15 t h day of April, 2007 .
42.2 Under section 212 of the Evidence Act certified true copies of
public documents may be produced in evidence in proof of the
contents of the public documents or parts of the public
documents of which they purport to be copies.
42.3 Exhibit 93(1-2), the Thisday newspaper report under Osun
election reported as follows:
“No fewer than six persons were yesterday feared dead during the
Governorship and House of Assembly elections in Ila -Orangun,
the headquaters of Ila local government area and ifewara in
Atakumosa West local government area of Osun State.
Also, a nine year old girl identified as Maria Olojede was hit by
a stray bullet shot by some political hoodlums suspected to be
sponsored by the Peoples Democratic Party ( PDP) at Ode-Omu in
Ayedaade local government area of the state during the conduct
of the elections.
295
Similarly, no fewer than 20 ballot boxes were snatched away by
some political hoodlums at various locations in the three
senatorial district of the state wh ile three police stations in
Iragbiji, heard quarters of Boripe local government area of the
state were vandalized by political thugs.
The affected areas were Ile Ife, Ikirun, Ijebu Ijesha, Osu, Ifewara
and Ode-Omu where a nine year old girl was allegedly shot by
those described as political thugs who stormed the area on the
directive of some desperate politicians in the state.
Although the elections were peaceful at the commencement of the
exercise, the conduct of the polls turned chaotic as political
thouts allegedly sponsored by the ruling party in the state
invaded some of the polling centres thereby turning the centres to
theatres of violence”
42.4 The tendering and reliance on the certified copies of newspapers
is also covered by paragraph 4(6)(d) of the Practice Direction.
42.5 We urge the Tribunal to hold in the circumstances that the
petitioners have fully established their case as pleaded. See
Ayeni v Dada (1978) 11 NSCC 147 at 159 lines 45 -52; 160 at 1 -37
and 38-52.
42.6 The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ayeni & Ors v
Dada & Ors (1978) 11 NSCC 147 at pages 156 and 160 clearly
shows that the court can properly attach much weight to such
documents notwithstanding that their makers were not called as
witnesses to be subjected to cross -examination.
42.7 It is instructive to produce in extensio the relevant portion of the
leading judgment of Fatai -Williams, JSC (as he then was) to
underscore the point. At page 156 lines 18 -40, the learned Justice
stated as follows:
“… . The court below ad mitted exhibits F and G in
evidence pursuant to section of the Evidence Act which
provides:
“Any entry in any public or other official book, register or
record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact and made by
296
a public servant in the discharge of his o fficial duty, or by
any other in performance or a duty specially enjoined by
the law of the country in which such book, register or
records is kept, is itself a relevant fact”
Therefore, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and
ordered a retrial before a nother judge after observing as
follows:
“We agree with the submissions of Alhaji Babalakin that
exhibits F and G taken as a whole constituted „res inter
alios acta” because the contents of those two exhibits were
not made on oath and the makers of them (p articularly Mr.
R.A Vosper) were not called as witnesses to be subjected
to cross examination during the trial of the case in hand.
The gist of the maxim „res inter alios acta‟ is that
objection is raised to a piece of evidence as hearsay on the
ground that the particular statement was made or given
without oath and without any opportunity to cross
examine the maker of the statement by the party
prejudicially affected by such hearsay evidence. See
paragraph 647 of Phipson on Evidence, 11 t h edition at page
278”
42.8 Then at page 160 lines 29 -53, the learned Justice stated thus:
“… .. It only remains for us to add, at this juncture, that
the documents (exhibits F and G) were duly certified by
an officer of the National Archives. It seems to us,
therefore, that quite apart from the provisions of Section
38 of the Evidence Act, (Cap. 62), the two documents
(exhibits F and G) are also admissible in evidence as
public records by virtue of the provisions of Section 7 of
the Public Archives Act. We wish to point out, however
that although the two exhibits (F and G) are admissible
under either the Evidence Act of the Public Archives, the
weight to be attached to their contents is another matter.
Nevertheless, it cannot be gain said that the learned trial
297
judge attached much weight to them . Be that as it may,
and bearing in mind the other evidence, both oral and
documentary such as the Federal Surveys map of the area
(exhibit k) and the letter dated 29 t h October, 1962 written
by the Olajaoke (the defendant‟s headchief) to the
Olukoro of Ikoro (the headchief of the Ikoro people)
exhibit N) which were also considered in detail by him, it
seems to us that he was justified in doing so”
42.9 Clearly therefore the Supreme Court held that though the maker
of exhibits 93(1 -2) in Ayeni‟s case did not testify, the Judge was
perfectly justified in attaching much weight to their evidence.
42.10 We urge the Honourable Tribunal to be guided by this
authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court and attach
weight to the newspaper repor ts exhibits 93(1 -2) admitted
without objection.
TIME ISSUE
43.1 It is also submitted that considering the number of votes
allegedly posted in most of the polling units being challenged by
the Petitioners having regard to the period of the voting and the
average it will take a voter to go through the process of voting,
the results posted in most of the units could not have been
product of legitimate voting.
43.2 INEC manual for election regulation and guidelines stipulates a
voting period starting not earli er than 8 a.m. and terminating not
later than 3 p.m. thus, the maximum voting period of any voting
booth is 7 hours (= 420 minutes.) However, real life constraints
such as the late arrival of election materials, absence of security
personnel, the verificat ion processes for pooling agents and
voters, rowdiness at polling booths and other practical/logistical
limitations make it impossible to vote continuously for 420
minutes without interruptions.
298
43.4 The total number of votes for polling stations was recor ded on
INEC‟s form EC8A (or form EC8B where form EC8A was not
available.) Thus, the average time spent by each voter at a polling
station can easily be calculated by the application of elementary
mathematics – that is to divide 420 minutes by the total num ber
of votes recorded on form EC8A or EC8B. This gives the average
time taken by each voter to cast his/her vote (i.e. time that
elapsed during identification, verification, ballot receipt,
application of indelible ink, ballot thumb -printing and actual
casting of ballot.)
43.5 A careful examination of the total votes cast in many polling
units reveals an average voting time that defies practical
possibility in any election. Five examples are highlighted here to
illustrate that the votes posted could not hav e been products of
lawful votes and a full annexure is attached:
43.6 Example 1: Polling Unit OS02501 -006 located at Oyekunle D.C.
Primary School in Oba Ojomu Ward, Okuku, in Odo -Otin Local
Government was where Governor Olagunsoye Oyinlola, the 1 s t
respondent, voted (See item 1 of Exhibit 381(c) , voters register
for the unit). There, a total of 491 votes were recorded as valid on
the form EC8B (Exhibit 216(1)) for the polling unit. With a voting
period of 7 hours (i.e. 420 minutes), the average time for the
voting process by a voter in the unit equals 420 minutes divided
by 491 votes. This amounts to 0.86 minute per voter. In other
words, the average voter in this unit spent 51.32 seconds to
transact the entire voting process! This is existentially
impossible.
43.7 Example 2: Polling Unit OS02501 -005 located at the Owode
Market Square, Okuku in Odo -Otin Local Government. Here, the
total number of votes recorded on form EC8 B (Exhibit 216(1))
was 886. Thus, the average time taken per voter at this unit was:
420 minutes divided by 886 voters. This gives 0.47 minute (or
28.44 seconds) per voter.
299
43.8 Example 3: Polling Unit OS0204 -002 located in Temidire Model
Primary School, in Ibodi Ward of Atakumosa West Local
Government where Erelu Olusola Obada, the deputy G overnor
and the 2 n d Respondent voted (see item 1 of 2 n d pack of Exhibit
366(B). Total voting period =420 minutes (7 hours X 60 minutes).
Total votes recorded on the form EC8A (Exh 129(2) is 961;
average time taken by each voter at this unit is 420 minutes
divided by 959 voters equals 0.44 minute or 26.28 seconds.
43.9 Example 4: Polling Unit OS01101 -005 located at the Staff
Quarters, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile -Ife. The total vote
recorded on Exh 98(5) at this unit is 2,371. The average time taken
by each voter at this polling station is 420 minutes divided by
2,371 voters, which equals 0.177 minutes or 10.63 seconds!
43.10 Example 5: Polling Unit OS01303 -006 located at the Ooni Girls
Grammar School, Oke -Ogbo, Ilode, in Ife East Local Government.
Here, 1,400 was recorded on the form EC8A as the total valid
votes cast. The average time taken by each voter in this unit is
420 minutes divided by 1, 400 voters would be about 0.31 minute
or 18.57 seconds!
43.11 See Annexure TA showing that the average voting t ime in most of
the units turned out to be less than two minutes!
Specific Reference to the Final Writte n Address of the 4 t h to 1364 t h
Respondents and 1365 t h -1365 t h Respondents
43.12 The Petitioners adopt all the arguments herein in reply to the
final address of the 4 t h to 1364 t h Respondents and 1365 t h -1365 t h
Respondents.
43.13 It is submitted that the issues formulated and addressed by the
4 t h to 1364 t h Respondents ought to be discountenanced as being
outside the purview of issues formulated by the Tribu nal.
43.14 On the contention by 1365 t h -1365 t h Respondents that they are not
necessary parties, we submit that for the 1365 t h -1365 t h
Respondents to have taken a fresh step into the trial of this
matter, they have by that their action waive their right to
300
complain. More importantly, this is a re -trial of the matter. We
refer to paragraph 49 First Schedule to Electoral Act, 2006 and the
case of Agagu v. Mimiko, (2009) 7 NWLR pt 1140, 342 at page 390
– 393.
43.14 Further, there is evidence on the records link ing them to the
allegations.
ENTITLEMENT OF THE 1 S T PETITIONER TO BE DECLARED AS

HAVING BEEN VALIDLY ELECTED AND RETURNED
44.1 What option is open to an election trib unal where a petitioner has
put before it unrebutted evidence of non -compliance?
44.2 The answer to this all important question has been answered by
the Court of Appeal in Ajadi v Ajibola (supra) in the following
words:
“Once an election tribunal finds that there is non -
compliance with the law in respect of election in
certain areas, votes ca st in such areas are to be
cancelled” ( Emphasis supplied)”
44.3 We submit that from the totality of the evidence before the
Tribunal, 1 s t Respondent ought not to have been declared as
having been elected. Thus, it remain s to be considered whether
the 1 s t Petitioner ought to be declared by the Honourable
Tribunal as having been validly elected.
44.4 It is submitted that the 1 s t Petitioner was elected and ought to
have been returned as having scored the highest number of valid
votes cast on April 14, 2007 gub ernatorial election in Osun State
and having satisfied the requirement of the constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Electoral Act.
44.5 The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 in
section 179 stipulates the condition to b e met by a candidate
vying for the office of Governor before he can be declared duly
elected as follows:
301
179(2) A candidate for an election to the office of Governor of a
state shall be deemed to have been duly elected where, there
being two or more candid ates-
He has the highest number of votes cast at the election and He
has not less than one quarter of all the votes cast in each of at
least two- thirds of all the local government areas in the state.
44.6 In this instant case, it would mean that for the P etitioner to
satisfy this requirement, he must, in addition to scoring the
majority of lawful votes cast also have at least ¼ of the votes cast
in 20 local government areas.
44.7 We will illustrate the fact that if the returns from these affected
local government areas are cancelled and subtracted from the total
score of each candidate in the election, the 1 s t Petitioner will
emerge as the candidate with the highest number of lawful votes
cast in the election held on April 14, 2007.
44.8 Besides he also sco red 1/4 of all the votes cast in each nonetheless
at least 2/3 of the 30 local government areas in Osun state. He
ought therefore to be returned as having been duly elected and
winner of the said election.
44.9 The 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents had argued in para graph 6.10 of their
written address that the prayer of the Petitioners for a
declaration that the 1 s t Petitioner be declared validly elected or
returned is bound to fail because the Petitioner had pleaded
irregularities in Twelve Local Governments out of t he Thirty
Local Governments in the State .
44.10 It is submitted that there is no merit in this submission in view of
the fact that the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents had admitted in paragraph
3.20 of their written address that even though the petitioners
complained in the petition against conduct of election in 12 Local
Government Areas of Osun State no evidence was adduced in
respect of “the whole of Ede North Local Government” and the
whole of Olaoluwa Local Government”.
302
44.11 The 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents had also rightly argued in paragraph
3.19 of their written address that where no evidence is adduced
in support of averments by a party in its pleadings, petition
inclusive, “such averments are deemed abandoned and
accordingly ought to be discountenanced or struc k out even
without prompting of the parties”. For this proposition, the 1 s t to
3 r d Respondents had relied on the cases of INEC v Action
Congress [2009] 2 NWLR (pt 1126) 524 at 604 and INEC v Action
Congress [2009] All FWLR (pt 480) 732 at 803.
44.12 In view of this submission by the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents
themselves, it is submitted that it is only ten local governments
that was contested by the Petitioners on the state of evidence
presented by the Petitioners. Thus, the issue of entitlement of the
1 s t Petitioner to be declared as validly elected or returned will
have to be determined in the context of nullification of the
unlawful votes in the following ten local governments in respect
of which evidence were led , that is, Atakumosa West Local
Government, Boripe Local Government, Ife Central Local
Government, Ife East Local Government, Ife South Local
Government, Ifedayo Local Government, Isokan Local
Government, and Odo - Otin Local Government.
44.13 In paragraph 17 of the Petition, the Petitioners had pleaded the
particulars of the unlawful votes. Based on this paragraph and in
light of the fact that evidence was led only in respect of ten local
governments, the votes as announced by the 4th and 5th
Respondents as having been scored by the 1 s t Petitioner and the
1 s t Respondent in the following ten Local Government Areas as
can be seen from Exhibit 92(1 -2) are;
303
S/N on Local Governments Votes recorded Votes recorded
Exh for the 1 s t for the 1st
92(1) Petitioner Respondent
2 Atakumosa 2,489 15,471
West
3 Aiyedaade 3,096 33,805
5 Boluwaduro 1,784 7,902
6 Boripe 328 14,497
11 Ife Central 4,866 62,257
12 Ife East 13,746 35,574
14 Ife South 5226 16,312
15 Ifedayo 2041 8122
22 Isokan 3249 16,243
25 Odo Otin 5098 43606
Total for the 10 LGs 41,923 253,789
44.14 Thus in the ten local governments in respect of which the

Petitioners led oral and documentary evidence in respect of the
allegations in the Petition, by Exhibit 92(1) , the 1 s t Respondent
was announced as having scored 253,789 votes, while the 1st
Petitioner was announced as having scored 41,923 votes.
44.15 We submit that it is in respect of the said 253,789 votes
announced as having been scored by the 1 s t Respondent and
41,923 votes announced as having been scored by the 1 s t
Petitioner in the ten Local Governments that the Petitioners had
led evidence th at they are not lawful votes and when these
unlawful votes are deducted from the total number of votes
announced as having been scored b y the 1 s t Respondent and the
1 s t Petitioner on Exhibit 91; that is, the Form EC8E for the
Governorship Election held in Osun State on April 14, 2007, the
position will be as follows:
304
1st 1st
Petitioner Respondent
Total Score of Parties 240,722 426,669

on EC8D (Exhibit
92(1-2)) and EC8E
(Exhibit 91
Total Score of Parties 41,923 253,789

In the Ten Local
Government affected
by evidence of
unlawful votes
Difference on 198,799 172,880

Deduction
44.16 Therefore, it is the 1 s t Petitioner and not the 1 s t Respondent that will
have majority of highest lawful votes. A lso, as can be seen from (see
pages 306(a) and 306(b) of t his Address) , the 1 s t Respondent will only
have ¼ of total votes cast in each of the remaining 20 Local
Government Areas. Therefore the 1 s t Respondent is not qualified to be
returned at all. Rath er, it is the 1 s t Petitioner that has ¼ of total votes
cast in each of the remaining 20 Local Government Areas (see pages
306(a) and 306(b) of this Address) which satisfies the requirement
under the C onstitution.
44.17 Even where what is cancelled is on the basis of results of all the
affected polling units as recorded on Forms EC8A or EC8B supplied by
the 4 t h Respon dent, the 1 s t Petitioner will still have highest lawful
votes as fully set out in Annexure PU1 (which is incorporated into
this Address) nothwithstanding that no Forms EC8A or EC8B were
supplied for many polling units by the 4 t h Respondent and yet Form
EC8D reflected that results were posted f or those polling units.
44.18 Aside scoring highest or majority of lawful votes, the position of
the parties in relation to percentages of total votes scored by the
1 s t Respondent and the 1 s t Petitioner in the remaining Twenty
305
Local Government based on computation from Exhibit 92(1 -2) is
as follows:
SEE THE NEXT PAGE FOR T HE TABLE SHOWING THE
PERCENTAGES OF THE 1 S T RESPONDENT AND THE 1 S T
PETITIONERS IN THE REMAINING TWENTY LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS
44.19 From this table, it can be seen that the Petitioners have met th e
condition set out in Section 179 of the Constitution.
44.20 It is submitted that your Lordship can rightly rely on the above
chats which contains figures brought out from electoral materials
prepared by INEC and tendered as Exhibits before the Tribunal:
INEC v Oshiomole [2009] 4 NWLR (pt 1132) 6 07 at 684-5; Ngige v
Obi [2006] 14 NWLR (pt 999) 1, 161 and 192.
44.21 Having scored the highest number of the lawful votes cast at the
election and having also scored at least one quarter of the votes
cast in more than 20 out of the 30 local government ar eas, the 1 s t
Petitioner has fulfilled the requirement of section 179(2) of the
constitution and he is entitled to be returned as elected. We
therefore urge the Honourable Tribunal to resolve this issue in
the affirmative and grant the main reliefs of the P etitioners.
Issue 2
Whether from the facts before the Tribunal the Governorship election
held in Osun State on the 14 t h day of April, 2007 was vitiated by any
form of irregularities and/or corrupt practices and in the
circumstances warranting ordering a f resh election.
45.1 It is submitted that this issue arises in respect of the alternative
ground of the Petition and the alternative prayer of the
Petitioners. It is further submitted that your Lordships will not
have to determine this issue where Your Lord ships find in favour
of the Petitioners on issue 1 and grant the main prayers of the
Petitioners.
306
45.2 In addressing this issue, the Petitioners adopt the submissions and
evaluation of oral and documentary evidence hereinbefore made
in this written address .
45.3 Petitioners concede that a party who seeks to upturn the return in
election must show that the act complained of affected the results
or that the return would not be the same if the act complained of
did not exist. Be that as it may, it is submitted in view of the
evidence of substantial non -compliance with the provisions of
Electoral Act, 2006, non -counting, non -announcement and non -
recording of results at polling units, wards and local government,
absence of result forms, discrepancies in the quant ity of ballot
papers, widespread irregularities, widespread disruption of
elections, multiple thumb -printing, ballot snatching, the
Petitioners have shown that the non -compliance has substantially
affected the election and substantial enough to invalidate the
elections: See Omoworare v Omisore [2010] 3 NWLR (pt 1180) 58.
45.4 It is further submitted that the Petitioners by the evidence
presented have also showed how the results of the elections have
been affected in ten of the 30 Local Governments of Osun S tate.
45.5 In the very recent case of Omoworare v Omisore [2010] 3 NWLR
(pt 1180) 58, the Court of Appeal considered this issue,
particularly in the context of the decision of the Supreme Court in
Buhari v. Obasanjo (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 273) 1; [2005] 13 NWLR
(pt 941) at 308-309, per Akintan JSC. In Omoworare v Omisore
(supra), the Petitioners had alleged and proved widespread
irregularities, non -compliance with the provisions of Electoral
Act, not stamping of results, disruption of election as has been
done by the Petitioners herein but the Tribunal had held that the
Petitioner had not shown that the results of the election was
substantially affected. In reversing the decision of the Tribunal,
the Court of Appeal held that the Tribunal “ regrettably
misapplied the principle in the case of Buhari v. Obasanjo ”.
45.6 The Court of Appeal held at pages 131-132, per Ogunbiyi JCA :
307
“It is needless to restate but obviously clear that the
principle in Buhari v. Obasanjo (supra) has totally been
misconstrued and wrong fully applied to the case at hand.
In the case under reference for instance, their Lordships
of the apex court clearly and emphatically related to a
situation where there is a mere failure to comply with
minor provisions of the Electoral Act which have no effect
of substantially affect the outcome of the election. The
case at hand with all respect to the learned tribunal
judges, is totally outside the case in reference which had
to do with presidential election and therefore nationwide
and covering a ver y wide geographical area of application
unlike the case in issue. The considering factor was rather
predicated on the widespread nature of non -compliance,
as well as its effect as to whether it substantially affects
the outcome of the entire election.
By the tribunal relating the case at hand with that of
Buhari v. Obasanjo (supra) is a total misconception of the
interpretation and the understanding of the principle
enunciated in that case. The consequential effect is, it is
ironical, irreconcilable and al so incomprehensible
especially having regard to the very fundamental
principle of our legal system predicated on justice and
fairness. This I say because despite the prevalent findings
by the Hon. Tribunal that the nature of malpractices and
non-compliance, with the Electoral Act are numerous, it
could nevertheless shut its eyes only to decide in favour
of all the serious anomalies. This I hold is very
unfortunate. The learned tribunal took and evaluated the
evidence. The findings on the evidence were well within
its powers as court of evidence which this court is neither
seized of nor could question. The tribunal seriously
somersaulted by the decision it took regardless of its
findings.
308
With reference to section 146(1) of the Electoral Act
therefore reproduced supra, can it be said that the election
at hand, in the light of the findings by Hon. Tribunal,
“was conducted substantially in accordance with
principles of the Act and that the non -compliance did not
affect substantially the result of the election?” This
certainly cannot be said of the election in question and
which answer is in the negative”.
45.7 It is thus submitted that there is no substance in the contention of
the Respondents that the Electoral Act has not been substantially
breached in an election in which there is widespread
irregularities, non -compliance with Electoral Act, violence and
mayhem which frustrated the holding of a fair election in at least
10 local government areas.
Conclusion
46.1 It is humbly submitted that from the total law ful votes scored by
the candidates, the 1 s t Petitioner was elected and ought to have
been returned as having scored the highest number of votes cast
in the April 14, 2007 Governorship election in Osun State and
having satisfied the requirements of section 179 of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Electoral
Act, 2006.
46.2 It is without doubt that from the above, this substantial non -
compliance with the mandatory statutory requirement in the 10 of
the Local Governments Areas challeng ed and proved by the
Petitioners has substantially and adversely affected the conduct
of the election. For this proposition of the law, we refer Your
Lordships to the cases of Oyegun v. Igbinedion [1992] 2 NWLR
(pt. 226) 747; Ebebe v. Ezenduka [1998] 7 NWL R (pt.556) 74;
Ayua v. Adasu [1992] 3 NWLR (pt. 231) 598; Azudibia v.
Ogunewe [2004] FWLR (pt. 205) 289.
309
46.3 It is finally submitted that the Petitioners‟ prayer that the 1 s t
Petitioner was elected and ought to have been returned, having
scored the highes t number of votes cast in the Osun State
Governorship Election held on April 14, 2007, and satisfied the
requirements of the Section 179 Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and the Electoral Act, 2006 be granted
for scoring the majority o f lawful votes cast at the April 14, 2007
election and having satisfied the requirements of the Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
46.4 We urge Your Lordships to grant the Petitioners prayer as
follows:
46.4.1 that votes recorded and/or retu rned in the following
Local Government Areas, namely, Atakumosa West
Local Government, Ayedaade Local Government,
Boluwaduro Local Government, Boripe Local
Government, Ife Central Local Government, Ife East
Local Government, Ife South Local Government,
Ifedayo Local Government, Isokan Local
Government, Odo - Otin Local Government and do
not represent lawful votes cast in the said Local
Government Areas in the Osun State Governorship
election held on 14 April, 2007 and as having been
obtained in vitiating ci rcumstances of substantial non -
compliance with mandatory provisions of Electoral
Act, 2006, violence and malpractices which
substantially affected the validity of the said elections
that none of the candidates in the said elections can
be validly returned as having validly won in the said
affected Local Government Areas.
46.4.2 That the said Prince Olagunsoye Oyinlola was not
duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast in the
Osun State Governorship election held on April 14,
2007 and that his election is void.
310
46.4.3 That Rauf Adesoji Aregbesola was elected and ought
to have been returned having scored the highest
number of votes cast in the Osun State Governorship
Election held on April 14, 2007, and satisfied the
requirements of the Section 179 Constitu tion of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and the Electoral
Act, 2006.
46.4.4 That the 1 s t petitioner be declared validly elected or
returned.
SUMMARY
The summary of the arguments of the petitioners are as follows:
(1) The election in the disputed te n local governme nts of Osun State
was vitiated by two vices, viz:
(i) non-compliance with various mandator y provisions of the
Electoral Act, 2006 which non -compliance substant ially
affected the results of the election in the ten local
governments
(ii) widespread electoral malpractices manifesting in violence,
ballot snatching, ballot stuffing, hooliganism etc.
(2) The petitioners led satisfactory evidence on a balance of
probabilities in respect of the alleged non -compliance while
proof beyond reasonable doubt was established by the
petitioners in regard to the alleged electoral malpractices.
(3) The contention of the respondents that the petition has no valid
ground in support is misconceived and in any case, the
respondents have waived the right to raise any such
contention not having done so as a preliminary issue at the
beginning of the petition before the respondents took any fresh
step in the proceedings.
(4) The failure of the 1 s t respondent to plead in his reply the number
of the petitioners votes he objects to as required by paragraphs
311
12(2) and 15 of t he First Schedule to the Electoral Act means that
the results tendered by the petitioners for the election is
unchallenged and uncontroverted.
(5) The failure of the 4 t h to 1365 t h respondents to give evidence in
support of their pleadings means they have accepted all
allegations of the petitioners touching on non-compliance with
mandatory provisions of the Electoral Act which is the first vice
vitiating the election in the disp uted ten local governments and
this without more entitles the petitioners to judgment.
(6) In regard to the second vice having to do with widespread
electoral malpractices raising criminal allegations again st the
respondents, the scanty evidence given by the `1 s t to 3rd
respondents has not diminished the proof beyond reasonable
doubt established by the wi tnesses of the petitioners and this also
entitles the petitioners to judgment against all the respondents.
(7) Contrary to the arguments of the respon dents, there was no
dumping of documents on the tribunal as the petitioners related
the documents tendered to their case through the witnesses.
Submit further that even if documents were dumped on the
court, which is not conc eded, it is now settled by the Supreme
Court that in election petition which is sui generis, it is in order
to tender documents in bulk to facilitate speedy trial. It is the
tribunal that will have to carefully look at such document s to
determine their probative value.
(8) It is now settled by the authority of the Court of Appeal that
ward supervisors are competent witnesses within Section 77 of
the Evidence Act to testify in respect of what they observed
during election.
312
(9) On the whole, with the nullification of the elec tion in the
disputed ten local governments as prayed, the 1 s t petitioner
should be declared winner of the 2007 Gubernatorial election in
Osun State on th e ground that in the remaining undisputed
twenty local governments he ha s the highest number of lawful
votes and satisfies the provision of Section 179(2) of th e 1999
Constitution and ought to have been declared elected and
returned.
(10) In the unlikely event that the tribunal finds agains t the
petitioners on the first issue, then the need to consider and grant
the alternative prayer covered by issue two becomes necessary.
Dated this 12 t h day of April, 2009
______________________
Ebun Sofunde, SAN
Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN,
Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, SAN
Kola Awodein, SAN
Charles Uwensuyi-Edosomwan, SAN
Professor ‘Yemi Osinbajo, SAN
Deji Sasegbon, SAN
Mutiu B. Ganiyu Esq
Ajibola Basiru Esq
Petitioners’/Applicants’ Counsel,
Address within Jurisdiction:
C/o Wale Afolabi & Co.
20C Ajegunle Street, Osogbo.
313
For Service on:
1 s t – 3 r d Respondents Counsel,
Yusuff Alli, SAN
C/o Kehinde Adesiyan Esq.,
Ola-Ore Shopping Complex,
Opp. Christ African Church Pry. School,
Gbongan Road, Osogbo, Osun State.
The 4 t h to 1365 t h Respondents
C/o Independent National Electoral Commission Headquarters
Osun State, Gbongan/Ibadan Road, Osogbo.
The 1366 t h & 1367 t h Respondents
C/o Ministry of Justice, Osun State,
Osogbo.
314

La Written Address FINAL Before The Tribunal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

La Written Address FINAL Before The Tribunal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE GOVERNORSHIP AND LEGISLATIVE

HOUSES ELECTION TRIBUNALS

PETITION NO. GOV/EPT/OS/01/07

THE ELECTION TO THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR OF OSUN STATE

RAUF ADESOJI AREGBESOLA & 2 ORS - PETITIONERS

OLAGUNSOYE OYINLOLA & ORS - RESPONDENTS

P ETITIONERS ‟ F INAL A DDRESS & R EPLY T O T HE

2. Preliminary Response to The 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents

3. General Comme nt on Introductory Par agraphs of the

4. The Validity of the Ground of Petition

4.3 Petition is within Section 145(1)(c) of Electoral Act 2006

4.4 Decision in Ojukwu v. Yar‟Adua

4.5 Waiver of Right to Raise O bjection

5. The Issue of Bindingness and Abandonment of Pleadings

We shall now proceed to treat the points separately.

(i) The Scanty Evidence Called by The 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents

(ii) Legal Effect of failure of 4 t h to 1367 t h Respondents to testify

(iv) Absence of Voters Regis ters

6. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

S/ N on Local Governments Votes recorded Votes recorded

8.5 This is consistent with the petitioners pleading in paragraph 17 of

NON-COUNTING, ANNOUNCEMEMT, RECORDING OF RESULTS

Absence of Voters Register

GENERAL EVALUATION OF ORAL EVIDENCE

Evidence of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents in respect of Ife Central Local

RW30 Odikunrin Muyiwa

Evidence of the Petitioners in Odo Otin Local Go vernment

Evidence of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents in respect of Odo Otin Local

RW45 Femi Okunola of Unit 1, Ward 4

Boripe Local Government

Evidence of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents in respect of Boripe Local

Atakunmosa West Local Government

Evidence of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents in respect of Atakumosa West

Ayedaade Local Government

Ayedaade Local Government

Ife South Local Government

Evidence of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents in Isokan Local Government

Boluwaduro Local Government

Evidence of the 1st to 3rd Respondents in Boluwaduro Local

Ife East Local Government

Evidence of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents in Ife East Local Government

Ifedayo Local Government

Evidence of the 1 s t to 3 r d Respondents in Ifedayo Local Government

Evidence of Subpoenaed witnesses Tendering Video Evidence

Evidence of PW80 Paul Jobbins

a) Total Ballot Papers Examined = 203,574

e) Total Ballot Papers that had impressions with either Insufficient

Evidence of RW61 Ndara Abasi U. Ekong

Evidence of PW81, Adeola Akintunde Olayiwola

33.28 We also contend on behalf of the petitioners that the issue

Evidence of PW 82, Tunde Yadeka, an Inde pendent Information

RW62 Babatunde Lateef Adeleke

ON EFFECT OF FAILURE OF INEC TO CALL EVIDENCE IN

ENTITLEMENT OF THE 1 S T PETITIONER TO BE DECLARED AS

44.14 Thus in the ten local governments in respect of which the

Total Score of Parties 240,722 426,669

Total Score of Parties 41,923 253,789

Difference on 198,799 172,880

Ebun Sofunde, SAN

Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN,

Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, SAN

Kola Awodein, SAN

Charles Uwensuyi-Edosomwan, SAN