2nd November, 2022
By Victor Adeoti
The Osun State Election Petitions Tribunal on Wednesday admitted another set of documentary evidence from Gov. Gboyega Oyetola and the All Progressives Congress (APC) against the declaration of Sen. Ademola Adeleke as Governor-elect by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) recalls that Oyetola and APC had on Aug. 5 submitted a petition before the election Petition Tribunal in Osogbo.
Oyetola and APC were challenging election results from 749 polling units across 10 local government areas of the state for various electoral malpractices, especially over voting.
INEC had declared Adeleke as the winner of July 16 governorship election having polled 403,271 votes against 375,027 polled by Oyetola.
The documents admitted were another set of Form EC8As, being results of the election for 10 wards in Egbedore; 11 wards in Ejigbo; 10 wards in Ilesa West and 11 wards in Irepodun Local Government areas of the state.
At the resumed hearing in Osogbo, Counsel to APC, Chief Yomi Aliu (SAN), informed the tribunal that another schedule containing the list of other documents to be tendered had been given to the respondents’ counsel and they had jointly cross-checked it.
Aliu then applied to tender the documentary evidence as exhibits as listed on the schedule.
Counsels for Adeleke, Niyi Owolade, confirmed that he had cross-checked the documents, but objected to the admissibility of the documents.
Owolade said his reason for objection would be given in his written address.
Also, Counsel to INEC, Mr Olakunle Faokunla and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Mr Nathaniel Oke, also confirmed that they had cross-checked the documents tendered by the petitioner.
They also objected to admissibility of the documents by the tribunal, saying the reason for the objection would be stated in their written addresses.
In his ruling, the Tribunal Chairman, Justice Tertsea Kume, admitted all the evidence and marked them as exhibits.
After the ruling, the Petitioners’ Counsel informed the tribunal that the respondents had been furnished with another schedule of the documents to be tendered at the next hearing.
Counsel for all respondents confirmed that they had been served.
They indicated that they would use the schedule to cross-check the documentary evidence before they are tendered.
The tribunal subsequently adjourned the continuation of hearing until Thursday.