Oyinlola Should Quit If Found Culpable –Tinubu

Asiwaju Bola Tinubu - thorn in the flesh of electoral criminals in NigeriaFORMER Lagos State Governor Asiwaju Bola Tinubu has challenged Osun State Governor Olagunsoye Oyinlola to resign if found culpable of electoral malpractices. The Action Congress (AC) 1eader also urged President Umaru Yar’Adua to insist on the supremacy of the rule of law for the conduct of the Ekiti State gubernatorial rerun.

Tinubu spoke against the backdrop of allegations that Oyinlola promised to kit thugs with fake Army uniforms to facilitate the rigging of the April 25 rerun.

Tinubu, who was responding to’ reporters’ questions in Abuja at the Institute for security Studies where he delivered a paper entitled: “The roles of political parties in consolidating democracy and development, said the most honourable option for Oyinlola was to vacate the office, if found guilty of planning to provide fake uniforms to party supporters.”

His wards: “One of the governors has revealed how he won his election through fake soldiers, police uniforms and intimidation of opponents and if it is proven, he must be called to resign.

“This is because what do you do if you give people fake uniform? What do you do with them after the election? You unleash terror on your own• citizens; innocent people are exposed to danger; you can’t nurse them any longer you can’t maintain them any longer they become armed robbers, killers and menace to .the public tomorrow.”

He however linked the development to the problem of leadership that should not be condoned. Tinubu, who stressed that the rule of law being preached by Yar’ Adua must be brought to bear on the Ekiti rerun, said he believed the call for the deployment of soldiers in Ekiti does not enjoy the blessing of the President.

“As long as the President is not talking about them, I feel the rest talks from the National Assembly, other people because of the fear of defeat. They know they will fail, they know they cannot do without stuffing the ballot box, they know they cannot do without intimidating the people, they are afraid to fail.

Confirming that he is active in the build-up to the rerun, Tinubu said: I am very active for my party and I believe the election must be free and fair; I believe it must follow due process. It must be consistent with the rule of law. The President is an advocate of the rule of law and I am not going to comment on any military assumption yet because there are no two commanders in a ship, we have one.”

•Culled from THE NATION

Osun Election Retrial: Bid To Delay New Tribunal Fails

Appeal CourtIMMEDIATELY the Court of Appeal that sat in Ibadan, Oyo State capital ruled in the favour of all the interlocutory appeals, which formed the decision of the judges that unanimously passed a retrial verdict on the substantive appeal filed by Osun State Action Congress (AC) governorship candidate, Engineer Rauf Aregbesola, some power-brokers in the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) resumed into a serious horse-trading with an intention to delay the reconstitution of another panel, but investigation has revealed that the leadership of the Appeal Court has defied their time-wasting gimmicks.

It would be recalled that Justice Victor Omage-led Appeal Court took the first Election Petitions Tribunal headed by the controversial Justice Thomas Naron, that sat in Osogbo on Aregbesola’s petition, to the cleaners, for the shoddy jobs done, suggestive of compromise of integrity it did on the petition, frowning at the way and manner some of the salient evidences presented by the petitioner were rejected; leading to a miscarriage of justice.

OSUN DEFENDER authoritatively gathered that a prominent traditional ruler, who has never hidden his pathological hatred for Aregbesola has raised a huge sum of money that would be used to cause the leadership of the appellate court to foot-drag the reconstitution of another tribunal, while the beneficiary of the plot, the embattled Governor Olagunsoye Oyinlola, was alleged to have resorted to high-power military connection to further amplify the time-wasting tactics.

Findings revealed that the monarch, who was literarily dumbed and dazed, when the verdict was being read was said to have voiced out that he was ready to defend Oyinlola to the last drop of his blood in order to keep his sprawling power amongst his colleagues. It was learnt that the elected to roll out money for the time-wasting plot, when the retrial was ordered.

Checks showed that some administrative staff of the Court of Appeal were given fat brown envelopes stocked with Naira notes, with a task to play ding-dong on the submission of the original copy of the judgment to the Office of the Appeal Court President, who will constitute a new panel.

OSUN DEFENDER learnt that it was the interest of the Appeal Court leadership in the much hyped judgment that facilitated the quick submission of the judgment to the Office of the Appeal Court’s President, a move that shattered the bid of the monarch and some retired army generals that were reportedly interceding for Oyinlola on the foot-dragging approach.

Investigation has further revealed that when efforts to foot-drag the constitution of the monarch new tribunal failed, the leadership of the PDP, who premised the exit of Oyinlola on the last straw of the party in the South-West has started working on the leadership of the Court of Appeal on the calibre of judges to be appointed.

It was learnt that the Appeal Court President has decided to keep the list of the judges close to his chest until they are ready to resume for the assignment in Osogbo, Osun State capital, in order to save them from the heat.

Meanwhile, our source from the Court of Appeal confided in OSUN DEFENDER that the leadership of the court passed through furnace before some judges of impeccable character could agree to handle the case, as the shattered integrity of the first set of the tribunal members became a reference point that could scare-stiff any judge. Information available to OSUN DEFENDER has hinted that the new panel is set to arrive Osogbo soon, a situation that may once again draw the attention of the nation to Osun State.



Oh God! May PDP lose Ekiti

By Ikenna Emewu (e-mail: [email protected])

Saturday, April 11, 2009
I have a little prayer to offer to you dear God. Don’t ignore my prayer this time, I really know I am a Nigerian and sometimes, the things we do here make your angels stand afar. In fact, the dead bodies we leave in the streets unattended to are enough to make them skip coming here.

Yes, nobody that knows the Bible will prove me wrong. You asked the children of Israel to cover their waste with earth in their camps because if your angels walking in their midst sees mess, they will turn away.

If that (excrement) could make your angels stand afar, dead bodies that put even man off in our streets can make you delete Nigeria from your books. But you are merciful. Even when we no get shame, as a tradition you still hear our prayers.

Therefore, oblige me this one request once again. You well know that you gave PDP an opportunity to manage Nigeria, and that they turned into managing themselves and damaging and mismanaging Nigeria. I know in ten years, your stock of patience may have worn thin, especially with their impunity.

They do multiple wrongs and boast they will rule us forever, and worst of all they have admitted they no get shame. That is a sign they are never contrite, but rather stubborn and vehement in evil. It means they are ready to continue the same way. Please, don’t allow them any further.

But I want to remind you that you have started stripping them in the village square, and may you never leave them alone until the final power wresting from their hands is complete. They have used all the opportunity you gave them for mischief. Please, God, give them no more, in fact, take the one they have.

You can see how fat their tummies are with our oil they drank – crude, refined and imported. See how they have developed all manner of ailments, including boils and distended cheeks as a result of excess liquidity of the nation they carry in their pouches. Remove all these from them so that we can take back what belongs to us.

Father, I am not praying against them because I am AC member. No, I am not. I am just a newspaper reporter, but I feel the pains of the evils of PDP in my bones, and I have a feeling that since we have tried PDP and seen they no get shame, we shall be given the opportunity of trying another party, especially in Ekiti State now.

In the Ekiti situation, there are signs they did not win in 2007 because if AC will have 13 of 26 members of the House with all the atrocities Chief Olusegun Obasanjo’s PDP committed there, PDP is persona non-grata for certain. Don’t also forget that at about two times Obasanjo went to the state, the people protested and told him he is their enemy. May you never let the enemy of Ekiti people rule them again. Amen.

Again, the 13 members of the Ekiti House have shown they know opposition. They are not longa-throat like many other politicians in Nigeria who would have migrated to PDP for the chop chop.

Again, there are some credible things about AC. They produced this good man in Lagos called Babatunde Fashola, the governor. They also produced another good man, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole governor of Edo State. They have Ahmed Bola Tinubu who pushed back those that used PDP politics to kill their fatherland in Lagos.

Teach Fashola, Oshiomhole, Tinubu and others to also go to Ekiti and campaign since those PDP people who should have been busy in Aso Rock could leave the problems of the nation to come to Ekiti last week for campaign because they no get shame.

Since Ekiti people tried their best to say no to PDP in their votes and have sustained their call that they don’t want anything to do with Obasanjo because he hates them, like he hates all Nigerians, may you not give Ekiti what they don’t like. Don’t allow their enemy to rule them. I am not from Ekiti, but I know if they maltreat them they will also maltreat me in Ebonyi State as they have been doing already against all Nigerians.

If the PDP plans to do evil and win in Ekiti, may they stumble and fall and be exposed. For every innocent person they kill in Ekiti to rig, may you kill a dozen of them. Even AC, let them not succeed in planning and carrying out evil in Ekiti. Let us for once have what could be called an election and start from there to get it right.

God, I must tell you that we are already tired of PDP, and may you also be tired of them and help us chase them out of town. They kill, trample on us and still have no remorse as they plan more evil. Don’t forget that all the victory you allowed them have in the past they have used them against your children.

Don’t allow them win in Ekiti, afterall, they never won anywhere before in a clear contest. There is end for evil reign and this is the end. Amen.

But I also know there are few good people in PDP. They are good just as individuals because you created them good and such people include my own governor, Martin Elechi of Ebonyi State. He is doing good things in my state for the people, and I have also seen that Sullivan Chime of Enugu State is fixing things in Enugu. May you one day pull them out of that house of crisis and evil rulership called PDP.

Before the day INEC and PDP will move to Ekiti to execute their rigging, may you send a heavy rainfall and thunderstorm to pull down their houses and tsunami to carry the debris into the Bar Beach so that they will not see those their rigging materials to do the usual atrocity they are known for.

I understand many people in churches and mosques have been praying for PDP for a long time to change and treat Nigeria well, so since they defy the prayers and remain worse in their impunity, planning to reign forever, destroy their plans in Ekiti and put all of them to shame even though they say they no get shame. I am happy you have heard my prayer. Amen.

Re: I no get shame
I have been inundated by responses from readers since last week I wrote on the above topic. It was so alarming that most of the responses remembered to include “I no get shame”.

I have decided to publish just a few of the responses this week while promising to take more next week for the delight of the senders either through e-mail or SMS.

I read your write up in the Saturday Sun newspaper captioned, ‘I no get shame’, I was amazed by what you wrote there. You portrayed exactly what we are suffering in this country called Nigeria. It keeps reminding me of a statement made by one white man I met on one of my business trips to Lagos. Can you imagine this man proclaimed that God blessed Nigeria very well but punished her with bad leaders?

When I asked him why he said so, he just asked me to accept it like that because he knows what is happening here.

I don’t understand what Prof. Maurice Iwu is still doing in INEC after all what he has done to the helpless masses of this country during last elections, upon all the tribunal ruling in some states of the country. My brother I really commend you for that piece. Keep it on, more grease to your elbow bye.
From Prince Ken, Onitsha Anambra State.

Your piece on ‘I no get shame’ is quite thoughtful. It captures Nigeria’s core problems. But are you sure Baba Iyabo and his People Destruction Party (PDP) have any shame at all. 08084148621

Mould the word ‘shame’ to an angel, our leaders will still defeat him. Whatever works anywhere in the world does not work here. Then why do we exist? To suffer and die? 08033543659

My sake, ‘I no get shame’ na bomb. I love it so much. Obj no get shame. Likewise his ilk. De no get shame. God will soon shame dem and they will get shame by force. Ezeh Ik. 07061153233.

Mr. Ikenna, your write up titled ‘I no get shame’ was interesting. You hit the nail on the head. I laughed (It wasn’t supposed to be comic) because I no get shame. Denedo, Lagos 08023226421

Walai these people ‘ I no get ten kobo shame’ sam sam. One day, however, their waterloo shall be catastrophic. Walaitalai! From Boye Oyewole, Isashi, Lagos. 08099517230

AC Candidate Calls For Quick Constitution Of New Tribunal

Action Congress (AC), Osun State, NigeriaACTION Congress (AC) councillorship candidate in ward 12, Odo-Otin Local Government area of Osun State, Adeyemi Adelani (Alayo) has called on the President, Court of Appeal, Justice Umar Abdulahi to hurriedly constitute another Election Petitions Tribunal to try the petition of the AC governorship candidate, Engineer Rauf Aregbesola against the embattled Governor Olagunsoye Oyinlola of the state.

Speaking with journalists in Osogbo on Wednesday, Adelani said that the quick constitution of the tribunal and retrieval of Aregbesola’s stolen mandate would vindicate the people of the state, who cast their votes for Aregbesola.

While lauding the judgment by the Court of Appeal, that sat in Ibadan, led by Justice Victor Omage, which ordered the re-trial of the matter, the AC candidate said that the decision of the appellate court had justified the claims that the governorship poll in the state was marred with irregularities.

“Oyinlola and his team of robbers, who stole the votes we cast for the symbol of hope, Engineer Rauf Aregbesola during the April 14, 2007 election should be ashamed of themselves.”

“It is on record that the Justice Thomas Naron-led tribunal, Oyinlola and his counsel, Kunle Kalejaiye connived to pervert justice during the trial of the petition.”

“This is justified when the Court of Appeal set-aside the decision of the trial tribunal, that it was partial in holding that the security report, report of forensic inspection and other documents in relation to the election, were not admissible.”

“But now, Oyinlola ought to have stepped-aside immediately after the judgment, rather than boasting that the status quo should remain. His decision to have stayed in office has shown that he is shameless”, Adelani said.

On the decision of the appellate court over the controversial Local Government Council elections, the AC candidate said the council bosses and councilors are currently occupying illegal positions.

He berated the council bosses and councilors for daring the court’s order, which ordered them out of office.

The AC candidate then warned the council bosses and councilors against carrying out any illegal duty after they had been ousted by the court, threatening to join hands with well-meaning Nigerians in ensuring that all illegalities are rejected.


70-Year-Old Pensioner Collapses, Dies

TEARS flowed freely at the weekend following the death of Ahaji Husssein Ariyibi, an indigene of Ajase-ipo in Irepodun Local Government of Kwara State who slumped and died in the process of filling pensioner’s e-payment form as directed by the Federal government.

OSUN DEFENDER gathered that the deceased, was at the pensioners office in Ilorin to collect, fill and submit pensioners e-payment form before he collapsed and died at the vicinity.

Ariyibi , it was gathered, retired from the state civil service as a government printer. Sources at the scene of the incident, while speaking with the medium, explained that when the deceased first started shivering, other pensioners then tried to assist by pouring cold sachet water on his head, but all their efforts proved abortive as the deceased eventually gave up the ghost.

While commenting on the incident, officers who spoke under condition of anonymity observed that the directive by the Federal Government to all pensioners to fill e-payment forms had further compounded their hardship.

They lamented that the risk some of them took from their various council areas before they assembled at Ilorin, the state capital, was too stressful, as such could lead to untimely death of pensioners.

In order to avert a reoccurrence, they appealed to the Federal Government to extend the deadline of the exercise, as well decentralise it, so that they could fill the forms in their respective Local Government Council Areas.


Appeal Court’s Judgment That Nailed Oyinlola, Naron, Others


Themis - goddesss of divine justiceBEFORE THEIR LORDSHIP









The Gubernatorial Elections were held on the 14th day of April, 2007 to fill the offices of Governors for all the States in Nigeria. The elections were conducted by the 4th respondent. The 1st appellant and the 1st respondent contested the election for Osun State.

In Osun State, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) fielded Prince Olagunsoye Oyinlola as its candidate while the Action Congress (AC) fielded Mr. Rauf A. Aregbesola as its candidate. After the elections, the 4th respondent, The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), credited the PDP candidate with 426,669 votes and the AC candidate with 240,722 votes. INEC declared Prince Olagunsoye Oyinlola, the winner of the election.

Dissatisfied with the results declared by INEC, Mr. Rauf A. Aregbesola and his party filed a petition on the 11th day of May, 2007 at the Governorship and Legislative House Election Petition Tribunal which sat at Oshogbo challenging the declaration or the 1st respondent as Governor of Osun State.

His claim reads as follows: –
1. That votes recorded and/or returned in the following Local Government Areas, namely:

  • Atakumosa West Local Government,
  • Ayedaade Local Government,
  • Boluwaduro Local Government,
  • Boripe Local Government,
  • Ede North Local Government,
  • Ife Central Local Government,
  • lfedayo Local Government,
  • Isokan Local Government,
  • Odo-Otin Local Government and,
  • Ola-Oluwa Local Government,
  • do not represent lawful votes cast in the said Local Government Areas in Osun State Governorship Election held on 14th 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 affected the validity of the said elections, that none of the candidates in the said election can be returned as having validly won in the said affected Local Government Areas.

    2. That the said Olagunsoye Oyinlola was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast in the Osun State Governorship Election held on April, 14th, 2007 and that his election is void.

    3. That Rauf 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 14th, 2007, and satisfied the requirements of Section 179 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and the Electoral Act, 2006.

    4. That the 1st petitioner be declared validly elected as returned.

    ALTERNATIVELY, the Petitioner prays: –

    1. That the Osun State Governorship Election held on April, 14th, 2007 is void on the ground that the election was not conducted substantially in accordance with the provisions of Part lV of the Electoral Act, 2006.

    2. That the said election was vitiated by substantial non­compliance 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. .

    3. That the Osun State Governorship Election held on the 14th of April, 2007 be nullified or cancelled and the 4th Respondent is to conduct fresh elections for the office of the Governor of Osun state.

    The Grounds upon which the Petition was brought are as follows: –

    1. The 1st respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election and did not score 1/4 of the Lawful votes cast in 2/3 majority of the Local Government Areas of

    Osun State where lawful votes were cast as required by the provisions of the Constitution and the Electoral Act, 2008.

    2. No election was conducted in several polling stations and wards in the aforementioned Local Government Areas.

    3. In the few areas where elections were held, the e1ections were disrupted by acts of
    violence in several polling units and wards in the aforementioned Local Government Areas by acts of violence perpetrated on the voters by thugs and/or Law enforcement agents acting in concert with chieftains and members of the 3rd respondent on the said day of election.

    4. Elections 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 of the polling stations and wards in the aforementioned Local Governments due to disruption of voting exercise by acts of violence perpetrated on the voters by thugs and/or Law enforcement agents acting in concert with chieftains and members of the 3rd respondent on the election day.

    5. Electoral materials, especially, ballot papers and ballot boxes were snatched, seized and later stuffed with illegal ballot papers thumb-printed in favour of the 1st and 2nd respondents by thugs and Law enforcement agents.

    6. These ballot boxes with already thumb-printed papers were later returned and forcefully deposited at Local Government Area collation centres and were counted as valid votes on the Electoral FORM EC8A and Eventually announced in favour of the 1st respondent.

    7.All the widespread disruptions, irregularitiesand/or malpractices referred to in this Petition were done with the express and/or Implied consent, authority or instruction of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents acting severally or in concert.

    The Respondent duly filed Replies to the Petition.

    The petition was heard by Justices T. D, Naron, the Chairman, S. Mohammed, J. N. Akpughunum, A. T. Badamasi and J.E. Ekanem.

    After pre-hearing formalities, trial commenced on 3/ 10/2007 with PW giving evidence and ended with the delivery of judgment on I5/7/2 008.

    At the trial, the petitioner (1st Appellant) called 102 witnesses. Several documents were admitted as exhibits.

    The 1st to 3rd respondents called 28th witnesses.

    The 4th respondent (lNEC) did not call any witness. This was also the case with the 5th to 1,367th respondents.

    They did not call evidence in support of their pleadings.

    In a unanimous judgment delivered on 15/7/2008, the Tribunal entered judgment in favour of the 1st respondent as the Governor of Osun State.

    Dissatisfied with the judgment, the 1st appellant filed an appeal on the 4th of August, 2008. But before the 4th August, 2008, the appellant had filed four Interlocutory Appeals. For ease of reference, I shall set out the Briefs filed by the parties.

    1. Notice of Appeal filed on 9/5/08. Brief filed on 1/9/08.
    2. Notice or Appeal filed on 29/7/08. Brief filed on 1/9/08.
    3. Notice of Appeal filed on 29/7/08. Brief filed on 1/9/08.
    4. Notice of Appeal filed on 3/3/08. Brief filed on 27/3/08.

    Learned counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents filed their briefs on the substantive appeal on 15/9/08 and on the Interlocutory Appeals, briefs filed as follows: –

    1. Brief filed on 15/9/08. It also contains a Preliminary Objection.
    2. Brief filed on 15/9/08. It also contains a Preliminary Objection.
    3. Brief filed on 15/9/08.
    4. Brief filed on 4/4/08. It also contains a Preliminary Objection.

    Learned counsel for the 4th–1365th respondents filed briefs on 8/10/08 on the substantive appeal.
    No brief was filed on the Interlocutory Appeal.

    Brief on the 2nd and 3rd Interlocutory Appeals were filed on 8/10/08 while Brief on the 4th Interlocutory Appeal was filed on 1/12/08.

    Learned counsel for the 1366th -1367th respondents filed Brief on the substantive appeal on 17/2/09.
    No briefs were filed on the Interlocutory Appeals.

    The appellants filed Reply Briefs on 22/9/08, 10/12/08, 6/3/09.

    The reliefs claimed by the appellants are: –

    1. An order allowing the appeal.

    2. An order setting aside the judgment and rulings of the Osun State Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Petition Tribunal, Holden at Osogbo which judgment and rulings were delivered on 15th July, 2008.

    3. An order nullifying the judgment of the Tribunal dated 15th July, 2008.

    4. An order directing a retrial of the petition.

    5. An order remitting this petition to the President of the Court of Appeal and directing that the same be heard by a fresh Tribunal.

    6. An order directing the President of the Court of Appeal to constitute a fresh Osun State Governorship Ejection Petition Tribunal for the purpose of hearing this petition afresh.

    7. Further and or alternatively to 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 above.
    An order that votes recorded and/or returned in the following Local Government Areas, namely;Atakumosa West Local Government Area, Boluwaduro Local Government Area, Ife South Local Government Area, Ifedayo Local Government Area, Isokan Local Government Area and Boripe Local Government Area do not represent Lawful votes in the Osun State Governorship election held on 14th April, 2007 and as having been obtained in vitiating circumstances of substantial non-compliance with mandatory provision of Electoral Act, 2006, violence and malpractices which substantially affected the validity of the said election, that none of the candidates in the said election can be validly returned as having validly won in the said affected Local Government Areas.

    8. An order that the said Prince Olagunsoye Oyinlola was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast in the Osun State Governorship election held on 4th April, 2007 and that his election is void.

    9. An order that Rauf 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 14th April, 2007 and satisfied the requirements of Section 179 of the Constitution and Electoral Act.

    10. An order that the 1st Petitioner/Appellant be declared validly elected or returned. Further and in the alternative to 7, 8, 9 and 10 above.

    11. That the Osun State Governorship Election held on April, 14th 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, 2008.

    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.

    That the Osun State Governorship Election held on 14th of April, 2007 be nullified or cancelled and the 4th Respondent is to conduct fresh election for the office of the Governor of Osun state.

    Learned counsel for the 1st -3rd respondents, Mr. Yusuf Ali, SAN and the learned counsel for the 1366th – 1367th respondents filed Notice of Preliminary Objection. Arguments on the preliminary objection were incorporated in their respective Briefs of argument. It is now the accepted practice to incorporate arguments on the preliminary objection in the Briefs; and I do allow this now. By so doing, there would be no need to file a separate Notice of Preliminary Objection, See Maigoro Vs. Garba (1999),10 NWLR (Part 624) P 570.

    In the Preliminary Objections filed by learned counsel for the 1st – 3rd respondents. The grounds of the objection read as follows: –

    1. The substratum of the complaint in grounds 3, 4, 7 and 31 relate to interlocutory decisions of the Tribunal and therefore not part of the judgment.

    2. The appellants did not seek nor obtain any leave of Court to raise the purported grounds.

    3. The said grounds are incurably defective, incompetent and liable to be struck out.

    4. The other grounds of appeal are vague, prolix, verbose, unwieldy, argumentative and generally offend the provisions of the rules of the Court of Appeal.

    5. Particulars subjoined to most of the grounds are unrelated to and independent of and extraneous to the grounds of appeal.

    6. Some of the grounds are unintelligible, incomprehensible and

    7. The Grounds or Appeal liable to be struck out for various reasons of incompetence.

    8. The complaint in some of the grounds of appeal are directed at mere obiter as opposed to the ratio of the Tribunal decision.

    9. The upholding of the objection would lead to the dismissal of the appeal.
    Learned counsel for the 1366th -1367th respondents in his preliminary objection also prayed that the reliefs and grounds and all issues thereon be dismissed.

    The grounds of the 0bjection are that: –

    1. Grounds 3, 4 and 31 or the Grounds of Appeal do not relate to the judgment of the trial Tribunal.

    2. Grounds 3, 4 and 31 relate to interlocutory decision and the Appellants did not file any Notice of Appeal against the said interlocutory decision/Rulings, neither is there any application for leave to appeal out of time and/or to raise issues of mixed facts and Law.

    3. The Appellants’ case both at the Lower Tribunal and before this
    Honourable Court does not justify the granting of the Reliefs prayed for.

    Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the 1st to 3rd respondents.

    Preliminary Objection and Grounds 1 and 2 of the 1366th -1367th respondents’ Preliminary objections are saying the same thing. I shall take them together since they are allied.
    It is necessary to reproduce the grounds of appeal for better understanding of the complaint.

    GROUND 3
    The Honourable Tribunal erred in Law when in course of trial, it rejected a certified true copy of the Police final Security Report on the Governorship Election in Osun State dated 28/4/08 on the ground that the same was stamped “Secret” and was therefore not a public document.

    GROUND 4
    The learned Judges of the Tribunal erred in Law in rejecting in evidence the certified true copy of the of the Final Security Report of the Nigeria Ploice4 Force on the 14th of April, 2007 Governorship Election in Osun state and thereby refused to give it its true probative value and to nullify both votes allegedly scored and the election in the 10 contested Local Government Areas of Osun State as sought by the 1st Appellant.

    GROUND 7
    The Honourable Tribunal erred in Law when it held that it could not reverse and admit the Nigeria Police final Security/Intelligence Report on the election dated 28/4/2007 on the ground it would amount to sitting on appeal over its own ruling.

    GROUND 31
    The Honourable members of the Tribunal erred in Law in proceeding to deliver the judgment on 15th July, 2008 when it had in the circumstances become improperly constituted, was no longer competent and had no more jurisdiction to do so, thereby rendering its judgment a nullity.

    Learned counsel for the 1st to 3rd respondents observed that complaint in Ground 3,4, 7 and 31 reproduced above relate to interlocutory decisions of the Tribunal, contending that the appeal is incompetent since there is no right of appeal. Reliance was placed on: –

    ORUBU VS. INEC (1988) 3 NSCC P 333.
    OKON VS. BOB (2004) 1 NWLR (part 854) p. 378.

    On grounds 3, 4 and 31, learned counsel for the 1366th-1367th respondents observed that they did not flow from the judgment of the trial Tribunal.
    He submitted that a ground of Appeal that is not related to the judgment appealed against is incompetent and ought to be struck out. Reference was made to: –

    SARAKI VS. KOTOYE (1992) 19 NWLR (Part 26) p. 156.

    He urged the Court to strike out the incompetent grounds of appeal and the issues raised thereon. Responding, learned counsel for the appellant observed that complaints in Grounds 3 and 4 are complaints against wrongful rejection of evidence and that Ground 31 is an issue of jurisdiction.

    Relying on ONWE VS. OKE (2001) 3 NWLR (Part 700) p. 406.
    OBIAKOR VS. THE STATE (2002) 10 NWLR (Part 776) p. 612.

    He submitted that a decision on admissibility is not an interlocutory decision but part of the main decision that can be raised as of right in the main appeal.
    On Ground 31, he submitted that leave is not required to raise a fresh issue of jurisdiction on appeal.

    The submission of both counsels on their preliminary objection is that grounds 3, 4 and 31 in the Notice of Appeal arose from interlocutory appeals, and that this court has no jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals on election petitions. The Court of Appeal hears only appeals from final decisions. That no leave was sought before filing the said grounds and the said grounds were filed outside the statutory period of 14 days.

    GROUNDS 3 and 4 are grounds of appeal that the appellant consider to be wrongful rejection of evidence by the trial Tribunal.

    My Lords, the position of the Law is that where the complaint of the appellant is that the ruling is concerned with the wrongful admission of evidence or the wrongful rejection of evidence, an appellant seeking to appeal does not need the leave of Court before he can appeal. The ground of appeal against the ruling can be included when appealing against the final judgment of the trial Court. See ONWVE VS. OKE (2001) 2 NWLR (Part 700) p. 406.

    The complaint of the appellant in Grounds 3 and 4 of their amended grounds of appeal is that the trial Tribunal wrongly excluded the Certified True Copy of the Police Report in its Ruling on 15/5/08. In view of what I have been saying supra, Grounds 3 and 4 are competent Grounds of Appeal. The preliminary objection of the 1st-3rd and 1366th -1367th respondents on the said grounds is overruled accordingly,

    The complaint in ground 31 is that members of the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deliver judgment when it refused to disqualify itself in its Ruling delivered on 15/7/08,
    The issue of jurisdictions is so fundamental to proceeding in Court that where there is no jurisdiction, the entire proceedings is a nullity.

    Consequently, jurisdiction can be raised informally at any stage of the proceedings, although it is desirable that some process be filed so that the adverse party ‘is taken by surprise. Ground 31 is that process. No leave is required. The objection is misconstrued.

    On the other ground or Appeal, learned counsel for the 1st to 3rd respondents observed that the appeal is incompetent on the grounds that Particulars are unrelated to or at variance with the grounds.

    Particulars are argumentative, narrative, verbose, and/or unwieldy and the grounds are vague. Relying on Order 6 rules 2(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2007,

    ABDULLAHl VS. OBA (1995) NWLR (Part 554) .420.
    ADELEKE VS. ASANI (‘2002) S NWLR (Part 768) p.26.

    Counsel submitted that the grounds of appeal should be struck out; and said this was n not a ground of objection in the Preliminary Objection filed by learned counsel for the 1366th-1367th respondents.

    In response, counsel to the appellants observed that the grounds do not offend Order 6 rules 2(2) and 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2U07. Referring to: ADELEKE VS. ASANI (2002) 8 NWLR (Part 768) p. 26 cited by Mr. Yusuf, SA N. Mr. Kola Awodein, SAN observed that the case was not applicable as it is on grounds of appeal which are not clear enough to enable the other party and the Court appreciate the complaint of the appellant. He relied on ADEROUNMU VS. OLOWU (2000) 4 NWLR (Part 652) p. 253.

    Contending that the submissions of learned counsel for the 1st-3rd respondents are clearly misconceived.

    My Lords, Older 6 rule 2(3) or-the Court of Appeal Rules 2007 states that;-
    (3.) The notice of appeal shall set forth concisely and under distinct heads the ground upon which the appellant intends to rely at the hearing of the appeal without any argument or narrative and shall be numbered consecutively.

    3. A ground which is vague or general in terms or which discloses no reasonable ground of appeal shall not be permitted, save the general ground that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence, and ground of appeal or any part thereof which is not permitted under this Rule may be struck out by the Court of its
    own motion or on application by respondent.”

    Where there is non-compliance with the above stated provisions this Court has jurisdiction to strike out any or all of the grounds of appeal.

    This discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously. That is to say the discretion must be exercised with correct and convincing reason,

    ICC LTD. VS GRANVILLE & ORS LTD. (1996) 8 NWLR (Part 405) p. 187.

    My Lords, I have diligently examined the grounds of appeal and I am satisfied that they are not vague, argumentative, neither are the Particulars at variance with the grounds, rather the grounds relate to exactly the complaints of the appellant at the trial Tribunal. These grounds as with all grounds of appeal have given good notice and information to the respondents of the exact nature of the appellant’s grievances/complaints.

    Once the ground of appeal satisfies the purpose, it should not be struck out; and I will not strike it out.

    ADEROUNMU VS. OLO\VU (2002) 4 NWLR (Part 625) p. 253, a Supreme Court decision is clear on this point.

    Submission of learned counsel for the 1st-3rd respondents arc hereby overruled.
    Finally learned counsel for, the 1366th -1367th respondents raised a third ground of objection and it is that the appellant does not justify the granting of the Reliefs prayed for. On this I say it would be premature and impossible at this stage to address this ground of objection. The grant of a reliefs can only be properly considered after the appeal has been heard. The said ground is clearly incompetent. In sum, both preliminary objections lack merit.

    They are overruled.

    On the 11th of March, 2009, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Kola Awodein, SAN moved a Motion before us wherein he sought an order to consolidate his four Interlocutory appeals with the substantive appeal. The application was granted by this Court. Thereafter, learned counsel for the appellants adopted his brief.

    He urged us to admit the Police Security Report and Forms EC8D and nullify the votes in ten Local Government Areas, contending that it if this is done, the 1st appellant t would be the clear winner of the elections.

    Mr. Y, Alli, learned counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 31d respondents adopted his briefs and observed that the appellant was unable to prove any of his claims. On the documents that were marked Rejected, he submitted that they were useless and worthless; he said the appellant failed to tender and exhibit the election results.

    In conclusion, he submitted that there is nothing in this case for section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to declare the appellant winner.

    Reference was made to OBI VS INEC11 NWLR (Part 1046) p.505. He urged us to dismiss each of the grounds of appeals.

    Learned counsel for the 4th-1365th respondents and observed that INEC did not call any witness because the appellant failed woefully to prove his case. He adopted Mr. Y. Alli’s submission and further observed that the appeal should be dismissed.

    Learned counsel for the 1366th- 1367th respondents adopted his brief and urged us to dismiss the appeal.

    In his reply on points of Law, Mr. Kola Awodein, SAN referred us to the definition of polling agent in the Manual for election officials, 2007.

    My Lords, 1 have examined the issues formulated by the parties and I consider issue NO.3 in the appellants amended brief of argument and the issues in the Interlocutory appeals to be crucial and important, they being on rejection of evidence, procedure and the discretionary powers of a trial

    Judge. I shall now consider Issue No.3. It reads: –
    “Whether the Tribunal was right when it rejected in evidence a certified
    True copy of the Police Final Security Report on the Governorship election in
    Osun State dated 28/4/08 on the ground that the same was stamped “Secret” thereby
    causing a serious miscarriage of justice”.

    Before I examine the merit of this issue, I wish to consider the objection raised by learned counsel for the 1st- 3rd respondents on the issue. Learned counsel for the 1st – 3rd respondents observed that the grounds from which the issue is distilled is predicated on an interlocutory ruling. He contended that the grounds are incompetent. He adopted the legal arguments already reproduced in this judgment. Issue No.3 examines whether the trial Tribunal was right or wrong to reject the Police Final Security Report on the Governorship election in Osun State.

    On 15/5/2008, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Kola Awodein, SA N sought to tender from the Bar the Police Final Security Report and some other documents, this was in the course of trial.

    He was unsuccessful; because the Court overruled him.
    In a Ruling delivered on the same day, the Tribunal rejected the exhibit and marked the document Rejected. It is now the contention of learned counsel for the 1st-3rd respondents that the said Ruling is interlocutory, and there was failure to comply with the statutory requirements for the riling of such appeals and in any case, Appeals Tribunal deals only with appeals from final decisions.

    I have said earlier in this judgment that the rejection by the Tribunal of the Police Final Security Report is an issue on whether the said Report. was wrongly rejected, and in such cases, leave is not necessary before appeal on it can be taken. The appellant may include the ground of appea1 against the ruling of the trial Tribunal when appealing against the final judgment.

    In this case, that was what the appellant did. He has included the ground of appeal against the Ruling wherein the Report was rejected in the main appeal as grounds 3 and 4 and formulated Issue 3 thereform. Issue No. 3 is thus very much in order. 1 wish at this stage to state the position of Law on Interlocutory appeals in election petition cases.

    In election petition cases, there has been fluctuations in opinion on whether a dissatisfied party can appeal from a decision made in the course of an election petition trial or whether only a final decision on the merit is appeal able. See:

    OKON VS. BOB (2004) 7 NWLRL (Part 854) p. 378
    USANI VS. DUKE (2004) 7 N\VLR (Part 871) p. 116

    These are the decision of the Court of Appeal.
    In AWUSE VS ODILI (2003) 18 NWLR (Part 851) p.116
    The Supreme Court made pronouncements on the issue of appeal able decisions from decisions of the

    Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal to the Court of Appeal and in the process examined the provisions of Section 233(2) and 146(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution and laid to rest the matter once and for all that “decision” as bas been defined under Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution included interlocutory ruling in any proceeding. ‘Okon’s case and Usani ‘s case were decided on 31/712003 and I 5/1 112003 respectively before the decision in Awuse on 28/11/2003.

    In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in AWUSE VS. ODILI (supra) decision as defined under Section 318(1) of the 1999 Constitution makes no difference between an interlocutory decision and a final decision in an election petition. In the circumstances an objection to an appeal from an interlocutory decision is clearly misconceived, all that the appellant needs do is include the ground of appeal against the interlocutory
    decision in the substantive appeal. It is now time to consider Issue No. 3

    Learned counsel for the 1st – 3rd respondents observed that the Tribunal was right to reject the Police final Security Report when the learned counsel for appellants sought to tender it as an exhibit, and the Tribunal was also right to refuse to admit it as an exhibit after it was marked Rejected.

    Reliance was placed on; NIGIGE VS. OBI (2006) 14 NWLR (Part 999) p.1, that the trial
    Tribunal could not overrule itself since the decision to reject the document is unassailable. Learned counsel observed that the document is a security document that is highly classified, and that though it is certified, it is not a public document. Reliance was placed on;

    SHYLLON VS. UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN (2007) 1 NWLR (Part 1014) p. 1 and
    GOVERNOR OF EKITI STATE VS. OJO (2006) 17 NWLR (Part1007) p. 95

    He further observed that this Court can admit document as an exhibit only if it was made part of the Record of proceedings of the lower Court. Relying on – EZEWUZIN VS. OKOH (1993) 5 NWLR (Part 294 – 478).

    He submitted that the said document is not part of the Record or Proceedings of the lower Court and so could not be admitted on appeal by this Court.

    Concluding his submissions, learned counsel observed that the decision of the Tribunal would have been the same even if the said Report had been admitted. He contended that the

    Report would have been accorded
    no weight being documentary hearsay since the maker is unknown, nor testified before the Tribunal. He further observed that the information in the Report was substantially exaggerated and that the content of the report to a considerable extent is outside the pleading.

    Learned counsel for the 4th -1365th respondents and learned counsel 1366th -1367th respondents made no submission on the said Report in their respective briefs.
    In his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants observed that the Police Security Intelligence Report is a public documents. He referred to Section I09(a)(iii) of the Evidence Act.

    UTB NIG. LTD. VS. UKPABI (2000) 2 NWLR (Part 670) p. 570.

    He further observed that the said document being a certified true copy of a public document is admissible without calling a witness or laying any foundation. Reliance was placed on –

    ANATOGU VS. lWEKA (1995) 8 NWLR (Part 415) p. 547.

    Appellants’ counsel submitted that the Report is admissible in evidence, notwithstanding that it is marked “Secret” because it contains a report of the widespread cases of malpractices, thuggery, violence, ballot snatching and stuffing, obstruction and intimidation of voters, facts relevant to this petition/appeal.

    Concluding his submission, counsel submitted that if the Report had been admitted the decision would have gone in favour of the appellants. He urged us to answer Issue 3 in the negative. Relevant extracts from the proceedings in the trial tribunal on 15/5/2008 read as follows: –

    Awodein, SAN………I wish to consider from the Bar two documents;

    “1. Report of the Police Monitoring group from Abuja, It is a CTC of it.
    In urging the Tribunal to admit the report, I wish first to rely on the decision of this
    Tribunal in the case of Hon. Julius S. O. Akinremi Vs. Mr. Binuyo & 36 others-
    Petition No. HA/EPT/05/8/2007 delivered on 28/9/2007 when the Tribunal held that
    The Certified True Copy of a Public Document is admissible and could be tendered from
    the Bar. I urge the Tribunal, in the same vein to admit this document which is pleaded and
    which meets the requirements of the Law. I urge the Tribuna1 to hold itself bound by the
    decision in that Case………”

    In a considered ruling delivered on the same day (15/5/08), the Tribunal noted that the Report is marked “Secret” relied on the cases-

    SHYLLON VS. UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN (2007) 1 NWLR (Part 1014) p. 15 and
    GOVERNOR OF EKIT) STATE VS. OJO (2006) 17 NWLR (Part 1007) p. 95 and concluded as follows:-

    …………… the Tribunal holds that the report sought to be tendered is not a public document and cannot be tendered from the Bar even though certified. The document is therefore rejected and shall be so marked.

    My Lords, 1 must state straight away that a document marked Rejected can not be tendered again in that trial. Put in another way, once. a document is marked rejected it stays rejected for the purposes of the trial in which it was marked rejected and the defect cannot be cured during the said trial. See:-

    AGBAJE VS. ADIGUN & OTHERS (1993) 1 NWLR (Part 269) p. 271
    BELLO VS. GOV. OF KOGI STATE (1997) 9 NWLR (Part 521) p. 520 .

    This Court, by virtue of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act-1976 has the jurisdiction over the proceedings in the trial Tribunal. That is to say this Court can make any order or give judgment which the trial Tribunal ought to have made or given. See:-

    3 NWLR (Part 491) PT. 589, p. 267
    NTEOGWUIJA VS. IKURU (1998) 10 NWLR (Part 589) p. 267

    It is now our duty to examine whether the trial Tribunal was right to mark the Report Rejected. I quote here examples of the documents. The Report is titled:-
    “Final Security Report on April, 14th 2007, Gubernatorial/House of Assembly Elections in Osun State.”

    It emanates from B Department Operations of the Inspector General of Police Office in Abuja. Its Reference No. is CL: 2341/B Dept/FhQQ/Vol.29/113 dated 28/4/07. It is marked Secret and it is a Certified True Copy. It is signed by C.S.P Ahmed Muhammed (Team Leader).

    Section 1099(a) (iii) of the Evidence Act Stated that:-
    109 The following documents are public documents-
    (a) documents forming the acts or records of the acts –

    (iii) of public officers, Legislative, judicial and executive, whether
    in Nigeria or elsewhere and by virtue of the provisions of’ Section 111 of the evidence Act, a certified true copy public document becomes admissible under Section 112 of the evidence Act as proof of the contents of the original.
    A document is a public document if:-

    (a) It was made under a strict duty to inquire into all the circumstances
    (b.) It was concerned with a public matter although the public matter need not be the concern of the entire community.
    (c) It is meant for public inspection.
    A public document is thus a document that is made for the purpose of the public or at least a section of the public making use of it.

    The Final Security Report on the Governorship election in Osun State was made by a Police Officer under a strict duty by the Inspector General of Police to inquire into the conduct of the elections. The said document marked Rejected is a Public document. The position of the Law is that once a public document is signed and certified as required by Section 110, 112 of the Evidence Act, it becomes admissible on production, and it is not necessary to call a witness to prove custody or to verify the document. See:-

    ANATOGU VS. IWEKA (1995) 8 NWLR (Part 415) p. 547.
    AGAGU VS. DAWODU (1990) 7 NWLR (Part 160) p. 56.
    ANYAKORA VS. OBISKOT (1990) 2 NWLR (Part 130) p. 52.

    Such a document can be tendered from the Bar by the counsel who produced it.
    See OGBUINYINYA VS OBI OKUDU (9179) 6-9 sc p.24.

    This is so because the Court presumes such a document to be genuine. See section 114(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act.

    Once a document is certified, the court ought to accept the authenticity of its contents. The final Security Report is a Certified True Copy of the original. A document marked Secret usually concerns affairs of State. State privilege. “Section 219(1) provides that the Minister, or in respect of matters to which the executive authority of a State extends, the governor of a state or any person nominated by him, may in any proceedings object to the production of documents or request the exclusion of oral evidence, when after consideration, he is satisfied that the production of such document or the giving of such oral evidence is against public interest; any such objection taken before the trial shall be by affidavit and if at trial then by a certificate produced by a public officer.

    Subsection (2) goes on to say that an objection so taken, whether by affidavit or certificate is conclusive and the Court shall not inspect such document. The court shall give effect to the affidavit or certificate……”

    This provision. apparently makes the decision of a functionary named there as to the exclusion of evidence on grounds of state privilege or that the document is marked SECRET, final and the Courts cannot inquire.

    This is not tenable in view of the provisions of Section 36(1) of the Constitution which states that in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a Court or Tribunal. A trial cannot be fair when document necessary for determination of her civil right is excluded for her trial.

    For a trial to be fair as envisaged by the Constitution, it is important that before a party is denied the use of a document vital to his case, the public interest involved in its exclusion should be dispassionately weighed against the injury thereby caused to the litigant as to determine which way the balance tilts.

    In CONWAY VS. RIMMER (1968) 2 WLR P.998, the House of Lords held that the Courts have powers to order production of a State document and to overrule the ministers’ decision to withhold it on ground of privilege if such a course is dominantly necessary to ensure the proper administration of justice.

    My’ Lords, in this case, no functionary of State ordered the Report withheld. The said Report is necessary to ensure the proper administration or justice. This is so because the Report is on the state of affairs on Election day in Osun State in some of its Local Governments, and the observations therein if proved, supports the appellant’s pleadings, The two cases, to wit: –

    GOVERNOR OF EKITI STATE VS. OJO (supra) relied on by the Tribunal are not helpful since the Report here concerned a community/public while the documents in the cases above concerned the affected lectures. In EZEQUZIM VS. OKOH (supra) is also irrelevant since the Report is part of the Record of Proceedings. See page V111 of Volume 1 of the Record of Proceedings.

    I am satisfied and hold that rejecting the Report was wrong. I say so because according to the pleadings of the appellants, they are contesting the Results in twelve of the thirty Local Government Areas, having conceded that the elections were properly conducted in eighteen Local Government Areas.

    The Report, being the observations of the Police on the conduct of the elections in most of these twelve Local Government Areas is a relevant document. The issue in the petition/appeal is the conduct of the elections in the twelve Local Government Areas. They are: –
    1. Atakumosa West Local Government Area.
    2. Aiyedaade Local Government Area.
    3. Boluwaduro Local Government Area.
    4. Boripe Local Government Area.
    5. Ede Local Government Area.
    6. Ife Central Local Government Area.
    7. lfe East Local Government Area.
    8. Ife South Local Government Area.
    9. Ifedayo Local Government Area.
    10 Isokan Local Government Area.
    11. Odo Otin Local Government Area.
    12. Ola Oluwa Local Government Area.

    On 22nd day of May, 2007, on an application by the appellants (as petitioners, the Tribunal granted an order directing INEC and the Resident Electoral Commissioner T (the 4th and 5th respondents) to make available for

    inspection by the Petitioner’s counsel all polling documents ballot papers and other electoral materials in their custody which were used for the conduct of the Gubernatorial election in Osun State. This was done according to the Tribunal for the purpose of enabling the applicants to maintain their petition against the respondents. See Vol. VII page 307 of the

    Record of Appeal.
    On the 10th of August, 2007, the appellants (as petitioners) brought another application wherein they sought two reliefs. Its reads: –

    1. Leave and order of this Honourable Tribunal permitting the Petitioner forensic experts to inspect by way of machine/electronic scanning, all ballot papers which were used for the conduct of the Governorship election in Osun State on 14/4/2007 in the following Local Government Areas: –
    (a) Atakumosa West Local Government Area.
    (b) Aiyedaade Local Government Area.
    (c) Boluwaduro Local Government Area.
    (d) Boripe Local Government Area.
    ( e) Ede Local Government Area.
    (f) Ife Central Local Government Area.
    (g) Ife East Local Government Area.
    (h) Ife South Local Government Area. .
    (i) Ifedayo Local Government Area.
    (j) Isokan Local Government Area.
    (k) Odo Otin Local Government Area.
    (1) Ola Oluwa Local Government Area.

    2. Leave and order of this Tribunal permitting handwriting and forensic experts to conduct an inspection of FORMS EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, EC8D, EC8E and all forms and material used for the conduct of the Governorship election in Osun State on 14/4/2007 in the aforesaid Local Governments.

    The application was granted on 14/8/2U07.
    And so there was compliance with these orders. On completion of the exercise the Petitioners (appellants) brought an application praying for:-

    1. An order granting leave of the Petitioners/Applicants to bring and move the application outside pre-hearing session of the Tribunal.

    2. All Order granting the Petitioners an extension of time within which to seek Leave to file, serve and rely upon in the prosecution of this petition additional documents and witness statement on oath of Adrian Forty who has been listed as a witness for the Petitioners as at the time of presentation of the petition.

    3. An order granting the Petitioner an extension of time within which to file and serve written statement on oath of Adrian Forty who has been listed as a witness for the Petitioner as at the time of filing the petition.

    4. An order deeming as having properly filed and served the witness statement on oath of Adrian Forty and the accompanying documents referred to in the affidavit in support of this application and separately filed along herewith the necessary fee having been paid.

    In a Ruling delivered on 18/2/2008, the Tribunal dismissed the application. On 16th of April, 2008, the petitioner brought another application, this time praying for the following orders:-

    1. An order granting leave to the Petitioner/Applicants/Appellants to bring and move this application outside Pre-Hearing Session of the Tribunal.

    2. An order for extension of time to include Tunde Yadega as one of the witnesses of the Petitioner/ Applicants/Appellants.

    3. Leave and order of this Honourable Tribunal permitting the Petitioners/ Applicants/Appellants to call Tunde Yadega as an additional witness.

    4. An order granting the Petitioners/Applicant/Appellants an extension of time within which to file, serve and rely upon written deposition of Tunde Yadega together with Exhibits attached thereto.

    5. An order deeming as having been properly filed and served the witness statement on oath of Tunde Yadega together with Exhibits attached thereto and referred to in the affidavit in support or this application and separately filed along herewith the necessary filing fees having been paid.

    6. And for such other or further orders as this Tribunal may deem fit in the circumstances of this application.

    The application was moved and the Tribunal in a Ruling delivered on the 28th of April, 2008, dismissed the application in its entirety.

    Two interlocutory appeals were then filed by the Petitioners/Appellants. They are Notice of Appeal filed on 9/5/2008 and 3/3/2008. Briefs in respect of both appeals were filed by the appellants 011 1/9/2008 and 27/3/2008.

    Briefs were filed by learned counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents on 4/4/2008 and 15/9/2008 while learned counsel for the 4th – 1365th respondents filed briefs on 27/5/2008 and 8/10/2008.

    Learned counsel for the 1366th -1367th respondents did not file any Brief on these two interlocutory appeals. Both appeals shall be taken together

    I have diligently examined all the briefs filed on the two interlocutory appeals and I am satisfied that the central issue for determination is: ­

    Whether the Tribunal correctly exercised its discretion by dismissing both applications?
    Indeed this Court has power to adopt or formulate issues that would determine the real grievance in an appeal. See

    IKEGWUOHA VS. OHA WUCHI (1996) 3 NWLR (Part 434) p. 146.
    ADUKU VS. ADEGOH (1994) 5 NWLR (Pad 346) p. 582.

    Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the refusal of the Tribunal to grant the application was perverse. He submitted that the tribunal did not exercise its discretion judicially and judiciously contending that this is a proper case for this Court to interfere, Counsel relied on: –

    ATOLAGBE VS. SHORUN (1985) 2 NWLR (Part 360) /375.
    UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS VS. AlGORO (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.1) p.143.

    Learned counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents submitted that the Tribunal exercised its discretion judicially and judiciously in refusing the application of the appellants. He observed that the case of University of Lagos Vs. Aigoro (supra) does not enure in favour of the appellants since the Tribunal took all relevant materials into consideration before dismissing the application.

    Concluding his submission, he contends that no injustice has been occasioned by the appellants who have failed to present their case properly. Reliance was placed on FOLARIN VS. ABRAHAM (2005) 10 NWLR (Part 881) p.434 and M.M.S. LTD. VS. OTAJU (2005) 14 NWLR (Part 954) p. 517.

    Learned counsel for the 4th-1365th respondents observed that the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion, it is not the province of this Court to interfere. He submitted that the Tribunal exercised its discretion properly by dismissing both applications. In the Interlocutory appeals, CA/I/EPT/GOV./98/2008, the reason given for dismissing the application is that Section 159 of the Electoral Act does not contemplate the bringing of inspection report/evidence of inspection of polling documents to be admitted in evidence. It further held that it did not make an order that the inspection report be brought to the Tribunal.

    In Interlocutory appeal CA/I/EPT/GOV./31/ 2008 the Tribunal dismissed the application because it was of the view that no extreme circumstance existed to warrant the grant of the leave sought.

    In the first interlocutory appeal-supra, the application was brought under section 159(1) of the Electoral Act, 2006. It reads: –

    An order for an inspection or polling document or an inspection of a document or any other packet in the custody of the Chief National electoral Commissioner or any other officer of the Commission may be made by the Election tribunal or the Court if it is satisfied that the order required is for the purpose of instituting or maintaining an election petition.

    The above provision enables a petitioner to inspect documents in the custody of INEC for the purpose 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. Dismissing the application shuts out the result of the scanning and inspections which the same Tribunal earlier ordered. This is wrong.

    This Court will not interfere with the way a trial judge exercises his discretionary power but will be quick to interfere if the Court is satisfied that the discretion was wrongly exercised or the exercise was tainted with some illegality or substantive irregularity or that it is the interest of justice to do so. See:

    CAEKAY TRADERS LTD VS. GEN. MOTORS LTD. (1992) 2 NWLR (Part 122) p. 132.
    ANYAH VS. A.N.N. LTD. (1992) 12 NWLR (Part 583) p. 632.
    AKUJINWA VS. NWAONUMA (1998) 13 NWLR (Part 583) p. 632.

    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 petitioners/appellants sought to bring to the Tribunal were refused by the dismissal of applications, which ought to have been allowed in to enable the petitioners/appellants support the petition.

    I have observed that in election petition cases, oral evidence and/or the demeanour of witnesses are not as important and decisive in settling the issues as documentary evidence tendered. Documents used in an election and all documents containing facts relevant to the issues in a petition are the best form of evidence for resolving election matters . On no account should a party be denied the opportunity to place before the Court all the documents that would assist him in proving his case; a defence of name.

    In NWOBODO VS. ONOH (1984) 2 SC NLR P.1, the Supreme Court obse rved that: -“Election petitions are by their nature peculiar from any other proceedings……. it is the duty of the Court therefore to endeavour to hear them without allowing technicalities to unduly batter their jurisdiction.”

    In my view, the need to do substantial justice is greater in an election petition case than in cases between any other case. This is so because the Court is not only concerned with the rights of the parties inter se but also the larger interests and the rights of the people in the various Local Government Areas who had exercised their franchise on election day. Election petitions must always be handled with elasticity. See CHIA VS. UMA (1998) 7 NWLR (Part 556) P. 98.

    Too much technicality should be avoided; but not at the expense of our general Law.
    Rejection of FORMS EC8D, EC8E.

    In the proceedings on 18/4/2008, learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants had this to say to the Tribunal:

    “The next set of items we would like to tender is item 1 which is Forms EC8A, EC8B, EC8C, EC8D and EC8E. These have been jointly inspected and agreed to be tendered by consent.”
    Well over 100 documents were tendered. Petitioners/Appellants’

    counsel forgot to tender Forms EC8D and EC8E. He claims inadvertence. Of what harm is a document that all parties agree could be admitted as exhibit? The Tribunal was clearly in the wrong to refuse to admit in evidence as exhibits Forms EC8D and EC8E.

    In MOHAMMED VS. KANO N. A. (1968) 1 ALL NLR (P. 424), Ademola CJN stated the test for fair hearing. He said:

    “It has been suggested that a fair hearing does not mean a fair trial.
    We think a fair hearing must involve a fair trial and a fair trial of a case consists of the whole hearing.

    We therefore see no difference between the two. The true test of fair hearing it was suggested by counsel is the impression of a reasonable person who was present at the trial whether, from his observation, justice has been done in the case. We here feel obliged to agree with this. See also ANPP VS. INEC (2004) 7 NWLR (Part 871) p.16.

    In my view, the impression of a reasonable man would be one of surprise as to why vital documents to maintain the petition were not allowed as exhibits in the proceeding. Miscarriage of justice is a failure of justice and it varies from case to case depending on where it fails. Once what occurs in trial is not justice according to Law, a miscarriage of justice has occurred. See:-

    H. OKONKWO VS. G. UDOH (1977) 9 NWLR (PART 519) P. 16.
    ANPP VS. INEC & ORS (2004) 7 NWLR (PART 871) P. 16.
    NNAJIOFOR VS. UKONU (1986) 4 NWLR (PART 36) P. 505.

    The rejection of documentary evidence to wit: Police Security Report, Forms EC8D, EC8E and the Rulings of the Tribunal on 18/2/2008 and 28/4/2008 wherein the petitioner/appellant was denied the use of vital documents to support the petitioner’s case amounts to a miscarriage of justice.

    By virtue of the provisions of Order 4 Rule 9 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2007, this Court has the power to order a new trial. In OKOMAH VS. AKINBODE (2006) 9 NWLR (Part 985) P. 338, the Supreme Court stated the instance when an Appeal Court will not make an order of retrial:

    1. Where a retrial will result in injustice or a miscarriage of justice

    2. Where it is sought as a matter of course, routine or fun and not based on valid procedural reasons.

    3. If there is no special circumstances warranting retrial.” These are some but not all the instances when the appellate Court will not order a retrial, but will order retrial when a judge misdirects himself as to the nature of a party’s case or upon wrongful admission or rejection of material evidence, or/and to refuse a retrial would occasion a greater injustice than the grant of it.

    I am satisfied that substantial justice would be achieved by a retrial where all the parties are given the opportunity to present before the Court documentary evidence to maintain/or support his petition.

    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 hearing this petition afresh.

    Appeal succeeds.



    Charles Edosomwan, SAN, Deji Sasegbon, SAN,
    Adewale Afolabi Esq., Adetunji Ajagbe, Esq.,
    Jide Omoworare Esq., Kunle Adegoke Esq.,
    Gbenga Akano Esq., Ajibola Basir Esq.,
    Olusegun Olatoye Esq., M.B.O. Ibrahim Esq.,
    Olayinka Okedara Esq., Yinka Ajayi Esq.,
    Nath Agunbiade Esq., Adewumi Oke Esq.,
    T. A. Abdul-Wahab Esq., Kayode Tinubu Esq.,
    Tayo Olatubosun Esq., Kolapo Alimi Esq.,
    Daud Akinloye Esq., Tope Adebayo Esq.,
    Osumah Charles Esq., Dapo Akinosun Esq.,
    Olufemi A. Ifaturoti Esq., Ayo Olugbenro (Mrs), .
    Kunle Abass Esq., Lanre Obadina Esq., W.A. Salman Esq. for the Appellants;

    Yusuf Ali, SAN, Otunba Kunle Kalejaiye, SAN,
    N.O.O. Oke, SAN, J.A. Ogundere Esq.,
    Esq., ChiefYomi Alliyu, Wole Olukanmi Esq.,
    Tewo Lamuye Esq., Tope Elusogbon Esq.,
    Kunle Akinyemi Esq., Adebisi Raimi Esq.,
    Luwole Adeosun Esq., K. K. Eleja Esq.,
    A. Olaoba-Efuntayo Esq., Prince Odogiyan A.,
    Olaitan Olabode Esq., Sola Ajayi Esq.,
    Kehinde Adesiyan Esq., Oluwole Kupoluyi Esq.,
    Jola Akintola Esq., Kanmi Ajibola Esq.,
    Kose Adewolce Esq., Ademola Adeyemo Esq.,
    Wahab Ismail Esq., Yemi Giwa Esq., E. Ekpo Esq.,
    Adetunji J. Muraina Esq., Bola Ogungbe Esq.,
    1. O. Babakekere Esq., Thelma Otaigbe Esq.,
    O. A. Oyeleke Esq., N. N. Adegboyega Esq.,
    Yakub Dauda Esq., Tolulope Omidiji Esq. for the 1st, 2nd & 3rd Respondents;

    J. K. Gadzama, SAN with R. O. Yusuf for the 4th _1365th Respondents.

    Hon. Niyi Owolade (Att-General of Osun State),
    Alh. K.M. Akano (Solicitor Gen. of Osun State),
    A. A. Adewemimo Esq. ( Director of Public Prosecutions),
    A.O. Adeniji Esq. (Director of civil litigation),
    Jide Obisakin Esq. (Chief’ State Counsel),
    Funmi Lamuye Esq. (S. A. Legal Matters),
    Tijani Adekilekun Esq. (Principal State Counsel),
    Leke Fadeju Esq, (Senior State Counsel),
    J.A. Abiboye Esq. (Senior State Counsel) for the 1366th & 1367th Respondents.

    CA/I/EPT/GOV./98 /08

    I agree

    CA/I/EPT /GOV./98 /08

    I agree


    I agree

    CA/I/EPT /GOV./98/08

    I agree

Appeal Court’s Judgment Fall-out: PDP Chair In Autocrash

pdp-logoTHE chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Ife North Local Government, Mr. Lekan Omisakin and four others are currently lying critically ill at the Obafemi Awolowo Teaching hospital Complex (OAUTHC) Ile-Ife following a ghastly motor accident along the ever-busy Ife-Ibadan Expressway, while savouring the judgment of the Court of Appeal over Osun gubernatorial election.

OSUN DEFENDER’s investigation revealed that immediately the court made its pronouncement over the matter, Lekan Omisakin in company of some PDP members, were racing back to Ipetumodu with a view to celebrating the judgment, in the personal car of the party chairman, when the accident occurred.

It was also gathered that the accident victims could not receive prompt attention from other motorists and passers-by along the expressway, as they were mistaken for armed-robbers, as the arms and ammunitions earlier stocked in the car, reportedly littered the accident scene.

It was also gathered that the victims remained unattended-to for more than one hour, before other members of the party arrived the scene and took them to Obafemi Awolowo Teaching hospital complex, Ile-Ife for treatment.

The medium also gathered that the party chairman had multiple fractures on his head and leg, which resulted into his spending a whole week at the Intensive Care Unit of the hospital, while the others were admitted into the male surgical ward at the Phase II of the teaching hospital.

In a similar development, sequel to the judgment by the Court of Appeal over the 2007 gubernatorial election in the state, the members of the PDP in Ile-Ife had started mudslinging themselves, while the cracks within the party in Ife East Local Government Council area continued unabated as the leaders of the party accused the Council Chairman, Mr. Gbenga Owolabi of non-performance.

The medim gathered in Ile-Ife that the leader of the party in the area, who also heads the State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB), Dr. Wale Ladipo has expressed his regret over his support for the candidature of the current council boss, since he could not deliver the much-needed dividends of democracy to the people of the council area, like his counterpart in Ife Central Local Government Council, who embarked on feasible projects in the area.

While lamenting Owolabi’s performances, the SUBEB Chairman stated that he (Owolabi) had put the party in the bad records of the people in the council area.

So also, a leader of the party in Ife South Local Government Council Area, Pa Saka has carpeted the administration of Honourable Yinusa Adebisi, the chairman of the council, as the worst in the history of democratic governance in the area.

Supporting the claims of the party chieftain, Pa Adefiwitan Emmanuel, a community leader in the council area, while speaking with the medium in Labata, said that currently there is no government in Ife South Local Government Council area, since government’s presence could not be felt ten miles away from the council seat at Ifetedo.

The community leader, who took the medium to the village stream, which serves as the only source of drinking water for the village of over two thousand people, said nothing has changed since the assumption of the current administration in the council area.

He then lamented that the village ought to have by now have electricity, if not for the sudden termination of Akande’s administration, which resulted into the project’s abandonment.


Ekiti-Rerun: Recruitment Of Fake Army Reaches Advanced Stage

•Training Site Located In Osun

SEQUEL to the allegation levelled against the embattled Osun State Governor, Olagunsoye Oyinlola on his ploy to kit some political thugs with military uniforms, with a view to scaring away electorate, that will vote in the forthcoming re-run governorship election in Ekiti State, so that the embattled Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP) riggers could have a field day, fresh facts have emerged on how the thugs would be recruited and mobilized for the hatchet job.

OSUN DEFENDER gathered that some political hoodlums, used in Osun state during the 14 April 2007 flawed governorship election in Ile-Ife, Osun State by a senator on the platform of the PDP, have been recruited by a former military officer, said to be working for the Osun state helmsman for the Operation capture Ekiti.

Findings revealed that each thug was recently mobilized to the tune of N40,000, and are currently undergoing a military training somewhere in Ife-Ijesa axis, by the hired former military man. According to a source, who is privy to the clandestine arrangement of the PDP on the use of fake soldiers in Ekiti State rerun election, the thugs would be moved to the tension- soaked Fountain of Knowledge State to chase away and harass supporters of AC out of the designated polling booths, before the PDP hoodlums would stuff ballot boxes in the exercise.

It would be recalled that the Court of Appeal that sat over the appeal filed by the Action Congress (AC) governorship candidate, Dr. Kayode Fayemi had last month sacked the impostor Governor Segun Oni, who had presided over the affairs of the state for 20 months, and ordered a rerun election in 64 wards of the 177 wards in the state.

Meanwhile, information has it that the state AC standard bearer is still leading the table by 16,000 lawful votes, a situation that has sent jitters down the spines of the PDP leadership both at the national and the state levels, a scenario that compelled the party to drag the presidency into the matter.

Besides, the AC and its candidate have disclosed that the recorded conversations of the controversial Osun state Governor has been secured, saying that they were only waiting for Oyinlola’s denial before making it public.

However, Governor Oyinlola has denied meeting the 16 Local Government Council Chairmen, saying that he did not commit himself to anybody on the supply of fake army uniforms to thugs that would be used for the rerun election in Ekiti state, arguing that his comment at a rally in Igede-Ekiti touched on the character of AC leadership, and that the party was trying to get back at him; asking the party (AC) to prove the allegations against him.

In a related development, a socio-political group, Ekiti Democratic Coalition Alliance, (EDCA) has declared Oyinlola and his Oyo State counterpart persona non grata, asking the two governors to steer clear from Ekiti politics until the forthcoming rerun election is over.

Police, Motorcyclist Die In A Clash

ILE-Ife, the cradle of Yoruba in Osun State, last Sunday witnessed another awful incident when a policeman, whose identity was yet to be confirmed, was allegedly killed by a group of commercial motorcyclists, popularly called Okada riders, who unleashed terror on Moore Police Station in protest against the death of one of their colleagues, who was allegedly shot dead by the police in s scuttle.

The aggrieved motorcyclists also allegedly burnt down the police station, State Security Service office, the office of the Divisional Crime Officer and some stores owned by some wives of policemen along the roads in the ancient town.

According to an impeccable source among the Okada riders, the crisis reportedly broke-out as a result of a raid carried out by a police special squad on some beer palours in the area.

As a result of the alleged act of the police, the Okada riders, who were at one of the joints, confronted the police, a situation that reportedly led to a scuffle between the police and the motorcyclists.

In an attempt to avoid breakdown of law and order, the police reportedly shot sporadically into the air to disperse the crowd of people at the affected area.

However, a motorcyclist was allegedly hit by a stray bullet from one of the policemen’s riffles and died instantly, a situation that turned the scuffle into violent confrontation between the police and the motorcyclists.

The awful incident provoked the Okada riders, who re-enforced and went on rampage, and allegedly stormed the Moore police station and wreaked havoc on it.

While preventing the aggrieved Okada riders at the station, a policeman was reportedly injured and tied in pains.

But the Police Public Relations Officer, Mr. Clement Akinola, who confirmed the incident, said the Okada rider that was allegedly killed was a robbery suspect.

According to Akinola, the deceased wanted to escape on his motorcycle, when the armed policemen stormed the suspected robbers hide-out in Ile-Ife.

Akinola revealed that the policemen did not shoot to kill the armed robbery suspect, but to prevent him from fleeing, a development that went awry.

He added that the policemen rushed the suspect to a hospital, but did not survive the gunshot.
However, anti-riot policemen have been detached to the affected areas in order to forestall further breakdown of law and order.

The ugly incident has reportedly thrown the city into panic, as some residents in areas had fled to avoid been arrested by the police.

Promising that the police would conduct an intense investigation into the matter, the PPRO maintained that the police had ensured that lives and properties in the city were properly secured.


Ekiti Rerun Election: Oyinlola Again?

Omo Osun With Kola Olabisi

IF the statement credited to the embattled Osun State Governor Olagunsoye Oyinlola in Ekiti State that he would assist in rigging the rerun election slated for 25 April, 2009 in the Fountain of Knowledge were to be true, it means, to a large extent, that the opposition in Osun State which Engr Rauf Adesoji Aregbesola is its arrowhead, has been vindicated.

I make bold to say that as somebody who has been watching the retired one-star Army General at the apex of authority in the state of The Living Spring, I do not have cause to doubt the fact that Oyinlola actually made the statement. It was even good that the embattled tyrant governor who still has his controversial April 14, 2007 to defend has finally decided to wash his dirty linen outside the state.

If Oyinlola is found out to be the author of the anti-democratic statement, it should not be treated with levity by leaders of thought, lovers of peace and human rights activists not only in the South-West but across the nation. There is nothing the opposition in Osun State has not done to register the kind of human being Oyinlola has been with power. Oyinlola is ruthless with power. He’s a despot whose stock in trade is deceit which he has in abundance.

Character is like a flame which cannot be hidden. Before now, the embattled Okuku prince who is fond of flaunting his profession as a retired Army General made himself a peace-maker. He first reconciled the author of third-term, the Ota chicken farmer, ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo and his estranged former Vice, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.

He later moved to the cradle of the Yoruba where in a bizarre manner, he claimed to have reconciled the people of Modakeke with those of Ife who had been fighting social war for ages. The discerning minds who know the antics and antecedents of the retired Army General were just mocking him when he left his suffering primary assignment to engage in frivolous and superfluous activities, bearing in mind that Oyinlola does not do anything for nothing.

He had hoped to be the beneficiary of the Modakeke-Ife new-found love because he had thought that the Court of Appeal in Ibadan, Oyo State that ordered retrial of Aregbesola’s petition against the embattled governor would recommend election rerun. Knowing that the people of Modakeke voted massively for his rival in the April 14, 2007 governorship election, Oyinlola thought he could bribe them with cessation of hostility with the Ife which will attract creation of a full-fledged local government council and return of a beaded crown for the traditional ruler of Modakeke.

Oyinlola facilitated the short-lived reconciliation between Obasanjo and Atiku because he knows Atiku is still relevant in the political calculation of this nation after 2011. And it is the calculation of Oyinlola that he (Oyinlola) could become Senate President in the next dispensation. It is now pungently clear that the peace said to have been brokered by Oyinlola is short-lived.

This was because the underpinning intention was not genuine and the author has no business with peace. Unfolding events in Osun State since Aregbesola indicated his intention to contest the governorship seat of the state are pointers to the fact that Oyinlola is a first grade sadist.

It is on record that Oyinlola who has not been playing his political game according to the rule has, with his agents, tried all possible means, to stop Aregbesola through extra-judicial means but without luck. He had tried it in Iree, Osogbo, Ilesha, Ile-Ife, Ikirun, mention it, all to no avail. It however defies logic that the more trap Oyinlola is setting for Aregbesola and his supporters, the stronger and more popular Aregbesola becomes.

Aregbesola’s shadow is a source of discomfort for Oyinlola anywhere, anytime and any day. As it is a common feature for a petty thief to dread the sight of anybody he steals from, so it is for Oyinlola as he detests hearing Aregbe’s name or sighting his imposing photograph hung at the latter’s campaign office very close to Osun River in Osogbo.

To this extent, it is not uncommon to see Oyinlola covering his face and pretending to be reading a newspaper each time his convoy was passing through his arch-rival’s campaign office. A miss is as good as a mile. Because Oyinlola stole Aregbesola’s governorship mandate which he will soon be dispossessed of by a tribunal, he is afraid of looking at the rightful owner in the face.

Oyinlola is destined for destruction and that was why he allegedly misbehaved in Ekiti State. The whole scenario shows that Oyinlola has never won any election in his life. The then Alliance for Democracy (AD) governor, Chief Bisi Akande whom Oyinlola rigged out of office quit the scene without much ado in order to give peace a chance. Oyinlola has become a terror that could be likened to what the nation was under the maximum ruler, the late General Sani Abacha who happened to be one of Lagun’s godfathers.

Were Oyinlola to be the nation’s President, his anti-democratic credentials would have attracted civil disobedience across the nation. Be that as it may, if Oyinlola is directly or remotedly linked with the Ekiti affair where he was alleged to have promised to provide guns and fake Army uniforms to chieftains of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the sixteen local government council chairmen who are of the PDP extraction, the allegations should not be handled with levity.

The allegations are akin to the information gaining ground in Osun State that the Okuku prince whose home front is not at peace intends to use hardened political thugs to be hired from both Ile-Ife and Modakeke to facilitate rigging of the Ekiti State rerun election. Though, he has denied any knowledge of such anti-social and criminal act of helping his fallen colleague in Ekiti, but I find it difficult to take in Oyinlola’s denial. Anybody who believes Oyinlola in that regard can believe anything as he’s known not to do what he preaches.

Instead of Oyinlola to start ruminating over his recent loss at the Court of Appeal, Ibadan, Oyo State, he continued to open up another fight he can not finish, apportioning blames where they do not belong, forgetting that he is the architect of his own misfortune. The apostle of third term agenda of Obasanjo who flung a golden opportunity of showcasing his administrative capability when he was military administrator of Lagos State is now being bugged with paranoia.

He does not fail to descend on former Lagos State governor, Asiwaju Ahmed Bola Tinubu, who showcased his mettle by giving Lagosians quality leadership. Were Oyinlola’s wife were to be of child bearing age, any slightest delay caused in her pregnancy would have been blamed on the dogmatic and emerging leader of the Yoruba, which is part of the sins of Tinubu before Oyinlola.

Oyinlola has forgotten that the leadership of the Yoruba is not subjected to any election. By his selfless deeds in the geo-political zone, the Yoruba leader shall be identified and duly crowned. It is apparent that Oyinlola is envious of Tinubu’s socio-political attainment in the South-West and the next thing is to bring him down. It is a pity that Oyinlola is fond of flaunting the royal blood in his veins, deriding those who are not offspring of traditional rulers.

To me, this is petty as during my sojourn in this world, I had seen children of traditional rulers who are hewers of fire wood and drawers of water for commercial purposes. What a hell is Lagun saying in this regard. He should leave Tinubu alone. It is not coming to this world or how long you stay there or who your parents are that matter, but your input to make this world better than the way you met it. Royal blood my foot; that is in the context Lagun flaunts his. That does not mean that there are no decent princes and exemplary royal fathers who are embodiment of positive qualities.

It is not only Tinubu that Oyinlola should leave alone; he should also leave Aregbesola alone. I still find it difficult to know why the embattled Okuku prince is still at war with providence by desperately wanting to exterminate Aregbesola whose only sin is that he has the audacity to constitutionally compete with him in the 2007 governorship election.

The AC governorship candidate who Oyinlola did not know he meant business was later found out to be more popular than the incumbent governor to the extent that he (Aregbesola) floored the governor at the polls. Before, during and after the election to date, it has been the wish of Oyinlola and his co-travellers that Aregbesola and his sympathizers should quit this planet; a prayer that has not been heard and will never be heard by God Almighty who will not be on the side of vote-robbers.

After the Court of Appeal Court judgement that set aside the judgment of Justice Thomas Damar Naron-led Election Petitions Tribunal that sat in Osogbo, Oyinlola and his cohorts have renewed their onslaught against the opposition. On that day, chieftains of the Osun PDP led a band of thugs, escorted by armed policemen, going round the streets of Osogbo, intimidating, assaulting and oppressing innocent citizens. In the melee, some commercial motorcycle riders were injured by these PDP thugs.

IT is ironical that the state Commissioner of Police, Mr John Moronike, who provided security for the PDP thugs and looked elsewhere on the day in question but decided to lead a contingent of police to arrest members of Osun State Civil Societies Coalition Against Corruption and Rights Violation (OSCARV), an association of twelve civil rights activists and Coalition Against Corrupt Leaders (CACOL) who were acting on the unchallenged allegation of corruption leveled against the infamous Justice Naron Tribunal through a peaceful public protest to express disgust and awkwardness of the alleged illicit romance between Oyinlola’s counsel and the Naron Tribunal.

It is on record that after the protesting team had handed their letter to the High Court Registrar, Osogbo, for onward transfer to the National Judicial Council (NJC), the state commissioner of police arrested them within the court premises. The 24 human rights activists were made to spend four days in the police detention and 11 days in Ilesha Prisons during their first leg of detention. Magistrate Olalekan Ijiyode, surprisingly, revoked their bail granted six months earlier on Monday, March 23, 2009 without any explanation; and they were detained for another sixteen days before they regained their freedom on April 7, 2009.

If the allegation of the National Coordinator of CACOL, Comrade Debo Adeniran that their ordeal was borne out of vengeance and vendetta by the CP against the human rights activists because of a petition allegedly written against the CP and one Asistant Commissioner of Police Adekunle Ayuba that earned them a query from the Inspector-General of Police, it then should not be swept under the carpet.

The human rights activists will be helping in injecting sanity into the police by not only suing them but cause another round of petitions to be written to the IGP, detailing the excesses of the leadership of Osun Police Command. If the allegation is true, it constitutes a dangerous dimension to the nation’s quasi-democracy which requires thorough investigation with attendant and justifiable punishment.

The accusation of Oyinlola’s aides, accusing Aregbesola of being unnecessarily pro-active in his political endeavours is diversionary as the issue at stake haunting and diminishing the illicit administration of the one-star retired Army General has not been addressed. What should be of utmost concern to the embattled controversial governor is his aborted re-election which is now known by all and sundry and confirmed by a superior court of law.

The publication failed woefully to achieve the ulterior motive it was intended for because it was a product of fallacy, cooked and served in the Osun West Senatorial District residence of a senile member of the PDP whose stock in trade is routing for how to bring down his political rival. If such is arranged a thousand of times, fail it will because something cannot come out of nothing. Oyinlola’s consultants on propaganda should prod him on how to wriggle out of the tons of allegations bothering on integrity about the Ekiti rerun polls. I rest my case.

Ritualists Behead 8 Yr-Old Orphan In Kwara

DESPITE the fact of losing his parents at a tender age, Master Aminu Zanda, an eight year old and indigene of Aberi, a village along Ajase-ipo/Offa road in Kwara State on April 1st,2009 was sent to his early grave by his guardian, Waheed Sanni,who specialised in money rituals.

OSUN DEFENDER gathered that the victim, who was living with Sanni until April 1 2009, was sent on an errand by Malomo Saliu and Abdullahi, who had earlier patronised the victim’s guardian for money rituals.

A reliable source at Ajase-Ipo on Monday, during the medium’s correspondent’s investigation, disclosed that the culprits ambushed the victim along a bushy path within the village and beheaded him and took the head to the herbalist.

The source, in an emotional laden voice, explained that it was on their way to the herbalist that some villagers saw the lifeless body of the victim and felt worried for the innocent boy. This, according to source led to the searching for the perpetrators.

While parading the suspects before journalists in Ilorin on Monday, the Police Public Relations Officer (PPRO) of Kwara State Command, Abdul-Azees Alao said the suspects were arrested following a tip-off from members of the public, as the suspects were making moves to carry away the victim’s head to Lagos State.

He disclosed that the culprits had confessed to have perpetrated the act. The herbalist, Sanni admitted that he demanded for dried human head from the two culprits and not a fresh one.