Aregbesola, Omisore Know Fate, Today …As Tribunal Gives Verdict

The Election Petitions Tri
bunal hearing matters relating to the August 9, 2014 governorship election in Osun State will deliver its final verdict on the election today.
The governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Senator Iyinola Omisore had dragged Governor Raufu Aregbesola of the All Progressives Congress (APC) to the tribunal.
It will be recalled that Aregbesola polled 394,684 votes in the poll to beat his main challenger, Omisore who scored 292,747 votes.
Omisore prayed the tribunal to sack Governor Aregbesola and declare him (Omisore) winner of the poll.
Omisore’s counsel, Dr. Alex Izinyon (SAN) had told the tribunal during the address stage that Aregbesola admitted that he scored 234,971 votes, and not 394,684 credited to him by the Independent National Electoral commission (INEC).
But Aregbesola’s counsel, Chief Akin Olujinmi explained that the governor did not admit scoring less than the number of votes credited to him by INEC.
He stated that what the table meant was that “assuming with our conceding that the tribunal cancel the result in the disputed units, the first respondent (Aregbesola) would still have won with the new figure.”
Arguing that the petitioner failed to prove his petition, the counsel referred to the objection of the first respondent to the petition at the hearing stage, saying he adopted the two applications filed to challenge the competence of the petition.
Olujinmi argued further that the petitioner dumped the ballot papers used for the election and other electoral materials at the tribunal without proving to the panel how they relate to the case, and therefore urged the tribunal to dismiss the case.
Aregbesola’s counsel also stated that the duplicate copies of Form EC8A tendered by the petitioner were inadmissible, and that those who tendered them were not the makers of the documents.
In his own submission, counsel to the APC, Mr. Rotimi Akeredolu (SAN) also urged the tribunal to strike out the petition by Omisore.
Akeredolu adopted APC’s written address and the arguments of the first respondent in the case.
According to him, he was not opposed to the objectives raised by the first and third respondents (Omisore and INEC, respectively) in their written addresses, adding that the suggestion of the petitioner that the APC did not have locus in the case was strange.
Akeredolu argued that the purported certified true copies of documents tendered did not conform to the provisions of the law.
According to him, the documents were not listed nor pleaded and those who tendered them were not the makers.
Counsel to the INEC, Mr. Ayotunde Ogunleye had adopted the same argument by Omisore and APC, arguing that nobody came before the panel to give evidence that they were disenfranchised during the poll.
He said that the petitioner had failed to prove the burden of proof shifted to him and that his petition should be dismissed.