Adeyeye, Olujimi and battle for Ekiti South

The battle for Ekiti South Senatorial seat has shifted from the ballot box to the courtroom.

During the election, Prince Dayo Adeyeye was declared winner by the electoral commission. But, his opponent, Senator Biodun Olujimi, rejected the verdict and prayed the tribunal to upturn it. Her prayer was answered.

Now, Adeyeye has gone to the Appeal Court, claiming that he won the poll.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Media and Public Affairs, has urged the Court of Appeal to nullify the victory of the former Minority Leader, Senator Olujimi at the National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal.

Adeyeye in his Notice of Appeal urged the Court of Appeal to uphold the result declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) which returned him as the winner of the Ekiti South senatorial seat in the election conducted on February 23.

The former Minister of State for Works filed a 19-ground appeal against the judgment of the National Assembly Election Petition Tribunal and pointed out errors of law, which he believed, the tribunal judges committed in the judgment delivered on September 10.

The three-member panel of the Tribunal, led by Justice D.D. Adeck, ordered INEC to withdraw the Certificate of Return given to Adeyeye and issue a fresh one to Olujimi.

The APC candidate has assembled a team of lawyers, led by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr. Dayo Akinlaja, to win back his mandate at the Appeal Court.

According to the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant (Adeyeye) is seeking two reliefs in his bid to upturn Olujimi’s victory at the Tribunal.

Adeyeye prayed the appellate court “to allow the appeal and set aside the declaration and return of Olujimi.”

While Adeyeye ran on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Olujimi, sought re-election on the platform of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP).

The Senate spokesman urged the Court of Appeal to affirm his declaration and return by INEC as the winner of the senatorial poll held in the district on February 23.

Respondents in the appeal are: Olujimi (1st), PDP (2nd), INEC (3rd) and APC (4th) as the Appellant is challenging the whole decision of the Tribunal.

The panel upheld Olujimi’s averments that there was no proper accreditation, there was no proper account of ballots and that the number of votes or ballots recorded is more or less than the number of accredited voters, among others. After the Tribunal deducted votes from what the two parties scored at the election, PDP was left with 54,894 and APC was credited with 52,243.

Adeyeye in his appeal averred that the Tribunal’s verdict was a miscarriage of justice complaining that votes cast for his party (APC) were wrongfully nullified by the panel to arrive at its conclusion.

The Appellant maintained that the trial judges erred in law by relying on the evidence of Petitioners Witnesses (PWs) 1, 3 to 14, result sheets and voters registers to nullify the results of the election at the concerned polling units and consequently deducting 2,207 votes from the votes of APC and 933 votes from the votes of PDP.

One of the errors in law of the Tribunal, according to Adeyeye, was its acknowledgment that the report of the inspection of ballot papers came about after the filing of the petition.

He contended that the Tribunal did not avert its mind to decided authorities of superior courts of the land in holding that it was proper for it to countenance the inspection report.

The Appellant claimed that the Petitioners/Respondents did not tender any ballot paper at the trial and failed to give evidence to show how the alleged alterations and mutilations of the result sheets prejudiced or affected the results of the election.

Adeyeye also picked holes in the evidence of PW 15, Chief Bunmi Olugbade, on grounds that he (Olugbade) was not the maker of the electoral documents purportedly inspected to generate inspection report in question.

He argued that the Tribunal had no justification to accord probative value to the evidence of PW 15 on the inspection report maintaining that the Tribunal had found the evidence to be hearsay.

Adeyeye averred: “The Tribunal itself had discountenanced the evidence led by the PW 15 on Exhibits P4 to P84 on the premise that he was not there when those documents were being filled and that the documents constituted documentary hearsay in his hands.

“It was shown that the PW15 did not sign the attendance register on two days, to wit: 12/4/19 and 16/4/19 and the PW15 admitted under cross-examination that the attendance register was signed on each day of inspection.

“The Tribunal relied on speculation and oral evidence to vary the contents of the voter register. There was no indication as to what was inspected on the said two days of 12/4/19 and 16/4/19. The decision of the Tribunal occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice in this regard.

“The Tribunal itself referred to the case of Andrew and 1 Anor. v. INEC and Ors. (2018) 9 NWLR (PT 1625) 5 where the Supreme Court held that the evidence required in an election matter is not the one  which was picked up from perusing documents made by others but of eyewitnesses who were present when entries in the form were being made and could testify how the entries in the documents were arrived at.”