Oyetola’s witness not an expert which he held himself out to be. PW 1 claimed to be an expert, he did not give evidence of his qualifications, he did not deny his membership of the APC.
His evidence was barren.
Server report is not the physical evidence of accreditation..Court of Appeal held.
Voters register is intrinsically part of accreditation. Section 137 of the Electoral Act, only lightens the burden of the petitioner not to totally remove the burden. To prove overvoting, voters register must be tendered.
Further resolving the issue of over-voting, the Tribunal only relied on the Table provided by Oyetola and APC to give judgment in their favour. The Tribunal was wrong because there was no evidence to support such claim of over-voting.
Issues 5 & 7: Preference of server report for BVAS machines and the report of inspection. Also the issue of transmission of results by way of manual collation.
Resolved that BVAS machine is the primary source
The Appeal Court ruled in favour of Governor Ademola Adeleke over certificate issue, dismissed tribunal judgement on forgery.
Issue 4: Propriety of the Tribunal rejecting the judgment of the Court of Appeal ….
Resolved that the Tribunal was not right to have rejected the judgment of the Court of Appeal that cleared Adeleke of forgery.
In short issue of forgery has been settled by the Court of Appeal. The Tribunal was wrong to have held forgery against Adeleke.
Issue 2
Whether non-consideration of the preliminary objections filed by the Appellant separately by the Tribunal ..
Resolved that the preliminary objections were not properly considered, not a ruling on the merit..issue resolved in Appellant’s favour
Court of appeal fined Oyetola to paid #500,000
