01122019 - 13 states struggle for 7.5 metric tonnes of rice

PAGE 34—SUNDAY VANGUARD, DECEMBER 1, 2019
OYO GOV’SHIP POLL:
‘S/Court will not give
victory to candidate
who won only 5 LGAs’
By Olayinka Ajayi
Dr. Nureni Adeniran, a lawyer, was the Collation Officer for the Peoples
Democratic Party (PDP) in the March 9, 2019 governorship election in
Oyo State. Adeniran, who is the Chairman of the State Universal Basic
Education Board (SUBEB), in this interview, speaks on the implications of
the recent Court of Appeal judgment on the election among other issues.
The Appeal Court recently gave a
judgment on the Oyo State
governorship election but some people
say the judgment is confusing as the
election of Governor Seyi Makinde
was upheld while the court also said
the election petition tribunal verdict
on the election was set aside because
the opposition party was not given fair
hearing. Based on this, members of the
opposition party in the state are
celebrating that they have a chance.
As the collation officer of the PDP in
that election, what is your perspective?
I want to believe that the judgment, though
some people are saying is controversial, is
straight forward.
Unfortunately, people don’t know the
difference between judgment against an
election and pronouncement against the
conduct of tribunal. The Appeal Court, in their
wisdom, said the appellants were not given
fair hearing. But I have the opportunity of
reading the judgment. When you go into the
nitty-gritty of the judgment, you will realize
that they were even given fair hearing; the
tribunal listened to them. They listed about
60 witnesses but called about 27 witnesses.
In the process, they could not, with their
witnesses and testimonies, establish their case.
So, what the Appeal Court was saying was
that some of the facts or some of the testimonies
elicited through cross-examination were not
evaluated. In other words, what they were
saying is that the witnesses called by the
respondents, may be they said something that
was in support of what the appellants were
saying and the Court of Appeal said that the
tribunal only evaluated the testimonies,
witnesses and evidences of the appellant and
not those of the respondents. And as a result of
that, they believed that they
were one-sided, asking ‘how
can you evaluate the
testimony of a particular
party and you don’t do the
other?’ Unfortunately, the
burden of proof is on the
appellants. They should
prove their case. It is not for
the respondents to help them
establish their case. One
cannot now imagine how few
witnesses, may be in the
process of their testimonies,
were partly in support of what
the appellants were saying.
That, to me and other rightthinking
persons, is not
substantial enough to
override over 150,000 votes.
Secondly, the Court of Appeal
said that, in spite of that, they
believed that the appellants
were not given fair hearing.
Therefore, they set aside the
judgment of the tribunal,
because the appellants were
not given fair hearing. In a
normal litigation, what
would have been expected is
to order for a retrial if the
appellate court discovered
that fair hearing was not given to either of the
parties. But they have been caught up by
effluxion of time because election petition is
sui generis. It is in a special class in which the
Electoral Act clearly states that the issue
concerning the election is to be handled by
the tribunal and it must be concluded within
180 days. And the 180 days had elapsed. That
is why the Appeal Court said they could not
order a retrial. That shut them down. And they
went further to say that they could not also
nullify the election, because there is nothing
on ground to use for them to nullify the
election results. It is only when the election is
nullified that they can either declare the
appellant or order a rerun. But the election
could not be nullified because there was
nothing on ground to nullify it. And the Appeal
Court, towards the end of their judgment, said
that they even evaluated the evidence and had
nothing to say; that the election could not be
nullified. As far as I am concerned, it is a closed
matter. I also want to remind you that in the
Electoral Act, there are only four grounds on
which an election can be nullified. The first
ground is if the winner of the election was not
qualified. The second is if the winner of the
election won not by lawful majority votes. Also
an election can be nullified on the basis of
corrupt practices. And the last ground is if the
appellant has not been validly nominated.
Many people don’t understand. The APC didn’t
say they won the election. They failed to
establish their case and they were making
attempt to use part of the testimonies of some
of our witnesses to establish their own case. I
was a star witness at the tribunal and my
testimony was very clear. There was nothing
to suggest that there was unlawful deed or any
malpractice during the election. Being the
state collating agent for the Peoples
Democratic Party (PDP) and its governorship
candidate in that election, every right-thinking
person knows that the people of Oyo came
out in droves to reject the APC at the poll. It is
not imaginable for somebody that won in five
local government areas, as against someone
that won in 28 local government areas, to say
they are going to get it. And I am sure no court
will attempt to do that. Oyo people have spoken
and their voice was heard loud and clear. Oyo
people are enjoying dividends of democracy
as provided by the Seyi Makinde government.
So, I don’t think anyone, even the Supreme
Court, can see this and declare someone with
only five local
governments’ winner of
the election. To declare a
person winner of an
election, he must be
ascribed with votes. So,
It is not imaginable
for somebody that
won in five local
government areas,
as against someone
that won in 28 local
government areas,
to say they are
going to get it. And I
am sure no court
will attempt to do
that
where is the vote? In the
election, everybody
knows that the people of
Oyo came out joyfully to
vote against APC. The
election was peaceful and
the violence that could
have happened was
perpetrated by the APC
and the people resisted
them. The election that
was very peaceful, free
and credible. Nobody
should think he could use
the back-door to get it. I
also want to warn that we
are not unaware that
some people, because of
their selfish ambition,
want to pocket the entire
South-West and they
know the influence of
Governor Makinde is
being felt in the whole
South-West. So, if
someone is having a
presidential ambition and he believes that
because Oyo is not an APC state, he must do
everything to capture it, such person has failed.
Oyo is different from other states. Oyo State is
not Kogi, Kano or Osun. What they did in those
states and got away with cannot be done in
Oyo. They can’t get away with it here.
You were a witness at the tribunal.
What did the APC pray for?
What they were saying was that in some
places, there was over-voting, violence and so
on. Admitting without conceding, even if all
the areas were given to them as challenged,
they still don’t have enough to cancel over
157,000 votes. There is nothing in the petition
to override the margin.
In 2011, former Governor Abiola Ajimobi
defeated the incumbent governor then, Chief
Adebayo Alao-Akala, by just 33,000 votes. In
2015, Ajimobi won, though in a controversial
manner, with 70, 000 votes. If you add it, it is
just about 103,000 votes. But here is an election
won with 157, 000 votes and the winner won
in 28 local government areas out of the 33 in
the state. I know nobody will attempt to set
Nigeria ablaze on account of this kind of thing.
The APC and its governorship
candidate say they have a date with
history at the Supreme Court. Does
this not signify that there is something
they
are banking on?
They are banking on nothing to give them
victory. In the first instance, some of them were
expecting the Appeal Court to do abracadabra
for them. But the justices didn’t go where they
wanted. The result of the election could not be
tampered with. Maybe they are thinking that
they would be able to manipulate the Supreme
Court. That is why Nigerians are saying the
Supreme Court justices cannot be
manipulated
against the good people of Oyo, because if
they attempt it, the result will be unthinkable.
I don’t mind if anybody says they want to give
me Sowore treatment; I am here to say the
truth. If they try any nonsense in Oyo State, it
will be met with high level of resistance by the
people. I was at a radio station where I went
to discuss this issue and people were calling
in, saying “we voted for Seyi Makinde; if
anybody attempts to do anything untoward,
the wrath of God will be visited on them.” So,
you can’t run against the people. That is
impossible.
Everybody in APC knew that they had a bad
day; they lost that election outright. They are
bad losers. They cannot buy over Oyo State.
They cannot buy the mandate Oyo people gave
to PDP and Makinde.
Are you saying the pronouncement
of the Appeal Court is a mere academic
exercise to deepen legal knowledge?
It is an academic exercise, because they said
they (APC) were not given fair hearing. Okay.
How can a serious-minded litigant, having
failed to establish his own case, rely on the
shortcomings of the witnesses of the
respondents to establish his own case? The
tribunal was not wrong by saying “you have
not been able to establish your case and with
what you have brought to court, there is nothing
to suggest
that all you are asking will be given to you.”
That was on the basis that they dismissed the
petition at the Tribunal.
So, the judgment is not against the victory of
Governor Makinde, rather it is against the
conduct of the tribunal. They appealed and
we also cross-appealed. Their own appeal is
that since they said they were not given fair
•Adeniran
hearing, they should just declare them. On
which ground will they be declared or get a
rerun? And we are saying that the fair hearing
they said they were not given is not true. They
were given fair hearing. So, the essence of our
appeal is that they were given fair hearing.
Let the Supreme Court now determine if they
were given fair hearing or not.
As the parties approach the Supreme
Court, is there any reason to fear,
especially against the background of
the belief that the APC, being in control
at the centre, could influence the
judiciary?
As I said earlier, I don’t think that anybody
who resides in a house would like to be
responsible for setting it on fire, because the
fire will consume him too. President Buhari
became Head of State in 1984 and one of the
reasons he gave for coming was that the 1983
election was massively rigged. And one will
be wondering now that he is presiding over a
process that is so falsified, so corrupt. Look at
what happened in Kogi. Was that an election?
There was a video on Facebook and
Instagram where they were saying “them go
hear ta ta ta,” meaning they would take over
the place with guns, which is exactly what they
did. If Buhari is the President of Nigeria today,
and he is presiding over the country and
allowing those kinds of things to happen, those
things he condemned when he was coming as
military Head of State, he didn’t have
justification to overthrow Shehu Shagari’s
government in 1983. It was not as bad as this.
What I am saying is that the Supreme Court
justices are Nigerians. They know what is
happening. And the APC cannot take over
everywhere.
In the case of Osun, for instance, the
decision was affected by the fact that
one of the tribunal members who did
not appear at a sitting read the
judgment. As a lawyer, don’t you think
technicality could be exploited against
your party?
The court is not a Father Christmas; it does
not give what you don’t ask for. Secondly, the
court bases its pronouncements on facts
available before it. The situation in Osun was
quite different from this. One, the man was
the incumbent. Two, they actually visited the
scene at the Appeal Court on the litigant then,
because he didn’t come. All that didn’t happen
here. They have not said they won election.
They have not said they have justification. All
they said is that no fair hearing and no fair
hearing does not mean they didn’t allow them
to make their case.
They presented their case and if your case is
presented and you are not able to establish
your case, you don’t rely on others to establish
your case for you. Though, the rule allows
that you can elicit evidence from the opposing
party in litigation to support your argument;
even if that is done, will it be substantial enough
to override the difference?