Politics
Peter Obi plays video evidence as tribunal case resumes
Since Tuesday, May 30, the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (PEPT) has been hearing petitions challenging the victory of President Bola Tinubu (All Progressives Congress) in the February 25 presidential election.
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its candidate, Atiku Abubakar; the Labour Party and its candidate, Peter Obi; and the Allied Peoples’ Movement (APM) are the petitioners.
On the other hand, the first to fourth respondents include the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Tinubu, Vice-President Kashim Shettima, and the APC.
According to results declared by INEC, Tinubu, 71, got 8,794,726 votes, 76-year-old Atiku polled 6,984,520 votes and Obi, 61, finished the race with 6,101,533.
This was the first presidential election to deploy the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) — an electronic system for accrediting voters before voting and transmitting results to the INEC server — as well as the INEC Results Viewing Portal (IReV).
Channels Television correspondents Emmanuela Ekele, Friday Okeregbe, and Lucky Obewo-Isawode provide all the latest developments.
4:47 pm: The court adjourns till Tuesday, June 13 for further hearing.
4:31 pm: The court admits the evidence and reserves ruling on the objections till judgement day.
4:27 pm: All of the respondents’ counsel object to the admissibility of the documents.
4:22 pm: The petitioner continues with the tendering of evidence, this time certified true copies of INEC documents Forms (EC40Gs) from six LGAs in Benue State.
4:12 pm: Members of counsel to Tinubu and the APC ask the witness to affirm that the INEC Chairman and Mr Festus Okoye — video clips of whom were played — are still alive. The witness answers in the affirmative.
In the absence of further questions, the witness is discharged.
4:05 pm: Having played the video evidence, the respondents now cross-examine the witness. The counsel to INEC tells the court that he has no questions for the witness.
3:59 pm: Also played in court is the News at 10 bulletin, which shows Tinubu announcing his running mate in Daura.
3:26 pm: The video evidence is on one of the series of consultative meetings with political parties before the elections.
3:25 pm: The video of the INEC Chairman’s pre-election news conference is now being played.
3:21 pm: The petitioner has now called the first subpoenaed witness (Channels TV, represented by Mr Lucky Obewo-Isawode).
The witness was subpoenaed to tender a video evidence of one of the INEC Chairman’s pre-election news conferences which aired on Channels TV.
The petitioner has also applied to the court for the video evidence to be played.
3:10 pm: Before the petitioner (Peter Obi) proceeds with calling his witnesses, the court gives judgement on an earlier application by the petitioner on May 22, ruling that the application be struck out as it was not filed within the required time frame.
2:29 pm: The petitioner is expected to continue with the presentation of evidence as well as call up more witnesses today.
Yesterday, the court was unable to play a piece of video evidence tendered by the petitioner, as the respondents objected to it. When the court finally took a position on the matter, it was too late for the court to play the video evidence.
The court then adjourned till today, when the video evidence will be played.
2:24 pm: The tribunal returns from recess to resume Peter Obi’s petition hearing. The petitioner is physically present in court, while the respondents are represented by their counsels.
12:44 pm: The court has again adjourned hearing on the Atiku vs INEC, Tinubu and the APC till Tuesday, June 13, to enable it to take an hour’s break. When it reconvenes, the court will entertain the case of Peter Obi Vs INEC, Tinubu/Shettima and the APC
12:20 pm: Upon cross-examination by the lead counsel to the second respondent (Tinubu), the witness confirms to the court that she was unable to transmit results she captured with the BVAS machine.
She also tells the court that INEC ad hoc officers were told that the BVAS device could do offline transmission of results, but she does not know how that works.
11:58 am: The petitioner (Atiku) calls a second witness, Sadiya Haruna, a former ad hoc staff member of INEC. She is also a subpoenaed witness from Taraba State.
The respondents also object to the admissibility of the witness statement on oath, as well as her competence to testify, just as they object to other witnesses subpoenaed by the court
The court however advises same, reserving ruling on the objections till the judgement day.
11:44 am: Under cross-examination, the witness tells the court that apart from the BVAS machine failing to upload results, every other aspect of the election was successful.
The witness also says the results she entered into the Form ECA8 were the accurate results from the polls, which she forwarded to the ward collation centre after snapping a photo of the results with the BVAS machine.
Asked if she is aware that once a picture is snapped, the machine stores it, the witness says yes.
Asked if she is aware that once sent, and the image fails to send, it remains pending, the witness tells the court that she was not able to log into the portal to send the result.
11:07 am: The court however advises that the witness’ statement on oath be admitted, while it reserves ruling on the objections till judgement day.
11:01 am: After announcing their presence, the petitioner’s counsel informs the court that he intends to call a subpoenaed witness as the first on his list for the day.
The witness, one Alheri Ayuba, who is a resident of the FCT, a former NYSC member, and an ad hoc staff member of INEC in the February presidential election.
However, the counsel to the second respondent objects to the competence of the witness to testify in the court as she was not in the list of witnesses the petitioner gave to the court.
Both the first and third respondents also align with the second respondent.
Saturday, June 10, 2023
10:36 am: The Tribunal begins the day’s proceedings with the case of Atiku Abubakar vs INEC, Tinubu, and the APC. The PDP Deputy Legal Adviser represents the petitioner (Atiku), while the first to fourth respondents (INEC, Tinubu, Shettima, and APC) are represented by their counsels.
The matter Is for hearing, and the petitioner intends to continue with the tendering of evidences as well as call additional witnesses. The petitioner as at yesterday Friday June 9, had called 16 witnesses to testify in court.
5:26 pm: Counsel to Tinubu submits that having not served him before the proceedings of today, the court should not admit it.
The court however overrules the objection that not being served should not stop the court from admitting the document (flash drive)
5:23 pm: Counsel to Tinubu again raises an objection to the submission of the flash drive, as it was not served on him before the day’s proceedings.
5:20 pm: The witness tenders a flash drive, which he says contains the requested visuals of news conferences by INEC aired on Channels TV.
5:17 pm: The court reserves ruling on the objections till judgement day and asks the petitioner to continue with his examination of the witness.
5:07 pm: Counsel to Obi posits that objecting to the witness statement on oath is like deliberately trying to dodge the consequences of their actions at the polls, by trying to deny the court from viewing the video that ought to be presented by the witness.
4:47 pm: Counsel to Peter Obi maintains that the witness is most competent to testify and urges the court to rule against the objections.
4:34 pm: In a similar vein, the counsel to INEC aligns with the objection raised by the counsel to the second respondent, Tinubu.
They pray for the court to uphold their objections.
4:23 pm: The subpoenaed witness is Channels TV represented by Lucky Obewo-Isawode
Meanwhile, counsel to Tinubu objects to the tendering of the statement on oath of the subpoenaed witness.
He argued that based on the provisions of the Electoral Act, a petition should be filed within 21 days and the documents that will accompany be filed within the same time period.
He informs the court that the witness statement was filed today, and served on them three months after the declaration of results.
He also notes that the witness was never listed in the petitioner’s witness lists submitted to the court, and as such the witness is not a competent witness to testify in this court.
4:04 pm: The tribunal has resumed from its recess and is ready to take the case of Peter Obi vs INEC, Tinubu/Shettima and the APC.
The petitioner is continuing with the tendering of evidence in form of INEC certified documents and witnesses.
Unlike other previous proceedings, the courtroom this afternoon has two giant TV sets, stationed on both sides of the hall.
Levi Uzoukwu leads a team of counsels for the petitioner, while Akin Olujimi leads the legal team representing President Tinubu and the APC
After announcing their presence in court, the counsel to the petitioner informs the court that he is beginning by calling a witness which was subpoenaed. He also informs the court that the testimony will require a team of ICT experts as it involves the use of a recorded material.
12:27 pm: Again, the counsel to the APM applies for adjournment, saying they still have not been able to access the Supreme Court judgement which led to the adjournment last week.
The respondents are not opposed to the application, and the court grants the request, adjourning till Monday, June 19 for further hearing
12:15 pm: The petition of the Allied Peoples’ Movement (APM) challenging Tinubu’s victory is the next to be entertained by the court.
When the court sat last Friday, counsel for the petitioner, Yakubu Maikasuwa, SAN, informed the court that though the previous adjournment was to enable parties to obtain a copy of the Supreme Court judgement on a similar matter, the parties had yet to access the Supreme court judgement.
The lawyer therefore prayed the court for an adjournment till Friday (today) to enable parties to access the judgement and take appropriate decisions.
APM is challenging Tinubu’s electoral victory on the ground of an alleged double nomination of his running mate, Kashim Shettima.
11:54 am: In all, the PDP has called up three additional witnesses, as the lead counsel appeals to the justices for an adjournment continuation till Saturday, as Monday is a public holiday.
The application is granted and counsels to the respondents have no objection. The court has adjourned the petition till 10 am tomorrow, Saturday, June 10 for continuation of hearing
11:48 am: The witness also tells the court that her first contact with the BVAS machine was after her appointment as a presiding officer for INEC.
11:40 am: Under cross-examination, the witness tells the court she arrived at her duty post at 10 am on the day of election, and voting did not start immediately.
She also affirms that the voter accreditation process, voting, sorting and counting of votes went very well at her unit.
She however says she was unable to upload the results after she had successfully entered the figures manually on the Forms ECA8, which was duly signed by herself and the party agents.
11:12 am: The third witness is Obosa Edosa, also an ad hoc staff member of INEC during the presidential election. She served as a presiding officer in Edo State.
10:54 am: The second witness is one Abidemi Abidemi, who is a resident of Suleja Niger State and was an INEC ad hoc staff member.
Under cross-examination, the witness tells the court that everything went smoothly at her polling unit during the elections, and that she personally entered the scores on the Forms ECA8, and party agents signed the forms.
She also tells the court that it was part of her training that unless party agents signed, they should not be given the duplicate copies of the Forms ECA8.
10:04 am: Under cross-examination by the counsel to INEC, the witness says accreditation, voting and the signing of the results by her and the party agents all went well, but the upload of results could not go through.
9:58 am: The petitioner calls his first witness, one Grace Ajagponna, a resident of Kogi State. She is a former National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) member. She was engaged by INEC as a polling unit election officer in the presidential election.
9:40 am: Before the day’s proceedings commences, the President of the Court of Appeal walks into the courtroom and exchanges pleasantries with some of the senior lawyers and leaves.
Friday, June 9, 2023
9:33 am: PDP Deputy Legal Adviser and the APC Deputy Director, Legal Services are representing the petitioner and the third respondent (APC).
Chris Uche (SAN) is leading the Atiku legal team, while Akin Olumuji (SAN) leads the Bola Tinubu/APC legal team.
The day’s proceedings opens with the continuation of the hearing in the case of Atiku Abubakar vs INEC, Tinubu and the APC. The petitioner is expected to present more witnesses in the matter.
2:03 pm: The court is set to resume hearing of the petitions filed by Labour Party and Peter Obi challenging the election of Tinubu.
11:15 am: The court adjourns hearing of PDP’s petition till tomorrow, following objections by the counsel to INEC, Tinubu and APC who requested some time to study the statements of witnesses to be called by the counsel to the petitioners, Chris Uche.
10:54 am: Counsel to INEC, Abubakar Mahmoud, objects to the calling of witnesses whose statements have not been presented to the court, saying he needs time to go through the statements.
10:16 am: The witness in his testimony claims he signed the Form EC8A, when he realised that without doing so, he would not be given a copy of the result sheet.
10:12 am: Ndubuisi Nwobu, the Chairman of PDP Anambra State, steps into the witness box.
10:09 am: Counsel to the petitioners informs the court that despite paying N6,690,000, INEC is asking them to get the remnants of documents needed from their state offices. He promised to get the documents before Friday.
He therefore asked the court for permission to proceed with the calling of their first witness for the day.
9:57 am: Addressing the court, the petitioner’s (Atiku’s) counsel, Chris Uche, tenders certified true copies of INEC election results from 10 LGAs in Kogi State which are available to them.
He also Informs the court that he will tender other documents of the first respondent (INEC) as well as other official witnesses he has subpoenaed.
Counsel to the first respondent (INEC) registers his objection to the admissibility of the documents but promised to give reason when addressing the court. The counsel to the second and third respondents give the same response.
The court subsequently admits the documents.
Wednesday, June 7, 2023
9:28 am: The court resumes sitting with the hearing of the petition by PDP and Atiku.
2:57 pm: The matter is the continuation of hearing, and the petitioner (Obi) is expected to tender more INEC forms. The counsel informs the court that he has Forms EC8B — INEC nomination forms — to tender
He begins with those from 21 LGAs in Adamawa State.
2:27 pm: The tribunal has resumed from the noon break and is set to entertain further hearing in the case of Peter Obi vs INEC, Tinubu/Shettima and the APC.
The petitioner, Peter Obi, Is physically in court.
10:13 am: In the absence of any objections, the petitioner presents to the court the Form ECA8 from 10 LGAs in Kogi State, to be admitted as evidence to prove his case.
Upon tendering the ECA8, the respondents object to it and promise to give reasons when they address the court.
9:44 am: Addressing the court, the petitioner’s counsel says he intends to tender certified true copies of the INEC election results that are available to them.
He also Informs the court that he will tender other documents of the first respondent (INEC) as well as other official witnesses he has subpoenaed.
In his response, the lead counsel to the first respondent (INEC) tells the court that he has no objection to the petitioner’s requests.
The response is the same from the counsel to the second, third and forth respondents: they have no objection to the petitioner’s requests.
Tuesday, June 6, 2023
9:27 am: Eyitayo Jegede (SAN) leads the team of other senior advocates for Atiku Abubakar (petitioner) as the tribunal resumes hearing on the case between Atiku Abubakar VS INEC, Bola Tinubu/Shettima and the APC on Tuesday.
The petitioner Is not in court, but he is represented by his legal team.
Wole Olanipekun leads the legal team of other senior advocates for the second respondent (Bola Tinubu).
When the case came up yesterday, the petitioner called up four witnesses to prove his case. Those four witnesses brought the total number of witnesses called so far by the petitioner to 10.
Today’s proceedings is expected to continue in this stead.
5:34 pm: Tribunal adjourns till Tuesday, June 6 to continue with hearing of the matter of Obi vs Tinubu and others, after the petitioner tenders more evidence from eight states.
3:20 pm: The petitioner begins the tendering of further evidence — certified true copies of INEC results — with that of Ebonyi State. The state has 13 LGAs.
The first to fourth respondents are opposed to this evidence, as in the case with all previous evidence tendered.
2:21 pm: The tribunal is set to take the case of the Labour Party and its presidential candidate Peter Obi vs INEC, Tinubu, Shettima and the APC.
At the last sitting on Friday, the Labour Party presented evidence (certified true copies of INEC results from states). Obi is physically present. The petition is expected to continue with the tendering of evidence at this sitting.
Members of the counsel announce their presence.
12:31 pm: The court has adjourned hearing on this petition till Tuesday, June 6 for continuation of hearing.
The court proceeds on recess to reconvene at 2 pm for hearing of other cases.
12:29 pm: The witness affirms to the court that the results sheet was mutilated after he signed the document.
12:04 pm: The witness tells the court that he signed the results under duress to secure a copy of the results sheet, even though he did not state this in his statement on oath.
11:58 am: The witness tells the court that the BVAS failed at the point when results were to be uploaded.
11:55 am: The fourth witness is one Ibrahim Mohammed Hamza, a resident of Lafia, Nasarawa State.
Shown a copy of the INEC results from Nasarawa state, the witness identifies his signature on the document, but the results sheet he signed during the exercise did not have cancellations like the one presented to him now.
11:19 am: A third witness for the day is Mr Abraham David, also a resident of the FCT.
The witness agrees that Atiku did not score 25 percent of votes in the FCT. He however insists that Atiku is entitled to be returned as the winner of that election, even though he did not score the 25 percent in the FCT.
10:48 am: Under cross-examination, the defense counsel asks the witness if it is his opinion that a winner must score 25 percent of the votes in the FCT, and he says no
He tells the court that his candidate Atiku Abubakar did not score 25 percent of votes in the FCT. Asked if by that calculation, Atiku qualifies to be returned as the winner of the election, the witness answers in the negative.
10:37 am: The second witness for the day is one Alhaji Mohammed Madaki, the current Chairman of the PDP in the FCT. As in the case with the previous witness, the prosecuting counsel calls for the results sheet of the presidential election in the FCT, which the witness Identifies.
10:25 am: The witness tells the court that he was not the one who signed the results sheet.
10:06 am: Under further cross-examination by counsel to the respondents, the witness tells the court he voted during the presidential election in Rivers State, and waited for about 10 minutes before leaving the polling units, but came back to the unit during the counting.
He says the results sheet was filled and signed by the PDP party agent in the unit. He also says he visited other polling units, about 20 of them, and that the polling units did not upload their results. He asserts that the same thing happened in other units in the state.
9:57 am: Under cross-examination, the petitioner’s counsel calls for the results from Rivers State as declared by INEC. The document is presented to the witness to identify if it contained the same results declared by INEC on the day of election, to which the witness answers in the affirmative.
9:53 am: The witness presented to the tribunal his letter of appointment by the PDP to serve as the Rivers State collation officer for the party. The letter is adopted by the court, as counsels raised no objection to it.
Monday, June 5, 2023
9:28 am: The Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Abuja resumes its hearing in the case of the presidential candidate of the PDP and Atiku Abubakar vs INEC, Bola Tinubu/Shettima and the APC.
The first and third respondents — INEC and the APC — are physically represented in court. While the APC is represented by its Director of Legal Services, INEC is represented by National Commissioner May Agbamuche.
Lawyers to both parties announce their presence.
On Friday, the PDP presented three additional witnesses, who were cross-examined by the counsel to the respondents before the matter was adjourned to today.
The hearing for today continues with witnesses presentation. The petitioner says he has four more witnesses to call. He already called 6 witnesses in previous sitting.
The first witness for the day is one doctor Abiye Sekibo of Rivers State, a medical doctor and a businessman.
5:10 pm: Under cross-examination, the witness says he visited most polling units, but was not present at all the 2,964 polling units in the state.
4:53 pm: A third witness is called by the petitioner. He is one Mr Silas Joseph Onu, a legal practitioner who was the PDP state collation agent for Ebonyi State.
4:42 pm: The witness also tells the court that results were changed at the ward collation centres. Asked further if he indicates the results he feels are the actual scores from the field in his witness statement, he says no.
4:26 pm: The second witness called is one Mr Nicholas Msheliza. He tells the court he is a businessman and a politician. He was the PDP Borno State collation officer.
Under cross-examination, the witness confirms to the court that agents of the PDP at polling units performed their jobs “very well” — where they were allowed to do so
4:21 pm: The witness also confirms to the court the results from Niger State as announced by INEC, which he insists he refused to sign to.
However, when asked if he stated the figures he claims were scored by his party at the election, the witness says no.
3:55 pm: Under cross-examination, the witness says he is a registered voter, and he voted during the presidential election. Asked if he is familiar with the process, the witness answers in the affirmative.
The witness also confirms to the court that the PDP has polling agents in all the polling units, who performed their jobs as expected.
3:47 pm: The first witness tells the court he is a former member of the House of Representatives and a businessman. He is a state collation officer for Niger State in the February 25 presidential election.
3:45 pm: The matter is the continuation of hearing of the petitioner (PDP)’s case.
Lead counsel to the petitioner, Chris Uche (SAN), says he has three witnesses to call. The petitioner calls his first witness, one Hon. Sani Idris Kutigi.
3:26 pm: The tribunal resumes from recess.
Now, it will entertain the petition of the PDP candidate, Atiku ABUBAKAR vs INEC, Tinubu and the APC.
12:26 pm: The counsel of both parties request that the matter be adjourned to Monday, June the 5th. The court obliges the request and adjourns hearing to Monday, June 5, 2023.
The court goes on recess till 3 pm when it will reconvene to continue with the case of the PDP and Atiku vs Tinubu, APC, and INEC.
12:13 pm: Having presented evidences from states, Peter Afuba (SAN) who is one of the Counsel to the petitioner, applied that all the certified true copies of Election results, tendered as evidence in the court be taken as read.
Again, The Counsels to the first, second, thirds and fourth respondents refuse to give their consent,in view of their previous objections to the admissibility of the documents.
11:42 am: Additional evidence tendered by the petitioner are from 8 LGAs in Bayelsa, 31 LGAs in Oyo, and 18 LGAs in Edo.
The Labour Party is also presenting further evidences from 20 LGAs in Lagos state, where they argue that their votes were under counted
The affected 20 LGAs include Apapa, Lagos Island, Lagos mainland, Ikorodu, Amuwo Odofin, Ibeju lekki, Ikeja, Ifako- Ijaye, Kosofe, and Oshodi-Isolo
11:29 am: Tribunal admits results from Kogi, Rivers, Niger, Adamawa, Oyo, Bayelsa and Edo states, tendered by the Labour Party.
10:34 am: Apart from evidence from Rivers and Kogi states, the petitioner is also presenting additional certified true copies of election results from Bida LGA of Niger State, and 21 LGAs in Adamawa State.
10:20 am: It’s the turn of the LP, Peter Obi vs APC, Tinubu, Shettima.
Lead counsel to Obi informs the court that he has a schedule of more evidence which they desire to render before the court.
The counsel is continuing with evidence (election results) from Rivers and Kogi states. He presents certified true copies of INEC elections results from six LGAs in Rivers State as evidence.
Again, counsel to the first, second and third respondents object to the admissibility of the evidences.
However, the court has admitted the documents as evidence, while awaiting the arguments of the respondents who are opposed to the admissibility of the documents.
Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi and National Chairman Julius Abure appear in court for the presidential election petitions tribunal on Friday, June 2, 2023
10:20 am: However, the court has admitted the documents as evidences, while awaiting the arguments of the respondents who are opposed to the admissibility of the documents
10:01 am: The day’s proceedings, presided over by Justice Haruna Tsammani, commences with the petition of the Allied Peoples’ Movement (APM) vs INEC, APC, and President Bola Tinubu.
The APM, in its petition, contends that the withdrawal of Ibrahim Masari, who was initially nominated as the vice presidential candidate of the APC invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy in view of Section 131© and 142 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
But the tribunal adjourned at the last sitting, to enable parties obtain copies of the judgement in a similar matter between the PDP and APC, Tinubu, which the respondents in this matter say have been thoroughly dealt with.
The matter Is again adjourned to next week Friday, June 9, on the ground that the counsel has not been able to obtain copies of the Supreme Court judgement referred to here.
Friday, June 2, 2023
9:26 am: LP presidential candidate Peter Obi and National Chairman, Julius Abure, arrive in court.
At Thursday’s proceeding, the candidate tendered results from 115 local government areas (LGAs) as part of his evidence to back his claims, but the respondents opposed the evidence tendered by the Labour Party candidate. (Channels TV)
Politics
Voters reward performance as APC sweeps Ekiti, dominates Bye-Elections nationwide — Yilwatda
The National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Prof. Nentawe Yilwatda, has described the resounding victory of Governor Biodun Oyebanji in the Ekiti State Governorship Election and the party’s impressive performance in the recent bye-elections across the country as a clear vote of confidence in the APC, the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, and the ongoing reforms being implemented to reposition Nigeria for sustainable growth and prosperity.
Prof. Yilwatda stated that the outcome of the elections demonstrates that Nigerians are able to distinguish between temporary economic challenges associated with reforms and the long-term benefits of responsible governance, economic restructuring, infrastructure development and institutional renewal being championed by the APC at both federal and state levels.
According to the National Chairman:
“The overwhelming victory recorded by our great party in Ekiti State and our remarkable success in the bye-elections across the country represent a powerful endorsement of the APC’s governance philosophy. These results affirm that Nigerians appreciate leadership that prioritises development, accountability, stability and the welfare of the people.”
“The people of Ekiti State have once again demonstrated that performance remains the most potent campaign message in democratic politics. Governor Biodun Oyebanji’s resounding re-election is a reward for visionary leadership, inclusive governance, prudent management of resources and visible developmental achievements across the state.”
Governor Oyebanji of the APC was declared winner of the Ekiti Governorship Election after securing a commanding victory across the state, reaffirming the confidence of the electorate in his administration and the APC’s developmental agenda. The party also recorded significant victories in five of the six bye-elections conducted across various states of the federation.
Prof. Yilwatda, in a statement signed by his Special Adviser on Media and Information Strategy, Abimbola Tooki, noted that the Ekiti result has further strengthened the APC’s narrative that performance-based governance remains electorally rewarding, even amid difficult economic transitions.
“The Ekiti election has become a national reference point. It confirms that when governments deliver tangible results in infrastructure, education, healthcare, agriculture, youth empowerment, security and social development, citizens respond with renewed trust and overwhelming electoral support.”
“This victory sends a clear message that governance, not propaganda, remains the most effective route to political legitimacy. The people of Ekiti have spoken loudly and clearly in support of continuity, stability and progress.”
The APC National Chairman described Ekiti State under Governor Oyebanji as one of the most compelling governance success stories in contemporary Nigeria, citing sustained investments in road infrastructure, rural development, human capital advancement, healthcare delivery, agricultural productivity, workers’ welfare and ease of doing business.
He said the administration has successfully built broad-based political consensus while maintaining a strong focus on development outcomes, thereby creating an environment of stability and accelerated progress.
“Ekiti today stands as a shining example of how APC governments are translating public trust into measurable development outcomes. The state’s progress under Governor Oyebanji provides a practical demonstration of our party’s commitment to people-centred governance.”
Prof. Yilwatda further stated that the election outcomes should be viewed within the broader national context of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s reform agenda, which is gradually laying the foundation for a more resilient, productive and globally competitive Nigerian economy.
“Despite inheriting deep structural challenges, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has demonstrated courage and vision in implementing reforms that are necessary for Nigeria’s long-term prosperity. The confidence reposed in our party by voters across the country indicates growing public understanding and appreciation of these reforms and their future benefits.”
It
“These victories are therefore not only electoral successes; they are validations of a governing philosophy anchored on bold leadership, responsible decision-making and sustainable development.”
The National Chairman congratulated President Tinubu, Governor Biodun Oyebanji, APC leaders and members in Ekiti State and across the federation, as well as all candidates who emerged victorious in the bye-elections.
He also commended the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), security agencies and the people of Ekiti State for the peaceful conduct of the election.
Prof. Yilwatda assured Nigerians that the APC would remain focused on delivering good governance at all levels and deepening democratic dividends for citizens across the country.
“Our message to Nigerians is simple: we have heard your voices, we appreciate your confidence and we shall continue to justify the trust you have placed in our party through impactful governance, economic renewal and inclusive national development.”
“The APC remains committed to building a stronger, more prosperous and more united Nigeria. The victories recorded in Ekiti and the bye-elections reinforce our resolve to work even harder in service to the Nigerian people.”
The Independent National Electoral Commission has declared the All Progressives Congress candidate, Governor Biodun Oyebanji, the winner of the Ekiti State governorship election held on Saturday.
The governor was re-elected after polling 319,224 votes over his closest rivals in the opposition Peoples Democratic Party, Olumayokun Oluyede and African Democratic Congress, Dare Bejide, across the state’s 16 local governments.
The Returning Officer for the election, Prof Adenike Oladiji, who is the Vice Chancellor of Federal University of Technology, Akure, announced the results in the early hours of Sunday at the INEC’s headquarters on Iyin Road in Ado-Ekiti, the state capital.
Oladiji said, “Therefore, I, Adenike, am the returning officer for the 2026 Ekiti governorship election…Oyebanji Abiodun Abayomi, having satisfied the requirements of the law, is hereby declared the winner and stands re-elected.”
While the APC polled 319,224 votes, the PDP candidate polled 40, 533 votes, and the ADC candidate amassed 12,872 votes.
There are 988,251 registered voters, and 384,940 are accredited.
Out of the 382,109 votes cast, the total valid votes in the election were 375, 777.
According to INEC’s results, the PDP candidate, who hails from Efon-Alaaye in Efon LGA, lost in his local government area.
While the APC and its candidate, Oyebanji, scored 8,742 votes, the PDP, which came second in the LGA, garnered 2,051 votes.
Below are the full results of the governorship election as collated at the State Collation Centre from the 16 LGAs on Sunday.
Efon Local Govt
Collation officer: Prof. Joseph Ojo
ADC – 201
APC – 8742
PDP – 2051
Ijero LG
Collation Officer: Prof. Olaniran Akanni
ADC – 2026
APC – 25506
PDP – 2479
Ikere LG
Collation Officer: Prof. Kehinde Jayeoba
ADC – 245
APC – 11116
PDP – 9872
Emure LG
Collation Officer: Prof Emmanuel Oluwafemi
ADC -732
APC – 14325
PDP – 851
Ekiti South West
Collation Officer: Prof. Kola Oladunmoye
ADC – 1076
APC – 14705
PDP – 1800
Ido/Osi
Collation Officer: Prof. Otalobi Akintunde
ADC – 561
APC – 17901
PDP – 1449
Collation Officer: Prof Bolaji Stephen
ADC – 674
APC – 28258
PDP – 3644
Ado LG
Collation Officer: Prof. Toye Fasinmirin
ADC – 1054
APC – 38026
PDP – 3817
Ilejemeje LG
Collation Officer: Prof. Kehinde Mogaji
ADC – 579
APC – 8984
PDP – 1243
Ise/Orun LG
Collation Officer: Dr John Isa
ADC – 365
APC – 12907
PDP – 1627
Oye LG
Collation Officer: Prof. Jide Popoola
ADC – 998
APC – 18975
PDP – 2891
Moba LG
Collation Officer: Prof. Suleiman Adegboyega
ADC – 994
APC – 20500
PDP – 1572
Ayekire/Gbonyin LG
Collation Officer: Prof. Oso Bamidele
ADC – 314
APC – 17133
PDP – 1563
Ikole LG
Collation Officer: Prof. Sadiat Adifala
ADC – 812
APC – 26508
PDP – 750
Irepodun/Ifelodun LGA
Collation Officer: Prof. Michael Adeyemi
ADC – 511
APC – 29278
PDP – 2119
Ekiti East LGA
Collation Officer: Prof. Olabode Olatunbosun
ADC – 1730
APC – 26359
PDP – 2795
Politics
Stakeholders demand sanctions against A’Court’s Justice Lifu, as Mark warns FG on political manipulation
Following the Court of Appeal’s decision to reverse the deregistration of the African Democratic Congress and four other parties on Monday, ADC National Chairman Senator David Mark stated the judiciary is on trial and warned the Federal Government against political manipulation.
Stakeholders also called for sanctions against Justice Peter Lifu for flouting a superior court order, as the ADC assures supporters they will remain on the ballot.
Political parties and stakeholders affected by the Federal High Court’s controversial deregistration order welcomed the Court of Appeal’s decision to stay the execution of the judgment.
The Court of Appeal in Abuja had on Tuesday ordered a stay of execution of the judgment that directed the Independent National Electoral Commission to deregister the ADC, Action Peoples Party, Action Alliance, Accord Party and Zenith Labour Party, while delivering a stinging rebuke to Justice Lifu for flouting a May 22 appellate court order restraining him from delivering the ruling.
In a unanimous decision on Tuesday, a three-member panel led by Justice A. B. Mohammed condemned Justice Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja for flouting a May 22 order that directed him to suspend proceedings before him, describing his conduct as the gravest form of judicial misconduct.
“The decision of the lower court to proceed with the judgment despite the express order of this court is a brazen violation of the hierarchy of the court and the 1999 Constitution,” the panel held.
The appellate court went further, invoking a Supreme Court precedent to characterise Justice Lifu’s conduct in the harshest terms.
“The decision of the lower court to proceed with the judgment despite the express order of this court is the highest form of judicial impertinence,” the panel declared, adding that the Supreme Court had previously held that a judge who acted in such a manner “is unfit for the bench as it amounts to judicial rascality.”
The court said it had a duty to assert its supervisory authority over lower courts and protect the integrity of the judicial hierarchy.
“Courts are enjoined to protect their integrity. This court has supervisory authority over the trial court. This court has the duty to invoke its powers in ensuring that its orders are obeyed. The application for stay of execution is hereby granted. The enforcement of the judgment is stayed,” the panel ruled.
The Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Lifu, had on Monday ordered INEC to deregister the ADC, Accord Party, Action Alliance, Action Peoples Party and Zenith Labour Party, ruling that the five parties failed to meet the constitutional performance thresholds under Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution, specifically, requirements related to securing at least 25 per cent of votes in certain states or winning seats in the 2023 general elections.
Earlier in Tuesday’s proceedings, INEC told the appellate court it was stunned by Justice Lifu’s decision to deliver the judgment, disclosing that the commission only learned of the ruling through media reports rather than any official notification.
INEC’s lead counsel, Mr Haliru Mohammed, told the panel that the commission had been aware of the appellate court’s May 22 order restraining the lower court from delivering the judgment, which had originally been reserved for June 5.
“We were not aware of any notice from the court regarding the delivery of the judgment. We only saw it as breaking news in the media. We therefore do not oppose the application of the appellant to stay the execution of the judgment,” Mohammed submitted.
The commission also aligned itself with the notice of appeal filed by the affected political parties.
Counsel to the ADC, Mr Shuaibu Aruwa, SAN, told the court that Justice Lifu communicated the judgment’s delivery to the party via WhatsApp, a disclosure that drew visible reactions from the bench.
Aruwa described the lower court’s conduct as an invitation to anarchy and urged the appellate court to invoke its disciplinary jurisdiction under Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution to sanction the judge.
“The action of the trial judge calls for swift and extraordinary measures from this court. We have come to the stage where this court should press the reset button.
“We urge this court to take disciplinary steps by immediately suspending that judgment. This court has the power to protect its own integrity. We pray this court suspends the judgment immediately without further delay,” he added.
APC reacts
Reacting to the appellate court’s decision, the ADC’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, said the ruling offered a measure of hope for the judiciary’s credibility, though he was careful not to celebrate unreservedly.
“It indicates that the judiciary may still redeem itself. We are cautiously delighted but we insist that it shouldn’t have happened in the first place,” Abdullahi said in a telephone interview.
He called on the National Judicial Council to take urgent steps to rid the bench of judges whose conduct brought the institution into disrepute.
“We, therefore, hope that the judicial council will take urgent steps to purge the bench of judges who bring the judicial institution to disrepute,” he said.
The National Leader of the Action Peoples Party, Ikenga Ugochinyere, was more emphatic in his welcome of the ruling, describing it as a vindication of the party’s position from the outset and calling on the NJC to weed out what he termed controversial judges.
“There was no need to panic in the first place, and, so, this ruling is a vindication of our position from the get-go,” Ugochinyere said.
“We call on the NJC to weed out controversial justices who say one thing in the morning and another in the evening. These are the bad eggs giving the judiciary a bad name,” he added.
Ugochinyere raised broader concerns about public confidence in the justice system, warning that judicial inconsistency was eroding citizens’ respect for court pronouncements.
“Court pronouncements are supposed to be respected by citizens, particularly because they come from institutions established by law. But when people begin to hide behind technicalities, it raises concerns about the integrity of those institutions.
“How do we expect citizens to obey court judgments when many people no longer see justice as blind, but rather as something influenced by individuals and personal interests? That is the challenge before us,” the APP leader added.
He also noted that the controversy surrounding Justice Lifu’s ruling had sparked frustration across the country, with some of the anger directed at the presidency.
“This situation has generated a lot of reactions across the country. Many people are directing their frustrations at the President. Perhaps there is a need for greater clarity so that Nigerians understand exactly what is happening,” Ugochinyere said.
He nevertheless described Tuesday’s outcome as a victory for democracy and the rule of law.
“What happened today (Tuesday) is a victory, not just for democracy, but for the rule of law. We are happy because the courts have once again demonstrated their relevance in our democratic process,” he said.
Other parties speak
The Acting National Chairman of the Coalition of United Political Parties, Peter Ameh, took a philosophical approach in welcoming the ruling, invoking the words of the philosopher Edmund Burke to frame the significance of the appellate court’s intervention.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” Ameh said.
He warned that what he described as hostile executive rascality and brazen judicial overreach must not be allowed to stand.
Also, the ADC presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar said in a statement posted on his X handle that the ruling was a positive development, noting with particular significance that INEC itself had initiated the application for the stay .
“I welcome the Court of Appeal’s decision to stay the execution of the Federal High Court judgment seeking the deregistration of our great party, the ADC, and four other political parties. It is particularly significant that INEC itself initiated the application for the stay,” he wrote.
Atiku, Mark protest
The former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar also criticised what he described as judicial contradictions in the ongoing legal dispute, warning that such developments had placed the judiciary under intense public scrutiny.
“The disturbing spectacle of judicial contradictions and politically charged rulings playing out in our courts has placed the judiciary under intense public scrutiny. As ADC National Chairman, Sen. David Mark, rightly observed, the judiciary itself is now on trial,” Atiku said.
He warned against any attempt to weaponise the courts against Nigeria’s democratic institutions.
“Any attempt to undermine Nigeria’s hard-won democracy through judicial manipulation is a grave danger to the Republic. If our democracy suffers further injury, history will demand accountability from those entrusted with dispensing justice,” he said.
Following the judgment given by Justice Lifu, the National Judicial Council has been urged to investigate Justice Peter Lifu over his decision to deliver judgment in a case that was already before the Court of Appeal.
The civil society organisation, Tap Initiative for FOR Citizens’ Development, on Tuesday in a statement called on the leadership of the judiciary to immediately investigate Justice Lifu over the judgment.
The call follows concerns over the alleged disregard for the hierarchy of courts and implications such actions could have on the judiciary and Nigeria’s democracy as the country moves closer to the 2027 general elections.
Justice Lifu had on Monday ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission to deregister five political parties over their alleged breach of Section 225(A) of the Constitution.
However, the judgment was reportedly delivered despite an order staying proceedings issued by the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal on May 22.
The decision has since attracted criticism from several quarters, with critics accusing the judge of undermining democratic principles.
In a statement signed by its Executive Director, Mbasekei Martin Obono, the group urged the NJC to, among other things, “Determine whether the decision was delivered in disregard of pending appellate proceedings and a subsisting order of stay;
“Examine possible breaches of the judicial code of conduct; Take appropriate disciplinary action if misconduct is established; and
Reaffirm the authority of appellate courts and the supremacy of due process within the judiciary”.
The group recalled that the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, had consistently emphasised the need for accountability, discipline and ethical conduct within the judiciary.
It disclosed that it had formally petitioned the CJN, in her capacity as Chairman of the NJC, seeking an investigation and possible disciplinary action against Justice Lifu.
According to the group, the petition presents an opportunity to reinforce the principles of accountability and demonstrate that judicial independence is not incompatible with responsibility.
“Tap Initiative expresses grave concern that at the time the said judgement was delivered, there were subsisting appellate proceedings before the Court of Appeal in respect of the same subject matter in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/569/2026. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal had issued an Enrolment Order expressly granting a stay of proceedings in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2025, being the very proceedings in which the Federal High Court subsequently proceeded to deliver judgment.
“This development raises profound constitutional and procedural concerns, as it appears that a valid order of stay and active appellate proceedings were in force at the material time. If established, this situation would constitute a serious affront to the doctrine of judicial hierarchy and the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal within Nigeria’s constitutional order.
“Tap Initiative emphasizes that the integrity of Nigeria’s justice system depends fundamentally on strict adherence to judicial hierarchy, procedural discipline, and respect for appellate authority. Any deviation from these principles risks creating conflicting judicial outcomes, eroding legal certainty, and undermining public confidence in the courts”, he said.
The group stressed that the judiciary remains the last hope of the common citizen, arguing that its legitimacy is sustained not only by constitutional authority but also by unwavering public confidence in its fairness, discipline and respect for the rule of law.
It therefore called on the NJC to treat the matter with the urgency and seriousness it deserves in the interest of justice, democracy and national stability.
Meanwhile, the National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress, Senator David Mark, on Tuesday declared that the Nigerian judiciary, rather than the opposition party, is the institution facing scrutiny over the controversy surrounding the deregistration of the ADC and four other political parties.
Speaking at the ADC Strategic Communications Retreat in Abuja, the former Senate President accused the judiciary of actions capable of undermining public confidence in the nation’s democratic process, while questioning the conduct of Justice Peter Lifu in matters relating to the party.
According to Mark, the outcome of the controversy will test the credibility of the judiciary and the ability of the National Judicial Council to address concerns arising from the case.
“The ADC is not on trial. Rather, it is the judiciary that is on trial and the nation is waiting to see how the National Judicial Council is going to handle this precarious situation,” he said.
The ADC chairman expressed concern over what he described as unprecedented judicial actions, alleging that Justice Lifu ignored an order of the Court of Appeal directing a stay of proceedings in the matter.
He said it was difficult to comprehend how a judge could be involved in actions that appeared to contradict existing court directives.
Mark further alleged that the judge issued conflicting decisions regarding the status of the party within a short period.
“It is strange that a judge can order the Independent National Electoral Commission to pronounce a party dead and in less than 24 hours put the same party on trial,” he said.
The remarks come amid growing political tension over recent legal challenges affecting opposition parties ahead of preparations for the next electoral cycle.
Despite the legal setback, Mark urged party members not to lose confidence in the ADC, insisting that the party would emerge stronger from the dispute.
“Like I have said previously, our members should not worry about the shenanigans of the ruling party. We will go through all these turbulence because we are up to the task. By the time we are through all these, ADC will come out stronger,” he stated.
The former Senate President also accused the ruling All Progressives Congress APC of attempting to weaken opposition forces through distractions, claiming that the governing party was struggling to defend its record in office.
He alleged that the President Bola Tinubu-led government is diverting attention from its challenges by targeting opposition platforms.
Addressing party communicators at the retreat, Mark charged them to craft messages capable of expanding the ADC’s appeal across political divides, including among members of the ruling party.
He challenged the communications team to develop persuasive narratives that would attract more Nigerians to the ADC project. (PUNCH)
-
News2 days agoXenophobia : Nigerians in South Africa take up arms in self defence
-
News2 days ago
Tinubu media centre posts AI image of Remi Tinubu selling akara
-
Uncategorized3 days ago
Three brothers charged with murder after beating mother’s boyfriend to death
-
News2 days ago
PFIPC scam: Presidency asks DSS, EFCC to unravel criminal network
-
News3 days ago
PFIPC scandal: NDC seeks Gbajabiamila’s sack, independent probe
-
News1 day ago
Xenophobia: Two more Nigerians killed in South Africa
-
News10 hours ago
NNAMDI KANU: NMA condemns Prof. Aghaji’s arrest, demands justice
-
News12 hours ago
PFIPC Scandal: New details reveal SGF’s Office cleared Adeyemi for Canada Summit
