Osun tribunal:  Oyetola’s case near collapse……Counsel withdraws, witnesses lined up for appearance

The end may be near for the petition filed by Governor Gboyega Oyetola at the tribunal sitting in Osogbo, the state capital, as his star witness, Isiaka Olanrewaju, destroyed the arguments of over-voting even as his counsel hurriedly withdrew other two witnesses arising the abysmal performance of the witness from Ila Orangun.

Following the indicting confessions of the star witness, Akin Olujinmi (SAN), the lead counsel for Oyetola made the application to withdraw other witnesses earlier scheduled for today shortly after the panel reconvened from a short break.

Making an oral application, Olujinmi said the petitioner will no longer call the two witnesses in support of its petition and seek the leave of the court to have them withdrawn.

“My Lords, we want to drop the two witnesses we had lined up for appearance,” Olujinmi applied to the panel.

In response, Paul Aganaba (SAN) said Olujinmi had seen the futility of pouring water into a basket, hence the withdrawal of the other listed witnesses.

The actual hearing of the governorship tribunal commenced today (Tuesday) with the star witness for the petitioner, Isiaka Olanrewaju, practically failing as he openly and technically disowns many of his own deposition and comprehensively knocking life out of case against the election of Senator Ademola Adeleke as the next Governor of Osun state.

The witness proved beyond reasonable doubt that the grounds on which the petitioner built his case is not just weak but unfounded and only serve to confirm that Senator Adeleke was duly elected on July 16th.

The witness, who was cross-examined by Paul Ananaba SAN, Alex Iziyon, SAN and Onyechi Ikpeazu SAN spoke against many aspects of his own deposition and accepting clearly that BVAS machines as primary source are superior to BVAS report which are secondary source.

The witness and his many gafe and admissions saw many APC supporters leaving the court room even as a leading counsel forGvernor Gboyega Oyetola, Saka Layonu SAN), left the court room probably due to the embarrassing show from the star witness.

His first error was the claim in his deposition that he worked for the second respondent, Senator Ademola Adeleke. This drew so much drama from the court. The witness to the consternation of the court claimed it was “an error, not a mistake”

The witness who claimed to be a retired civil servant was found to be a serving aide to Governor Oyetola undermining his claim to being an expert in electoral matters. He is a paid employee of the petitioner which casts doubt on his claim to being an expert.

He openly admitted that server could only get a data transmitted to it and that this is not possible unless there is network, saying  a result not transmitted can therefore not be on the server.

Network issue can delay transmission of results. A server can therefore not be superior to the machine which transmitted report to it.

He admitted that his report did not include comparing of actual voters register to Form EC8A, meaning that his report lacks a basis for ascertaining actual voters on the day of election and, therefore, not competent to determine question of over-voting.

He contradicted himself on the time he secured the BVAS report. While his deposition said July 17, he mentioned July 27th. His inconsistency irked the judges.

 The witness admitted that he did not compare all the documents he had with the primary source of election data which are the BVAS machines. The BVAS report was then based on generated data from a server that does not contain all information on the election outcome.

He proceeded to admit that BVAS machines were the primary source of data for the election. The machines and their contents are superior to the BVAS report generated from the server.

The witness also admitted that he did not defer to EG 40 series in his analysis of the results. That gap created big hole in the report of the witness as the ECG form series contain vital final phase data on an election.

On table of election result computed to show over-voting, the witness was at a loss when he was told that the table he submitted contains 762 units rather than 749 reported by the witness. This generated heated debates among counsel, putting the witness on the spot for more than 10 minutes.

By the time the star witness concluded, he had practically disowned form EC8 series on which the over-voting claim was based as he admitted he is not sure whether the forms are genuine or not.

He also discredited large part of his own report sworn to under oath.

The Tribunal adjourned hearing till tomorrow Wednesday.

For a better society