Home News OSUN ELECTION TRIBUNAL WATCH: PDP Alleges Discrepancies in Irewole LG Result

OSUN ELECTION TRIBUNAL WATCH: PDP Alleges Discrepancies in Irewole LG Result



By Tunde Oyekola


Lead counsel to Chief Iyiola Omisore, the petitioner in the on-goingelection petition tribunal in Osun State, Chief Nathaniel Oke (SAN),on Friday, informed the tribunal that there was discrepancy in the votes recorded for ward 5, unit 4 of Irewole LocalGovernment Area of the state.

During cross-examination of respondent’s witness, Adegoroye Peter, thecounsel said 524 votes were recorded as against 523 total score in ward 5,unit 4 where the witness voted.

This is just as lead cousel to the first respondent, Chief AkinOlujimi (SAN) urged the tribunal to summon a correspondent of PunchNewspaper for questioning on the headline published in the paper onFriday, December, 12, 2014.

Chief Olujimi, who called the attention of the tribunal to theheadline that read: “Omisore Establishes Over-voting in Oriade LocalGovernment” noted that the reporter worked in contrary to the appealof the tribunal to reporters at the first sitting to be fair and balanced in their reportage, stressing that the headline has deliveredjudgement.

However, the Chairman of the Tribunal, Justice Elizabeth Ikpejime, requested to see the reporter that wrote the story but he was not in court.

Chief Olujimi urged the tribunal to summon the reporter, but Justice Ikpejime suggested that the court should wait until the reporter turns himself in, describing the report as “unfair.”

Meanwhile, Chief Oke has alleged that the signature of one of the respondent’s witnesses was fraudulent.

The witness, Oladeji Mutiu, who was said to be the agent of All Progressives Congress (APC) in the August 9 governorship election, was asked whether he signed the result form EC8A and to give statement on oath, which he agreed that he signed.

Oke, however, asked the witness to sign in the presence of the court, which he obliged.

The counsel told the court that the statement on oath deposed to by the witness was signed for him, admitting that he truly signed the result form EC8A.

He tendered the signature of the witness as evidence and the tribunal admitted and admitted it as exhibit.

Speaking shortly after the proceeding, Oke noted that the irregularities in the result may affect the whole unit, adding that the forged signature of the witness would also be addressed at the final stage of the proceeding.


Like and Share this:


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here