Opinion/Feature
Osun Tribunal and PDP’s Panicky Response to Reality
By Ismail Omipidan
By tomorrow, Thursday, December 1, 2022, the Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Osogbo will continue hearing in the petition filed by Adegboyega Oyetola and the All Progressives Congress, APC, challenging the declaration of Senator Ademola Adeleke as the winner of the July 16 governorship contest.
Before the tribunal adjourned the last time, it ruled that the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, should produce Senator Ademola’s certificates and other attachments he filed with INEC when he ran for the governorship in 2018.
For those who may be coming across this Tribunal update for the first time and for the records, Oyetola and APC are challenging the outcome of the election on two main grounds.
One, that Senator Ademola was not qualified to run at the time he did. Two, that there was over-voting in 749 polling units across 10 LGAs.
What are the facts of the issues concerning qualification?
Recall that it is common knowledge that, in 2019, Senator Adeleke faced criminal allegations of examination malpractice.
He was arrested and brought before the court. He was granted bail, and then he travelled abroad. He however did not show up again until he returned barely a year to the July election.
Interestingly, when he was contesting in 2018, he claimed to have registered for GCE O’ Level in 1981 but had F9 in English Language and was recorded absent for other subjects.
Ironically, his profile on the website of the National Assembly at the time also indicated that he is a holder of a Diploma Certificate in Criminology from Jacksonville State University (JSU), where he purportedly graduated from in 1986.
However, in an investigation carried out by the International Centre for Investigative Reporting, ICIR, at the time, the above claim was faulted by Buffy Lockette, the Director of Public Relations at the university.
The fact -check done by ICIR further revealed that while it was true that Senator Adeleke had indeed enrolled at the institution, he was never awarded any certificate.
A further inquiry from the West African Examination Council’s website at the time to verify Senator Adeleke’s O’ Level result being paraded then, using examination number 19645/149 came back as “result not available for this candidate in the specified year and exams diet.” So, based on the foregoing, as at 2018, he had no O’Level results.
But upon his return, he claimed he has a diploma, awarded to him mid last year, and that the said certificate qualified him for a B.Sc. in Criminal Justice, from the Atlanta Metropolitan State College in the United States.
Interestingly, he claimed to have obtained the degree barely 24 days after getting the said Diploma certificate.
There are indeed interesting days ahead at the Tribunal, beginning from tomorrow.
Before then, below is the review of what transpired in the last three sittings of the Election Petitions Tribunal:
Day 1
Monday, November 21
On this day, an expert witness, Isiaka Olanrewaju, told the Tribunal that he established irregularities in the results used to declare the candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Ademola Adeleke, as the Governor-elect by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
He told the Justice Tertsea Kume-led tribunal that he came to that conclusion after analysing the result forms for the election and comparing them with the Bimodal Voters Accreditation System (BVAS).
On the same day, the tribunal also struck out the application by the Counsel for INEC, Prof. Paul Ananaba, SAN, filed to set aside the Subpoena issued on INEC for the production of Adeleke’s credentials used in the 2018 Governorship Election.
The witness who was led in evidence by the Petitioners’ counsel, Chief Akin Olujinmi (SAN), said he relied on forms EC8As, EC8B, EC8C, EC8D, EC8E and BVAS report released by INEC to arrive at his findings.
Under cross- examination by the INEC counsel, Professor Ananaba, the witness said he analysed the results of the election in 749 units across 10 Local Governments as against 762 units being suggested to him by the counsel for the respondents.
While INEC counsel put it to him that the witness analysed results of 762 units, he responded: “That is your opinion, I worked on just 749 units. where you see 762, I don’t know”.
The witness was also cross-examined by counsel for Adeleke, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), and counsel for the PDP, Alex Izinyon (SAN).
He told the tribunal that though he didn’t operate the BVAS machine on the election day on July 16, 2022, he received the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the BVAS report on the 27th of July 2022 after the election.
The style of the witness’ testimony however threw the entire court into laughter while mentioning the documents used for his analysis, saying: “I used form EC8A, comma, EC8B, comma, EC8C, comma, EC8D, comma, EC8E, no comma and BVAS report”.
He testified that he is an expert who had operated several electronic devices, including BVAS before and was aware that an electoral officer might fail to submit the data imputed into the machine or that if the network was bad, the data submitted would not be successful.
Asked again on whether his analysis was done only where the PDP won, the witness said, “I did my analysis across 749 polling units in 10 local governments regardless of which party won.”
On the same day, the tribunal also granted an application by Oyetola’s counsel, asking to amend the list of witnesses filed before the panel by including the acronym used to represent their names.
Olujinmi had also informed the tribunal that the INEC counsel had filed an application to attack the Subpoena issued by the tribunal on INEC to bring Adeleke’s certificate and other documents he used in the 2018 Governorship Election.
Olujinmi said the evidence of his next witness would be based on the documents being requested for, saying he would wait in the calling of the said witness listed as number 2, until the tribunal decides on the application of the INEC counsel.
The tribunal had earlier fixed Tuesday, the next day, for the hearing of the application and agreed that the witness should wait until it takes a stand on the said application before the INEC counsel withdrew the application.
Upon the withdrawal, the tribunal struck out the application by Counsel for INEC, Ananaba, filed to set aside the Subpoena issued on the INEC for the production of Adeleke’s credentials used in the 2018 Governorship Election.
Day Two, Tuesday, November 22
On this day, INEC failed to produce Adeleke’s certificates, just as a witness insisted he allegedly forged them.
The Osun State Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) told the Tribunal that the State office of the Commission was not in custody of the certificates of Senator Adeleke.
The REC was billed to appear before the panel in line with a Subpoena issued on him to produce form CF001 of Adeleke which contained his credentials used for the 2018 governorship election.
At the resumed hearing, the counsel for INEC, Professor Paul Ananaba, had told the tribunal that REC could not be brought to court, because he was not aware that the application filed against the Subpoena issued on him had been withdrawn.
After series of arguments, the tribunal Chairman, Justice Tertsea Kume, insisted that whether there was an application against the Subpoena or not, REC or his representative was supposed to be in court to bring the documents requested.
The proceedings then took a dramatic turn when, suddenly, the representative of REC, Mr. Sheu Mohammed, the Deputy Director, Election and Party Monitoring who had been in court abinitio rose and told the court that he was around to represent REC.
It was at this point that INEC Counsel also retracted his statement and said he had just been informed that the representative of REC was around.
When asked to produce the documents requested for, Mohammed told the tribunal that the State office of the commission was not in custody of the documents, saying the copies given to it had been discarded shortly after the 2018 election.
He said: “We are not in custody of the documents. The documents were submitted to the National Headquarters. We were only given photocopies by the National Headquarters for display.
“After we might have done with litigation, the only record we kept in our office are form EC8A Series. ”
Asked by the tribunal to produce the said photocopies given to the State office, the witness said: “We don’t have the photocopies again. We have decongested our system”.
Counsel for Oyetola, Chief Akin Olujinmi (SAN), subsequently argued that the attitude of REC was mainly not to obey the tribunal’s order issued on REC to produce the documents.
He said even if the State office of the Commission did not have the requested documents, “REC is representing INEC here and he has a duty to obtain the said documents at their National Headquarters and he has not said that the National Headquarters cannot find that document.
“So, he cannot excuse the duty of obedience to that Subpoena by his lame explanation that it was submitted to the national headquarters.
“My Lord, I will apply that your Lordship should direct REC to approach the national headquarters and obtain the said documents. They had disobeyed the first order and if they like they should disobey the second order”, Olujinmi argued.
The tribunal subsequently directed Oyetola’s counsel to Section 253(2) of the Evidence Act which indicates that violator of such court order is liable to arrest and commission to prison.
Oyetola’s counsel said he was only being humane, as he would have applied for committal, saying “police is here to arrest him. I don’t see how you can escape from this one”.
Responding to the arguments, counsel for INEC, Professor Ananaba, said, “the representative of REC is here and REC is different from INEC. So, the Subpoena has been complied with because the representative of REC is here to tell the court he is not in custody of the said documents.”
He argued that the tribunal does not have the power to make another order in the same line, claiming that the first order had been complied with.
Counsel for Adeleke, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), in his own objection said since the documents requested to be produce by INEC are Certified True Copies (CTC), it can be applied and paid for, without necessarily bringing REC to court.
He then argued that based on the fact that the petitioners already have the CTC at their disposal, they should be compelled to continue with the calling of the witnesses whose testimony hung on the documents requested from INEC.
Counsel for PDP, Alex Izinyon, SAN, also said that since the petitioners already have the documents in question, they should be compelled to call the witness.
Olujinmi while replying said the respondents’ counsel lost track in the course of their arguments, saying there was an order of the court through subpoena which have not been complied with.
He noted that counsel in the case ought not to do anything that will obstruct the proceeding of the court, saying the issue of the Subpoena is sufficient enough to compel the INEC again to produce the documents.
The tribunal then adjourned ruling in the argument of counsel on the failure of INEC to produce the said documents till Friday, 25th November.
Meanwhile, one of the Petitioners’ witnesses, Evangelist Rasak Adeosun, while giving evidence before the panel, told the tribunal that Adeleke did not attend any university, hence he could not have obtained any certificate.
Asked by Adeleke’s counsel whether he was a staff of the university attended by Adeleke, Adeosun replied: “Did he attend any university? How would I be a staff of the university he didn’t attend”.
He insisted that Adeleke does not have any certificate, just as he told the panel that “I know that there is over-voting, as the total number of the votes cast is more than the accredited voters on BVAS reports.
Adeosun, who served as the State collation agent for the APC hinted that he received reports of the happenings in the polling units on the election day and discovered that there was no substantial compliance with the INEC guidelines and the Electoral Act in the contentious 749 polling units.
Day 3, Friday, November 25
This day, which was the last day of the sittings for the outgone week, the PDP’s panicky response to reality dawned on it as the Tribunal insisted that the INEC Chairman must produce Adeleke’s certificates.
The order followed the failure of the State Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) of the Commission to produce the certificates in the previous sitting in compliance with the Subpoena issued on the Commission.
In the ruling, the Justice Tertsea Kume-led Tribunal said an application for Subpoena is in Administrative Act and when it is granted, it becomes Judicial Act and the party upon which the Subpoena is issued must comply, citing Section 218 and 219 of the Evidence Act.
It ruled: “An order of the court is bound to be complied with by the party upon which it was made until it is set aside by the court. In the instant case, the order has not been complied with.”
The tribunal further held that the request by the respondents that the petitioners should continue with the calling of the witness whose testimony is hinged on the Adeleke’s credentials was baseless, as the petitioners have the absolute prerogative on how to conduct their case.
It held further that the Petitioners have shown sufficient reasons for the tribunal to compel the the National Chairman of INEC to produce the documents in question.
It then dismissed all the objections raised by the counsel for INEC, Adeleke and PDP, and compelled the National Chairman of the Commission to produce the documents in the next sitting of the panel on Thursday, December 1.
Counsel for the Petitioners, Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN, described the ruling as a well- researched one, saying it would go a long way in serving the course of justice in the hearing of the petition.
Addressing journalists shortly after the proceedings, Chief Olujinmi, said the court has done the right thing by reordering INEC to produce the requested documents containing Adeleke’s certificates.
Counsel for INEC, Professor Paul Ananaba, SAN, also conceded, saying they were ready now to follow the order of the court by producing the requested documents.
Last line
Will they produce the certificates? It seems only time will tell.
Omipidan, a journalist and former Assistant Editor (Politics) at The Sun, is the media aide to Oyetola
NEWS
Edo Govt To Raise N160bn For Climate Project While Kidnapping Ravages The State… Is That What The People Need?
As kidnapping and violent crime continue to escalate across Edo State, the government has announced plans to raise N160 billion to tackle ecological challenges, raising serious questions about priorities in the state.
The Executive Chairman of the Edo State Ecological Fund and Management Commission, Blessing Agbomhere, revealed during a press briefing on Wednesday that the funds would be raised through the Ecological/Climate Trust.
According to him, the Okpebholo Green Revolution for Edo is scheduled to launch next week.
SEE ALSO: Edo Cracks Down on Drug Cartels, Arrests Breastfeeding Mother, Six Others
Agbomhere stated that Edo’s three-year budget would not be enough to remediate gully erosion sites across the state.
The over 60 gully erosion sites identified would be addressed in phases, with some remediation projects costing between N5 billion and N20 billion each.
The government also plans to plant one million trees in four years.
He further raised concerns over illegal sand mining, particularly in Edo South Senatorial District, revealing that many operators have no plans to restore the land after their operations, which continues to exacerbate erosion problems.
“A lot of companies are operating in Edo State. After their operation, they will leave the state without remediating the environment. We are calling on them to tell us their plans for remediation when they leave,” Agbomhere said.
While ecological initiatives are undeniably important, the timing and focus of the government are being questioned.
Kidnapping and insecurity are surging across the state, yet attention and resources are being directed toward environmental projects instead of immediate security measures.
At a time when fear dominates daily life for Edo citizens, raising millions for ecological projects while kidnappers roam freely sends a troubling message: are citizens’ lives being sidelined in pursuit of long-term environmental goals?
Biz Tellers raises the concern: shouldn’t security take precedence over climate projects when residents’ lives are under threat? The government insists that addressing ecological challenges is crucial for long-term development, but for many, this does not answer the urgent question of public safety.
As Edo faces both ecological and security challenges, the debate over government priorities intensifies.
The pressing question remains: is this really what the people need right now?
By Fred Itua
Godwin Obaseki’s latest outburst is not a surprise. It is simply the continuation of a pattern that Edo people came to recognize too late. His years in office were marked by intolerance, vindictiveness and a violent streak that constantly simmered beneath the surface. Those who worked closely with him still carry the scars of his temperament. His former deputy, Philip Shaibu, is the most glaring example.
Whatever their disagreement may have been, no rational leader plots the humiliation and removal of a deputy he once described as a brother. Yet Obaseki manipulated every institutional lever available to him to settle a personal score, using the House of Assembly as a pawn to crush a man whose only crime was falling out of favour with the lord of Osadebe Avenue.
In October 2022, Obaseki’s hateful tendencies were expended on those he promised to serve. He supervised the demolition of roughly one hundred homes across Oke-Oroma, Irhirhi-Obazagbon and Ogheghe communities. Residents insisted they held valid documents, including Certificates of Occupancy, yet he pushed ahead in defiance of a subsisting court order that had restrained any action pending the determination of their suit. The result was devastating. Thousands were displaced and property worth billions of naira were reduced to rubble. Such a vindictive man!
Edo people saw the full extent of this violence during the 2024 governorship election when Obaseki stood before cameras and threatened that Edo would burn if his preferred candidate lost. Those words were not the empty rant of a frustrated politician. They came from a man with a history of weaponizing state power, a man whose administration armed loyalists and created networks of political enforcers who blended easily into the criminal elements that then turned their guns on innocent citizens.
ALSO READ: Edo Cracks Down on Drug Cartels, Arrests Breastfeeding Mother, Six Others
It is no coincidence that the early days of the current administration were choked with spikes in kidnapping and armed robbery. These were not random crimes. They were the desperate convulsions of an ecosystem built, funded and empowered by Obaseki himself.
Governor Monday Okpebholo has had to stabilize a state that was deliberately left volatile. Through calm leadership and quiet strength, he has managed to rein in the chaos and restore public confidence. But Obaseki, instead of retreating into reflection, has doubled down.
His recent video in Birmingham reveals a man who cannot bear the reality that Edo people have moved on. He accused Okpebholo of being “stupid”, boasted that he is mobilizing the international community against him and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, and threatened that the governor “will see”.
These are not harmless statements from an angry former office holder. They are calculated threats from someone who has never hidden his desire to destabilize Edo State whenever power slips from his grip.
He claims that a governor from Irrua cannot dictate to people in Benin. That remark alone exposes the dangerous tribal undertone of his politics. For eight years, he exploited ethnic sentiment to divide communities and isolate opponents. Now, he is attempting to ignite the same divisive flame against a governor who has only focused on governance, inclusiveness and development.
Obaseki’s language in that video is not only reckless, it is incendiary. It hints at an attempt to stir resentment, inflame divisions and rally hostility toward a government that is working hard to rebuild the damage he left behind.
His recent globe-trotting under the guise of “meet and greet” is now clearer for what it is: an effort to secure foreign sympathy, funding and legitimacy for a domestic political battle he has already lost. When a former governor openly brags about mobilizing the diaspora and the global community against the current leadership of his own state, it raises valid questions about intent.
What exactly does he need international pressure for? Why is he desperately trying to create a narrative of crisis where none exists? And who are the people he hopes to recruit from abroad? Edo people have not forgotten that this same man once threatened to burn down Nigeria during an election.
They have not forgotten that his private “security structure” terrorized communities under the cloak of political loyalty. They understand the implications of a former governor seeking global support while trading in fear and hostility.
The uncomfortable truth is that Obaseki’s comments suggest a willingness to collaborate with external actors to undermine the peace of Edo State. A man who once equipped foot soldiers and political enforcers is now boasting about global mobilization.
The link is not far-fetched. His post-tenure travel pattern, sudden desperation and inflammatory rhetoric open the possibility that he is seeking funds or tacit support to revive the political machinery that once served him; a machinery that slipped into criminality after he left office. Edo cannot afford to overlook this. A man who once used threats to bend institutions is now using threats to intimidate a sitting governor.
And yet, despite Obaseki’s attempt to twist reality, Monday Okpebholo has not threatened him. He has not weaponized ethnicity. He has not responded with abuse. All he has done is to remind the public that the records of Obaseki’s misrule are there for anyone to examine.
The refusal to swear in duly-elected lawmakers. The manipulation of the Assembly to serve private interests. The unprecedented decision to withhold the swearing-in of judges recommended by the National Judicial Council. The demolition of the central hospital without providing a viable alternative for ordinary people. These actions were not just bad governance; they were the height of arrogance and indifference to the people he claimed to represent.
It is ironic that Obaseki now accuses others of threatening him when his own record is littered with acts that undermined the wellbeing of Edo people. His fear is not Governor Okpebholo. His fear is accountability. His fear is that the fog of propaganda can no longer cover the damage he inflicted on institutions, communities and public trust. And so he runs abroad to find new allies, hoping that distance will distort the truth.
His attacks on Governor Okpebholo’s loyalty to President Bola Tinubu are even more revealing. By insisting that Okpebholo should not deliver votes to the President, Obaseki exposes the bitterness that comes from losing political relevance. But governance is not about ego. Performance is what earns support. And Okpebholo’s quiet but consistent reforms across infrastructure, security, social welfare and public administration already place him miles ahead of the eight years of stagnation that Obaseki left behind. Edo people are not blind. They know who is working. They know who listens. They know who respects them. No amount of foreign posturing will change that.
Obaseki’s latest rant is a dangerous escalation from a man struggling to remain politically relevant. It is an open threat to peace and a signal that he is willing to drag Edo into conflict just to nurse his bruised pride. Edo people and the federal government must treat this with the seriousness it deserves. A former governor openly encouraging dissent abroad while tribalizing politics at home is a security concern. His record, his words and his behavior suggest that he is not acting alone.
The time has come for security agencies to take Obaseki’s latest comments and conduct seriously. His public threats, global mobilization and divisive rhetoric raise red flags that cannot be ignored. A thorough probe is needed to determine the intent behind his statements and the networks he is attempting to activate.
His known supporters, online loyalists and political enforcers must be properly profiled and monitored to ensure they do not undermine the peace Edo State is currently enjoying. Edo cannot afford to slip back into instability, and every institution responsible for protecting public safety must act decisively before words escalate into something more dangerous.
Fred Itua, the Chief Press Secretary to Governor Monday Okpebholo wrote from Benin City, Edo State
I have received calls, messages and other inquiries regarding the revocation of the CofO of Presco Plc by Governor Monday Okpebholo. The Secretary to State Government, Barr. Umar Musa Ikhilor, has robustly explained the issues.
Unfortunately, some folks, for obvious reasons, are still yearning for more answers. I’ll explain the facts and I hope this helps.
It has been established that the published Revocation Notice didn’t pass through the appropriate channels. Again, the actual number of hectares intended for excision from Presco Plc’s total landholding was grossly misrepresented in the published text.
For clarity, the Edo State Government has not revoked Presco Plc’s Statutory Right of Occupancy. What was under technical consideration was the excision of approximately 20 hectares—a clearly defined area—strictly limited to the portions of land containing strategic crude oil wells.
This excision became necessary because no individual or company can lawfully exercise proprietary rights over land where mineral resources are located, as such resources are vested exclusively in the Federal Government.
Section 44(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999, as amended) provides that:
“Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the entire property in and control of all minerals, mineral oils and natural gas in, under or upon any land in Nigeria shall vest in the Government of the Federation…”
ALSO READ: Dangote Group Contracts SAIPEM, EIL, others for Fertiliser Expansion in Nigeria, Ethiopia
Section 1 of the Petroleum Industry Act, 2021 similarly states that:
“…the entire ownership and control of all petroleum in, under or upon any lands in Nigeria shall be vested in the State (Federal Government)…”
Section 28 of the Land Use Act (1978) empowers government to revoke rights of occupancy strictly for overriding public interest, which includes matters relating to mineral exploitation.
The Edo State Government advises the general public, stakeholders, and Presco Plc to disregard the notice in its entirety.
Meanwhile, Governor Monday Okpebholo has initiated a formal administrative review to strengthen internal controls to prevent future breaches.
The administration of Governor Monday Okpebholo reiterates its commitment to transparent land administration, orderly engagement with investors, and the protection of public interest, particularly in matters involving national strategic assets such as oil and gas assets.
So, my people, no cause for alarm.
Fred Itua is the Chief Press Secretary to Governor Monday Okpebholo of Edo State.
$200/barrel Price Likely as Iran Threatens Oil Ships
2026 Poll: Osun Ndigbo Backs Adeleke’s Second-Term Bid
NGX Group, IFC, CSCS and WIMBIZ Convene Leaders to Advance Gender Equality at 2026 Ring the Bell Ceremony
Adeleke on Why he Deserves Second Term
NNPC Secures Tinubu’s Approval for $20bn FID on Bonga Deepwater Project
Dangote Refinery Cuts Petrol, Diesel Prices
Trump’s Family Unveils New Cryptocurrency Platform
Reps Recommend 3-year Jail Term For Aviation minister
Dangote Cement Lights Up Benue Host Communities With CSR Initiatives
Senate Denies Receiving Petitions Against Tinubu’s Ambassadorial Nominees
Things To Know About Threads, Zuckerberg’s Twitter-like App
