PETITIONER

Document Sample
PETITIONER Powered By Docstoc
					          IN THE GOVERNORSHIP/LEGISLATIVE HOUSES ELECTION
                     TRIBUNAL, HOLDEN AT AKURE
                            ONDO STATE

ON FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2008

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:

HON. JUSTICE G.M. NABARUMA          - CHAIRMAN, ELECTION TRIBUNTION
HON. JUSTICE A.E. OKON              - MEMBER, ELECTION TRIBUNAL
HON. JUSTICE D.I. OKUNGBQWA        - MEMBER, ELECTION TRIBUNAL
HON. JUSTICE M.B.GOJI              - MEMBER, ELECTION TRIBUNAL
HON. JUSTICE A.S UMAR              - MEMBER, ELECTION TRIBUNAL

                                   PETITION NO: EPT/OND/GOV/0 1/2007


BETWEEN: RAHMAN OLUSEGUN MIMIKO --------                    PETITIONER

AND

  1. DR. OLUSEGUN AGAGU

  2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATICE PARTY

  3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION

  4. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, ONDO STATE

  5. THE RETURNING OFFICER, AKOKO NORTH-EAST LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA
                                                                       RESPONDENTS
  6. THE RETURNING OFFICER, AKOKO NORTH- WEST

  7. THE RETURNING OFFICER, AKURE NORTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

  8. THE RETURNING OFFICER, ESE ODO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA




                                        1
9. THE RETURNING OFFICER, ILAJE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

10. THE RETURNING OFFICER, IRELE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

11. THE RETURNING OFFICER, ILE-OLUJI/OKE-IGBO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

12. THE RETURNING OFFICER, ODIGBO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

13. THE RETURNING OFFICER, OKITIPUPA LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

14. THE RETURNING OFFICER, OSE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

15. THE NIGERIA POLICE                                                RESPONDENTS

16. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

17. ONDO STATE

18. THE NIGERIA ARMY

19. THE NIGERIA NAVY




                                           2
       JUDGMENT (DELIVERED BY HON. JUSTICE G.M. NABARUMA, CHAIRMAN)

          The Petitioner and the 1 st Respondent were two out of a total of thirteen candidates who contested for the
Office of Governor of Ondo State in the Governorship election held throughout Ondo State on 14th April, 2007. The
Petitioner and the 1st Respondent were sponsored by their respective political parties, Labour Party (LP) and
Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Other political parties, Action Congress (AC), Alliance for Democracy (AD),
African Democratic Congress (ADC), All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), Citizen Peoples Party (CPP),
Democratic Peoples Party (DPP), Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRDD), Progressive Peoples Alliance
(PPA), Progressive Peoples Party (PPP), United Nigerian Peoples Party (UNPP) and Democratic Peoples
alliance (DPA) also sponsored their respective candidates. The election was conducted by the 3rd
Respondent (INEC) that had constitutional and statutory powers to do so. On 16th April, 2007, the 4th
Respondent on behalf of INEC announced the results of the election, declared the 1 st Respondent as the
winner and returned him as the elected Governor of Ondo State. Being dissatisfied with the final outcome of the
election, the Petitioner on 14/5/2007 filed this petition against the Respondents jointly and severally seeking
several reliefs including a declaration that the 1st Respondent was not duly elected or returned by majority of
lawful votes cast at the election and that his election be nullified. He claimed that going by the lawful votes cast
for him and having satisfied constitutional requirement as to geographical spread of the votes cast, he should be
returned as the elected Governor of Ondo State; See generally paragraph 38 of his petition. The grounds on
which the petition, as stated in paragraph 21 (i) and (ii) thereof, is based are:
"(i) ............ that the results of the Governorship election of 14th April, 2007 ................ As declared and
       announced variously by the 3rd - 14th Respondents are void by reasons of malpractices and/or elections not taking
       place at all.
(ii) that the 1st Respondent was not duly elected by majority or highest number of lawful votes cast at the election, nor
       did he score at least one quarter of all the lawful votes cast in each of at least 12 Local Government Areas
       of the total number of 18 Local Government Areas in Ondo State in accordance with Section 179 (2),
       1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria".
          On being served with the petition, the 1st Respondent on 13/6/2007 filed his Reply to the
petition denying all material allegations in the petition and joining issues with the Petitioner. The 2nd Respondent
as well as the 3rd - 14th Respondents were out of time to file their respective Replies to the Petition. Their applications
for extension of time to do so out of time were refused. The 15th and 16thRespondents duly filed their joint Reply to the
petition. That was on 6/6/2007. The 17th and 18th Respondents filed no Reply and did not participate in the hearing
of the petition. There were a few interlocutory applications which we duly heard and determined.
        The actual hearing of the petition commenced on 23/10/2007 and in all, the Petitioner called 58 witnesses
(identified as PWI - PW58) including 8 experts and 20 other persons who were subpoened to tender various documents.

                                                               3
He testified as PW56 on 11/3/2008. He closed his case on 15/3/2008. The 1st Respondent opened his defence on
7/4/1008 and in all he called 4 witnesses RW1 - RW44 including two experts. He closed his case on 2/5/2008. The 15th
and 16th Respondents did not call any witness. On 13/5/2008 we ordered all the participating counsel to file their written
addresses which were duly filed and later adopted before us in court on 13/6/2008. It is to be noted that very many
documents were tendered from across the Bar by counsel to the parties, some by witnesses subpoened for that purpose
only and some by actual witness during their testimonies.   All the admitted documents were duly marked as Exhibits as
shown in our record. We will now proceed to summarise the evidence of the witnesses on both sides.
        The Petitioner called 58 witnesses some of whom produced documents on subpoena. PW1, PW2, PW3? PW4,
PW5, PW6 and PW7 were on subpoena duces tecum and some of the documents they produced were admitted in
evidence. The evidence-in-chief of PW8 was that he was a voter and party agent for Labour Party to supervise the
conduct of the election in Araromi Obu Ward 04 Odigbo Local Government Area which has 17 units during the
Governorship and House of Assembly election. PW8 added that the materials were taken to police station instead of the
collation centre and there, the mobile policemen, soldiers and thugs commissioned by the 1st Respondent supervised the
harassment and intimidation of the voters, that voting at L.A. School unit was marred by violence and snatching of
ballot box at gunpoint by 1st Respondent's thugs, that one Falolu a former chairman of the Local Government
Area pointed a gun at the Presiding Officer, that the materials carted away were taken to the residence
of Chief R.A. Akintemi where the papers were thumb-printed and figures were allotted and recorded in
Forms EC8A and EC8B and some were signed by him as PDP agent, that after the purported election voters who were
denied the right to vote particularly members and supporters of Labour Party in the ward and Local Government Area
surrendered their voter's card to PW8 as evidence that they did not cast their votes on 14th April 2007, that he lodged
complaints on the irregularities to PDP leaders, former chairman of Odigbo Local Government, INEC officer for
the Local Government Area, INEC's Commissioner at Akure, the police DPO at Ore and the Police
Commissioner at Akure, that at 2.00 p.m. on that day he (PW8) addressed NTA on the premises of INEC to the
effect that there was no voting in the entire Odigbo Constituency II on 14th April, 2007 because PDP leader,
policemen, soldiers and thugs moved around from one polling unit to another scaring away voters and did the
voting/thumb printing themselves and that there was no counting of votes or declaration of results and no
signatures of party agents on more than 95% of polling units in Odigbo Local Government Constituency II.
        PW8 identified voter's cards which he said he collected from disenfranchised voters as follows:
    1. Exhibit 1098 (3) for Units 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Koseru Ward of Odigbo Local
        Government Area
    2. Exhibit 1098 (33) for Units 04, 08, 09, 010, Oil and 012 of Ayesan ward of Odigbo Local Government
        Area.
    3. Exhibit 1098 (34) for Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 16 of Araromi Ward 4 of Odigbo Local
        Government Area.

                                                            4
    4. Exhibit 1098 (37) for Units 6 and 15 of Ago-Alaye Ward 08 of Odigbo Local Government Area.
        Under cross-examination PW8 said each unit and ward of the constituency had its agent and he was
agent for Ward 04, that he did not follow the thugs to the police station and the house of Chief Akintemi,
that he could not tell if all the voters who gave him Exhibits 1098 series were still alive, that his voter's cards
should be part of Exhibit 1098, that he did not have a meeting with Dr. Agagu, Chief Akintemi and Chief Falolu
before or on the day of election, that he was conversant with the electoral guidelines, that he was not following the
thugs from place to place and that he understood the contents of his deposition before signing same.
         He added that there was no. voting on that day at Araromi Obu, that he voted at Unit 04 of Araromi
Obu Ward 4, that on that day policemen were harassing people, that he did not attend any meeting between Dr.
Agagu and policemen and soldiers before the election and that the report of the incident he made to the police
Commissioner was by telephone.
       PW9's evidence-in-chief was to the effect that there was no election in the 5 polling units at Kajola
Express and Sokoto No. 2 because election materials were not brought there, that only 3 of the 4 units in
Obadore had election materials, and that no election took place in the fourth unit which is 016, that there was no
election in Leegee and Onipetesi polling units because of non-availability of voters' register, there was no counting of
votes and declaration of results and thugs were used to drive away Labour Party agents from collation centre and
the polling units, that election was inconlusive in units of St. Paul's Primary School, Oniparaga Units O i l and
002, Dispensary 003, Abapanu village 005 and 006, Ajebamidele Onitea 007, Ajebamidele Express Junction 008, St.
Luke's Ajebamidele 009, Labon village 010, Temidete Primary School 1 and 2 014, Ogunlepa village 019 and
Laleipa/Ifara Fayo 020, Rafael/Ajebambo/St. Jerome Primary School 026 of Oniparaga, that thugs, policemen and
soldiers were led by Samuel Adesina and that after the purported election voters who were denied the
opportunity to vote especially members and supporters of the Labour Party complained to him and surrendered
their voter's cards as evidence that they did not cast their votes.
         PW9 identified Exhibit 1098 (38) as the voter's cards given to him for Units 010, 011, 013, 016, 017,
019, 021, 022, 023, 018, 025, 026, 030, 031, 014 and 001 of Oniparaga Ward 9.
        Under cross-examination PW9 said that Honourable Adesina hired thugs from Ogun State, that he did
not follow them to where the thugs were hired or about, that people were confined to their polling unit on that
day, that he was not aware that a voter could be allowed to vote if he explained that he lost his voter's card, that
he submitted Exhibit 1098 to Labour Party, that he did not know if any of those who gave him their voter's cards had
died, that election did not take place in any of the units of Kajola Express, that he talked to Labour Party
members/sympathizers and other electorates on the issue of non-conduct of the election who gave him
their voter's cards and that on that day himself and Labour Party agents and supporters did not wear uniforms.
        PW10 said he was a registered voter and Labour Party's agent for Afor Ward I, Ose Local Government Area
which has 9 polling units. PW10 stated further that electoral materials for the ward were hijacked by Denis Alonge-
                                                               5
Niyi the Chairman of Ose Local Government, that when PW10 complained Denis Alonge-Niyi released materials
for 4 out of the 9 polling units and distributed them to St. David School Afo, L.A. Primary School Afo, St. David James
School Ugbe I and market place Ugbe, that soldiers, mobile policemen and thugs commissioned by the 1 st
Respondent then moved in, scared away voters by shooting into the air and carted away the electoral materials to
the residence of Denis Alonge-Niyi where all the nine ballot boxes were stuffed with ballot papers which were
already thumb printed by Denis Alonge-Niyi and his people in favour of the 1st Respondent, that the said Denis
Alonge-Niyi allotted votes to PDF and recorded same in Form EC8B and signed the said form as PDP's agent, that he
later brought the nine boxes to the collation centre, of Afo and then to INEC at Ifo, that no party agent apart from
PDP's signed the result and that majority of the voters who were denied the right to vote complained to him
and surrendered their voter's cards to him as evidence that they did not cast their votes.
        PW10 identified Exhibit 1098 (6) as the unused voter's cards he received for Units 001, 002, 003, 004, 005,
006, 007, 008 and 009 of Afo Ward 01 of Ose Local Government.
       Under cross-examination PW10 said he monitored the materials to the residence of Denis Alonge-Niyi but he
was not allowed into the house, that he did not know if the owners of the voter's cards he collected are still
alive, that the soldiers and thugs came in buses, that he did not attend any meeting involving soldiers, police and
thugs on the day of the election, that he was riding a motorcycle on that day, that he received Exhibit 1098 (6) on
the day of the election and the following day, that he got the unused ballot papers from Labour Party members
and sympathizers, that he moved around on that day and monitored Alonge-Niyi's house which was not far,
that the policemen were parading the town and shooting and not at the units and that anyone who says
election materials were taken to the units is lying.
       PWll's evidence-in-chief was that he was appointed as one of the domestic observers to monitor
the 14th April, 2007 elections at Ilaje Local Government, that at 8.30 a.m. on 14th April, 2007 ad hoc staff
besieged INEC's office in Igbakoda complaining that their names had been substituted by members of a particular
political party who did not attend training with them and demanded for the release of INEC's trained ad hoc staff
list, that the eventual non-release of the list caused commotion which led to the intervention of the Navy, Police
and SSS there, that electoral materials did not get to the reverine areas until 4.25 p.m. when election was supposed
to have ended, that as a result of this he could not cover the whole of Ilaje Local Government so he decided to
observe the elections in Ugbo Wards (I), (II) and (III), that at Ugbo Ward III militant youths were organized
into killer squads by PDF armed with dangerous weapons like guns, cutlasses and exercise who terrorized the
electorates, prevented them from voting and beating and wounding many of them, that the killer squad was
supervised by Chief Adewale Omojuwa who ordered his elimination, and that he was wounded in the
head and had to received treatment at a hospital at Ilawo and Obafemi Awolowo Teaching Hospital Ile-Ife,
that elections in same part of Ilaje Local Government were characterized by invasion of booths by the killer squad,
that no credible election was held in the Local Government and that he had written reports dated 19th and 26th
                                                            6
April,2007. The reports were tendered by him and were admitted in evidence and marked 1108 (1) - (3)
and 1109 (1) - (3) respectively.
         The documentary evidence of his treatment in the hospitals were also admitted as 1110 (1) - (6).
         Under cross-examination PW11 said he was not a staff of INEC nor was he a party to the training of INEC's ad
hoc staff, that he had no access to INEC's records pertaining to their ad hoc staff, that he did not know the number of
polling units in Ugbe Wards I, II and III, that he was not the Secretary of Labour Party in Ward 3, that Exhibit 1109, his
report, was addressed to Chairman of NEC and copied to INEC, that he monitored the election on behalf of NLC, that
he was not aware that in many states including Oyo and Ondo the NLC declared for Labour Party, that he also
reported to the police, that it was not true that he was beaten up because he attempted to snatch a ballot paper, that
he was attacked at Ilawo and not in his native community, that he attended 3 hospitals- for treatment that it was PDP
Youths who attacked him, that he could not say if he would be happy if PDP was unseated from power, that he was
duly appointed by INEC as an observer and he had his letter of appointment, that INEC did not prepare.adequately for that
election, that there were no policemen on duty in the area to which he was assigned on the day of the election, that
they were invited to participate in the election as local observers and that he was not a member of the killer
squad.
         PW12's evidence-in-chief was to the effect that he was agent/coordinator for Labour Party for Ajowa
Ward 5 of Akoko North West Local Government Area, that Honourable Yemi Alao, the Commissioner
for Justice and Attorney-General of Ondo State led thugs to snatch ballot boxes and other electoral materials
which were taken to his residence for thumb printing and collation, that all the Presiding Officers collated the
results for the ward in his house from where they left for Okeagbe, the Akoko North West Headquarters of
INEC, where Yemi Alao signed the result as agent of Dr. Agagu, that he was brutally assaulted by the thugs of which
three of his teeth were forcefully removed with a stone and he was rushed to hospital that his son Jamiu was
matcheted and was also rushed to the hospital, that the election in Ajowa Ward 5 was not free and fair and that
supporters of Labour Party who were deprived of the right to vote gave their voter's card to him. PW12 identified
Exhibit 1095 the voter's cards for Units 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12 and 13 of Ajowa Ward 05 of Akoko North West Local
Government. PW12 also opened his teeth showing gaps and wires holding other teeth.
          Under cross-examination PW12 insisted that there was no election, that there are 17 units in the ward,
that while at the hospital in the afternoon he could not tell what was happening at the polling unit, that he was at
Honourable Alao's house where he was wounded, that the house is not a designated polling unit but they took ballot
boxes and election materials there, that he could not tell if the prospective voters who gave him their voter's
cards were still alive, that he decamped to Labour Party with Mimiko in 2007, that he asked of the ballot boxes and
election materials in Alao's house and immediately they attacked him, that he was conscious when he was taken to
the hospital, that he and his son were not members of a ballot-snatching gang who were attacked by voters who
did not want to be disenfranchised, that they were attacked at the same place, that he did not hear or confirm the death
                                                            7
of any of the persons who gave him their voter's cards, that he did not report what he observed to INEC but that he
reported to the police who did not take any action, that he knew that the materials for the election were directed
to Alao's house that morning, that he did not lose some of his teeth before 14th April, 2007 and that he reported the
matter to the police before he went to the hospital.
        PWlS's evidence-in-chief was that he was the Labour Party's agent for Ikado Ward 7 of Akoko North East
Constituency, that as election materials were about to be distributed to Presiding Officers members of Agagu campaign
organization led by Alhaji Abass Aidi, a PDP chieftain armed with guns, cutlasses, charms shot into the air and scared away
voters, that they wore rubber bands with the inscription "OK AGAGU" meaning Olusegun Kokumu Agagu "and were
shouting "No Agagu No Election", that all the ballot papers and other election materials were forcefully taken to
Olukare's palace, that the ballot papers were thumb printed by a few people in favour of Dr. Agagu that as a result
of the hijacking of the electoral materials voters and especially Labour Party members protested to him
and handed over their voter's card to him as evidence that they were not allowed to vote, that the police, security
agents and INEC officials connived at the illegal voting and went ahead and declared results collated by thugs
and agents of Governor Agagu, that Labour Party agents and other party agents did not sign or witness the
purported result and that there was no election in all polling units in Okado Ward I.
        PW13 tendered a rubber band which was admitted and marked as Exhibit 1111 and identified Exhibit 1098
(36) as the voter's cards he collected for Ikado Ward 01.
        Under cross-examination PW13 said he saw two boys thumb printing inside the palace, that he did not
need to be allowed into the palace because it is his father's house, that his father, who is a member of PDP, was
looking while they were thumb printing, that he does not belong to the same party with his father that he picked
up the rubber band when they left some of them, that the Olukare of Ikare is not his biological father, that
nobody can know which party a prospective voter would vote for, that in his own ward the collation and
distribution centre are the same place, that many of the persons who gave him their voter's cards are alive, that he
had no meeting with Agagu and Aidi before the election, that in his record "Oluboya" was shortened to "Olu", that
he handed over the voter's card to his party's local government chairman, that he did not make any reports to
INEC because the Presiding Officers were there, that he was surprised that the police who were supposed to
protect everybody on the election day supported one side, that he did not attend any meeting with the police,
security agents, INEC's officials and Dr. Agagu and that he reported his observation to the DPO who said he obeyed
orders from above.
         Under re-examination PW13 explained that he said the Olukare's palace is his father's house and that the
Olukare is not his biological father but he is a prince of Ikare.
         PW14, PW15, PW16, PW17, PW18, PW19, PW20, PW21 and PW22 were on subpoena duces tecum but
they all informed the Tribunal that the documents they were ordered to produce did not exist.
         PW23's evidence-in-chief is that he was the party agent supervising Edo Ward code 001, Akoko North
                                                              8
East constituency for Labour Party in the election which took place on 14th April, 2007. PW23 added that as the
election materials were about to be distributed to the Presiding Officers members of Agagu campaign organization
and thugs led by Hon. Gbenga Otoloririn Elegbeleye, a PDP candidate for the National Assembly armed with guns,
cutlasses and charms shot into the air and scared voters away, that they wore rubber bands bearing the
inscriptions "OK AGAGU" meaning "Olusegun Kokumo Agagu and shouting "No Election", that all the ballot
papers and electoral materials were carted away to the house of Chief Adejuro Jamiyu where the ballot
papers were thumb printed by a few people in favour of Dr. Olusegun Agagu, that the police, security agents
and INEC officials connived in the illegal voting and declaration of the result collated by thugs and agents of
the 1st Respondent, that as a result of the hijacking Labour Party members and waiting voters protested to
him and handed over their voter's cards to him as evidence that they were not allowed to vote and that there was no
election in all the polling units in that ward and that Labour Party and other party agents did not sign the
result sheets declared by thugs and INEC officials.
        PW23 identified Exhibit 1111 as the type used by supporters of the 1st Respondent on the day of the
election. PW23 also identified Exhibit 1098 (36) series and picked those for Units 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007,
008, 009, 010, O i l and 012 of Edo Ward of Akoko North East Local Government Area.
        Under cross-examination PW23 stated that voting is never done at the distribution centre, that the
incidence he described took place at about 10.00 a.m. at the distribution centre, that he did not join the thugs but
monitored them, that there was no voting, that the persons who handed over their voter's cards to him were
alive when they did, that he was prevented from entering the house of Chief Adejoro Jamiu where the
thumb printing took place on that day, the house is not a glass house, that he could not remember the
number of people who gave him their voter's cards, that he did not lodge any complaint to INEC that the
election materials were brought to the collation centre by INEC officials in company of policemen and that before the
election there was no meeting between INEC, policemen, Agagu and others which he attended.
        PW24's evidence-in-chief was that he was Labour Party's agent supervising Onnun Ward I code
number O i l Akoko North East Constituency in the election held on 14th April, 2007, that he arrived at the
distribution/collation centre at about 10.00 a.m. with INEC officials and election materials, that just as the materials
were to be distributed to the Presiding Officers members of the Agagu campaign organization and thugs led by one
Liadi Ekunnusi, armed with guns, cutlasses and charms shot into the air and scared away voters and carted away ballot
papers and other electoral materials to the house of Chief Olawale Kutelu where the ballot papers were thumb
printed by a few people in favour of the 1st Respondent, that the said member of Agagu campaign organization and
thugs wore rubber band with the inscription "OK AGAGU" meaning "Olusegun Kokumo Agagu", that the
police, security agents and INEC officials connived in the illegal voting and went ahead to declare the result collated
by thugs and agents of the 1st Respondent which was neither signed nor witnessed by other party agents that
there was no election in all the polling units in Oorun Ward I and that as a result of the hijacking voters
                                                           9
especially members of Labour Party protested to him and handed over their voter's cards to him as evidence
that they were not allowed to vote.
         PW24 identified Exhibit 1111 as the rubber band he referred to. He also identified ballot papers for Units
002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 010 and 001 of Ilepa I Ward 5. Units 061, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007,
008, 009 and 010 for Ilepa II Ward 6; for Units 001, 002. 003, 004, 005, 006 and 007 of Oorun I. Ward II. Units
001, 002, 003. 004, 005, 006, 007, 008 and 009 of Oorun II Ward 12; Units 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008 and
009 of Oorun II Ward 12; Units 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008 and 009 of Oyinmio Ward 13 and Units 001,
002, 003, 004, 005 and 006 of Ekan Ward II in Exhibit 1098(36).
         Under cross-examination PW24 admitted that every ward and local government tier of his party had
its supervising agent at the election, that he was the supervising agent for Oorun Ward one, that PDP
members wore the rubber bands during their campaigns, that he did not go to the house of Chief Olawale
Kutelu on the day of the election, that INEC officials and police brought election materials to the only
distribution centre, that he had nothing to do with distribution of election materials to wards other than Oorun, that
elections are not held in distribution centres and that he was not aware that anyone of the persons who brought his
voter's card to him wasjlead.
         On further cross-examination PW24 said that he gave the cards he collected from voters to the secretariat of
Labour Party, that he met with Chief Alasoadura and Dr. Agagu in 2006 but that they did not discuss thuggery or his
coming over to PDF, that he had never been to a meeting with INEC officials, police officers and thugs before and on 14th
April, 2007, that the election materials were snatched away at the point of distribution so they never got to the units.
         PW25's evidence-in-chief was that he was appointed Supervisory Party Agent for Labour Party in Ward 10 of Ile-
Oluji/Okeigbo Local Government Area of Ondo State, that the 1st Respondent sent his thugs who wore wristbands with
the inscription "OK AGAGU" meaning Olusegun Kokumo Agagu" who kept shouting "NO AGAGU NO
ELECTION" and scaring away people, that election only took place at Unit 013 (Orisumbare Camp) and 017 (Igbo
Olodumare), that the elections were by massive rigging, carting away of ballot boxes and stuffing of ballot boxes with
already thumb printed materials by the Agagu thugs which were later brought to the collation centre, that ballot
papers were thumb printed by thugs commissioned by the 1st Respondent in the residence of Hon. Kusamolu Tajudeen
where figures were allotted and recorded in Forms EC8A and EC8B and signed by the said Hon Kusamolu
Tajudeen                 as               PDP's                 agent,                that               after             the
purported election voters who were denied the opportunity to vote in Ile-Oluji/Okeigbu Local Government
Area gave their voter's cards as evidence that they did not cast their votes on 14th April, 2007. PW25 tendered
the rubber band which was admitted as Exhibit 1119.                 PW25 identified Exhibit 1068, as the Form EC8B
signed by Kusamolu Tajudeen. PW25 also identified Exhibits 1098 (48), 1098 (47), 1098 (46), 1098 (45), 1098
(44), 1098 (43), 1098 (77), 1098 (76), 1098 (75) 1098 (74), 1098 (73), 1098 (72), 1098 (71), 1098 (70), 1098 (69),
1098 (68), 1098 (67), 1098 (66), 1098 (65), 1098 (64), 1098 (63), 1098 (60), 1098 (62) and 1098 (6) as the voter's
                                                               10
cards given to him by the voters.
        Under cross-examination PW25 insisted that there was no election but that as at the date of the
election he was a member of the Labour Party, that in the cause of canvassing for votes Labour Party
distributed face caps, rubber bands, T-Shirts among its members, that on the day of the election he did not
arrest any thug, that he did not hold meetings with Dr. Agagu, Oluwole Oji, Sunday Oyemakinde, Mr. Okelade and
Honourable Kusamolu Tajudeen, that OK Agagu on I Exhibit 1119 is abbreviation, that on 14th April, 2007 he
did not enter not the house of Kusamolu Tajudeen but met them outside thumb printing and stuffing in the
ballot box, that he did not know if any of the persons who gave him that voter's cards was dead, that
the person voter would vote for was a personal decision, that he took the voter's cards to the party
secretariat from where they were given to their lawyers; that in the result for Unit 13 PDF declared
Labour Party winner (Exhibit 1068 (4)) and that policemen were at the ward with thugs and other security
personnel shooting periodically into the air.
        PW26's evidence-in-chief was that on the day of the election he served as supervisory party agent of the
Labour Party for Ward 7 of Ile-Oluji/Okeigbo Local Government Area, that the 1st Respondent sent his armed
thugs who wore wristbands bearing "OK AGAGU" meaning "Olusegun Kokumo Agagu" and armed soldiers
who disrupted the elections and shot sporadically into the air, as they scared away voters that the armed thugs stuffed
the ballot boxes of most of the units in the ward with already thumb printed ballot papers, that the election in the
ward was marred by malpractices, violence and massive rigging and that after the purported election voters who were
denied the right to vote, especially members of the Labour Party, gave their voter's cards to him as evidence
that they were denied the right to vote on that day.
        PW26 identified Exhibit 1111 as a sample of the rubber bands worn by the thugs. PW25 also identified
Exhibits 1098 (49), 1098 (50), 1098 (51), 1098 (52), 1098 (53), 1098 (54), 1098 (55), 1098 (56), 1098 .(57), 1098 (58)
and 1098 (59) and confirmed that they were the unused voter's cards submitted to him by voters who were denied
the right to vote.
       Under cross-examination PW26 said that his party posted agent to polling units in that election, that
there was no accreditation of voters on 14th April, 2007 which ought to have taken place, that there was no
election in his town on that day, that he did not know how many seats his party has in the Ondo State
House of Assembly, that there are 15 polling units in his ward, that as soon as the soldiers shot into the air the
eligible voters ran away, that all the polling units are not located in the same place, that he did not print Exhibits 1111
and 1119, that he did not have any information on the death of any of the persons who gave him their voter's cards,
that he did not have any alliance with PDF, that he never attended any PDF meeting with Dr. Agagu and soldiers,
that during the campaigns his party had its vests, face caps and souvenirs but that they did not have rubber
bands, that while the shooting was going away he ran away and watched them from a safe distance, that it was the
thugs and soldiers, not policemen, who were doing the shooting, that on that day he was at Units 001, 005, 006, Oil,
                                                            11
014 and 015, that the acts were not done in all the units at the same time, that he did not report to the police
because the thugs came along with the policemen, that he did not report to INEC because their officials
were there and they were part of the thugs, that election materials were brought to his ward but the election
did not take place, that there is a police station in his town, that he neither fought nor arrested the thugs on
that day, that he saw them physically snatching the election materials, that the thugs divided themselves into groups for that
purpose and that he saw them in each of the units he visited.
        PW27 described himself as the Labour Party's agent for Orisatu unit, Arogbo during the Gubernatorial and House
of Assembly election of 14th April, 2007. PW27 added that at about 8.30 a.m. on that day the materials were brought
by INEC staff accompanied by armed soldiers and policemen armed with rifles and rocket launchers, that the INEC's
staff went to the house of one D.I. Kekemeke to report their arrival, that the said D.I. Kekemeke ordered that the
materials be taken to his residence which was resisted by the other parties as a result of which some thugs came
from Kekemeke's residence and a fight ensured, that the soldiers and policemen started shooting at the crowd
where one Waribi Idepe was shot in the loins and was receiving treatment, that the armed soldiers and policemen
went away with many ballot boxes and other materials and the PDF thugs led by D.I. Kekemeke made away
with eight ballot boxes, that the materials brought were for Arogbo Wards I, II and III and that there was no
election in the whole of Arogbo Ward I and in particular open space, Orisatu unit, Arogbo.
         PW27 identified Exhibits 1101 (1) - (10) as the reports concerning Waribi Idepe.
         Under cross-examination PW27 said he did not write Exhibit 1101 (1) - (10) but that he submitted
them to his legal team, that he got them from the immediate family of the person shot, that prior to the election
day he did not hold meetings with D.I. Kekemeke and PDF members or with armed policemen and armed
soldiers, that he did not know who shot Waribi Idepe because the armed soldiers, armed policemen and
thugs were shooting at the same time, that Waribi Idepe is of PDF, that he was not the one who submitted Exhibit
1101 to the 1st Respondent, that Felix Idekpe and Godspower Idekpe are elder brothers of the man who died
and they are alive, that on 14th April, 2007 he did not enter into D.I. Kekemeke's house, that he could not be
specific as to whether it was the policemen, soldiers or militants who shot the deceased, that he did not report the
conduct of the soldiers and the police to their authorities, that he did not have the record of his complaint
against the election anywhere, that the fight took place at Agadagbo-Eboh and it lasted between 5 and 6 hours,
that he did not command or take sides in the fight, he just observed it, that Fadite was on the side of Kekemeke but
he did not shoot, that he was at Orisatu at 7. 30 a.m. on that day but that he was not there at 3. 00 p.m., that he is
not conversant with arms but he knows common ones like rifles and rocket launchers used by the soldiers on that
day, that on that day there was no cross fire because the shooting was from one side only and that the police were
supposed to protect everybody and not one side.
         PW28 said he was trained and commissioned by Civil Liberties Organisation, a non-governmental organization, as
an observer for the 14th April, 2007 Governorship and House of Assembly election to cover Arogbo Wards II and III, Ese
                                                                12
Odo Local Government of Ondo State. He added that in the morning of that day he went to Aragbadu Obon to
witness the arrival and dispatching of electoral materials to wards collation centres for onward distribution to various
polling units in Arogbo wards II and III, that materials arrived at 8.40 a.m. accompanied by armed soldiers and
armed policemen led by one Mr. Fadele a staff of INEC, that instead of dispatching the electoral materials to
the collation centres for distribution the soldiers and mobile policemen started shooting into the air
sporadically on the ground that there was heated argument between leaders of the other political parties and D.I.
Kekemeke a PDF leader on the suitability of Adagba Obon as the distribution centre, that thereafter PDF thugs in
collaboration with INEC officials and PDP leader carted away the electoral materials to an undisclosed
destination that the electoral materials did not get to any of the collation centres in Wards II and III so there was no
election in any of the polling units, that thereafter he filed his report with his organization and that he was
issued identification card by INEC and a pass by his organization as an observer. PW28 tendered identifications
which were admitted and marked as Exhibits 1120 and 1121.
        Under cross-examination PW28 said he was a majority leader for Ese Odo Local Government between May
1999 and May 2000 on the platform of Alliance for Democracy, that he contested for the position of vice chairman
in 2004 under the same party and that he lost the election to PDF and that he did not join Action Congress
later. The observers checklist was also tendered by PW28 and it was marked as Exhibit 1122(1)-(2).
        Testifying further PW28 said he gave the original of Exhibit 1122 (1) - (2) to the Civil Liberty Organisation, that
some areas of Exhibits 1122 were not filed by him, that the exhibit is a continuous document which has space for
date on the first page on the top of Exhibit 1122 (1), that there was no indication on the exhibit that it was
received by CLO, that he did not fill some aspect of the exhibits because it was not considered necessary since there
was no election and it was meant for where election was either properly conducted or not, that in the
Presidential election there was no voting in Arogbo I, II and III, that he did not see any agent of any political party
because there was no election, that the distribution of election materials was supposed to take place at Igbekebo the
headquarter of Ese Odo Local Government, that he did not get to Igbekebo, that 2 of them were observers from
CLO, that according to the report he filed he was at Agadagba Obon from 9.00 a.m. to 4. 00 p.m. and Igbekebo
was outside his area of coverage, that he saw Fadele at Agadagba Obon and not at Igbekedo and that he reported the
conduct of the election to CLO and not to INEC.
        Under re-examination PW28 said that the election of 14th April, 2007 was different from that of 21st April,
2007.
        PW29 adopted his evidence-in-chief and identified Exhibit 1098 (5) as voter's cards he received from
aggrieved voters.
        PW29's evidence-in-chief was that he was a member of the Labour Party by virtue of which he
acted as agent to supervise the 14th April, 2007 Governorship and House of Assembly election for
Ukparama Ward I and 2 of Ese Odo Local Government. PW29 added that on that day he visited all the polling
                                                            13
units in the 2 wards where Labour Party agents and supporters and the electorates complained to him that
voting materials and INEC's ad hoc staff did not, as he already knew, reach any of the units in the 2
wards, that they consequently submitted their voter's cards to him to show that voting did not take place, that
PDP thugs and armed militants carted away the election materials to the militants' hideout in Ese Odo
Local Government Area of Ondo State.
         Under cross-examination PW29 said what he said was what he saw and what he was told, that at the time
he swore to his statement on oath those he knew among the people who surrendered their voter's cards to
him were alive, that he was a registration officer during the registration of voters, that he did not vote
during the Presidential election at which time there was no election, that the voter's cards were not the ones he
kept as registration officer, that he was neither a member nor a thug of PDP, that he knows the militants'
base in Ese Odo which one has to pass by to visit other communities or to bury their dead but that he never
entered the place, that when the thugs carted away the electoral materials he followed them and he told his
party leaders about, that he waited at afar from the militants' base watching them committing electoral
malpractices and that while waiting he knew what happened in other areas.
         PW30 who described himself domestic monitor for Civil Liberties Organisation adopted his
deposition. He tendered the observer's checklist and report which were marked as Exhibit 1123 (1) - (2).
         PW30's evidence-in-chief was that for the purpose of monitoring the elections he attended several
workshops organized by Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO) in conjunction with United Nations
Development Programme and one by National Democratic Institute of the United States of America, that he
monitored the elections in wards 4 and 5 of Ese Odo Local Government Area, that at Unit 007 of Ward 05 he
observed that materials did not get there on time until 9. 45 p.m., that election started at around 10.00 a.m. and voters
were not properly accredited, that voters were chased away harassed and intimidated by thugs working for the
1st Respondent singing "NO AGAGU NO VOTING", that ballot box was snatched away at around 11.52
a.m. thus aborting the election, that no result was announced and people were disallowed from voting, that the same
scenario happened in Unit 006 of Ward 5 and some other units in Ward 4, that he filed his result in the checklist and submitted it to
the coordinator for Ese Odo.
         Under cross-examination PW30 said he has BSC in Computer Engineering and Electronics, that he
contested the AC Primaries in 2006 and left the party immediately in frustration but that he never joined the
Labour Party, that those who thumb-printed used a table to thumb print, that in the accreditation they marked the
voter's cards without stamping them; that he gave the original of his report and other documents he worked with to
Civil Liberties Organisation, that he arrived polling unit 007 in Ward 5 at 7.00 a.m. PW30 was then requested
to read copiously from Exhibits 1123 (1) - (2). PW30 concluded that the headquarters of CLO in Ondo State is at
25 Osirile Street, Akure.
         PW31's evidence-in-chief was that he was was Labour Party's supervisory agent for Irele 4 Ward 9 of Irele
                                                                 14
Local Government Area during the Governorship and House of Assembly election held on 14th April, 2007 and has 14
polling units. He added that on that day thugs accompanied by armed soldiers who were commissioned by the 1st
Respondent chanted war song "No Agagu No Election" and wearing rubber bands on their wrists with inscription
containing 'OK Agagu' meaning 'Olusegun Kokomo Agagu and scared away voters, that the so-called election in the
ward was characterized by violence and massive rigging, that all the election material were snatched and State
Scholarships Board where the ballot papers were thumb-printed, votes were allocated and recorded and that the
election result for the ward was signed by the said Dr. Francis Igbasan as PDP's agent. He added that voters who were
denied the opportunity to vote complained to him and gave him their voter's cards as evidence that they were denied
their rights to vote and that he visited all the polling units in the ward on that day and noted that no election took place
in any of the units.
         PW31 identified the voter's cards he claimed were given to him by disenfranchised voters as Exhibit 1098 (13),
Exhibit 1111 and 1119 as the specie of the rubber bands worn by thugs on that day and he result sheet for the ward in
Form EC8B as Exhibit 199 (1) and 199 (2).
         Under cross-examination PW3 1 said he never had meetings with Dr. Agagu and PDP members before and on
the day of the election, that some of the units in the ward are within the town and some outside the town. That Salvation
Army Unit Irele and Akinbole Camp are up to 25 kilometres apart, that there was no election and all the voting
materials were carted away by PDP thugs, that in Exhibit 199 (2), the result for Unit 003, Labour Party won the election but
he did not know the reason for that, that Irele to Akingboye is about 7 kilometres, to about 8 kilometres, that he was
not part of the members who appointed and terminated the appointments of members of boards, that he only
witnessed some occasions of ballots snatching, that after snatching he did not follow them to the house of Francis
Igbasan, that he did not collect Exhibits 1111 and 1119 from anybody rather he collected them from the ground, that
the voters' cards he collected were for Wards 1, 2 and 4 and that each of the 14 wards had its Labour Party
Leader, Chairman and Agents but that he was a leader for the Local Government Area, that he did not
arrest anyone personally on that day that Exhibits 1111 and 119 are not exactly the same, that his party made
several souvenirs for its members only, that he did not know if PDP distributed souvenirs to everybody at its rally
and that Exhibit 199 (2) for Irele 4 Ward IX has INEC's inscription.
         PW32 said he was the supervisory agent for Irele 5 Ward X of Irele Local Government Area for
Labour Party in the Gubernatorial election of 14th April, 2007 and has 14 polling units. He added that on that day
the 1st Respondent commissioned and sent PDP thugs accompanied by armed soldiers and they
chanted war songs "No Agagu No election "scaring people away, that each of the thugs wore wristband with
the inscription "OK Agagu" meaning "Olusegun Kokumo Agagu", that the so-called election in the
ward was characterized by violence and massive rigging, that all the election materials for the ward were
snatched away by thugs of the 1st Respondent and taken to the house of the Col. Festus Meghoma (Rtd) at 3JS
Hotel Ode-Irele where the ballot papers were thumb-printed and votes allotted and recorded, that voters jvho_jvere
                                                            15
denied the opportunity to vote in the ward complained to him and surrendered their voters' cards to him as
evidence that they did not cast their votes on that day and that he visited all the polling units in the ward and saw that there
was no voting in any of them.
         PW32 identified Exhibits 1098 (7), 1098 (8), 1098 (10) and 1098 ( ) as the voters' cards he collected from
disenfranchised voters for Irele III Ward 008, Irele II Ward 009, Akologbo I Ward 003 and Akologbo II Ward 004
respectively.
         Under cross-examination PW32 said that Labour Party had its agents at the polling units on that day and he did
not hear that anyone of them was dead, that he was not at a meeting with Agagu and thugs where they decided to snatch
ballot boxes, that he followed them, at a distance to the hotel but that he did not get into the hotel, that he did not
report to the police because the policemen were there committing the act, which, he,said, was not contained in his
statement on oath, that his statement before the Tribunal was not a comprehensive statement of what happened on the
day of the election but rather that it only contained some of the important things, that some of the fence of the hotel
was made with perforated blocks through which he could see the hotel and that since the walls are not very high he
could see across the wall but that he could not see a lodger in the room.
         PW33 testified as Labour Party's Supervisory Agent for Ajagba I Ward 002 of Irele Local Government Area
which has 12 polling units for the 14th April, 2008 Governorship and House of Assembly elections. He
stated that on that day the 1st Respondent commissioned PDF thugs and armed soldier who sang war songs
"No Agagu No Election" and scared away people, that each of them wore ruberband on his wrist with the
inscription "OK AGAGU" meaning "Olusegun Kokumo Agagu", that all the voting materials for the 12 units of
the ward were carted away from the distribution centre by the Local Government Council Chairman
accompanied by heavily armed soldiers to his office at the Local Government Secretariat where ballot papers were
thumb-printed by thugs commissioned by the 1st Respondent and figures were allotted and recorded, that voters
who were denied the opportunity to vote gave their voters' cards to him as evidence that they did not vote
and that he visited all the polling units in the ward where there was no voting at all at any of the units.
      PW33 identified Exhibit 1098 (9) and 1098 (14) as the voters' cards he said were surrendered to him.
      Under cross-examination PW33 said that those who gave him their voters' cards are alive, that there were
Labour Party agents at the various units under his control, that he was not at the meeting where the 1st
Respondent commissioned thugs to snatch ballot boxes, that he did not follow those who snatched ballot boxes to the
secretariat, that £!t:tLeJii and thugs perpetrated the evil act together, that when the shooting started all the agents of
Labour Party ran away and got back later, that the snatching occurred at all the polling units under his control, PW33 then
explained where Units 001, 002, 003, 004 and 005 were located and stated that the distance between Ajadi and Ajagba is
not more than 4 kilometres, between Ikwueru to Ajagba VA kilometers, Ugburogho to Ajagba to Ajagba not more than one
kilometer, that all the 12 units are not in the same spot, that by 9.00 a.m. on that day he was between Ajadi and Ugborogho
alone and that the policemen were with the thugs snatching away ballot boxes from unit to unit.
                                                              16
        PW34 said that he was Labour Party's supervisory Agent in charge of Omi-Iyansan Ward 005 of Irele Local
Government Area in the Gubernatorial and House of Assembly election held on 14th April, 2007 and has eleven polling
units, that on the day of the election the 1st Respondent commissioned and sent PDP thugs and armed soldiers who
chanted war songs "No Agagu No Election", and scared away people, that they wore wrist bands with PDP
colours and the inscription "OK Agagu" meaning Olusegun Kokumo Agagu", that entire voting materials for some
of the units of the ward were carted away from the INEC's distribution centre by the Chairman of the Local Government
Council accompanied by another person and armed soldiers to his office at the Local Government
Secretariat where the ballot papers were thumb-printed by thugs commissioned by the 1st Respondent and
figures were allotted and recorded in Form EC8B which was signed by Yemi Tadema PDP's House of
Assembly Member as PDP's agent, that persons who were not allowed to vote surrendered their voters' cards
to him as evidence that they did not vote at that election, and that he visited all the polling units in the ward
where there was no voting in any of the units.
        PW34 identified Exhibits 169 ( c) and 279 (1) as the result sheets which he said was signed by Yemi
Tadema and Exhibit 1098 (11) as the voters' cards submitted to him.
        Under cross-examination he said that Yemi Tadema never voted with him, that there was no
confirmed report that any of the voters who submitted his voter's card to him (Exhibit 1098 (11)) had died, that
his party had agents at all the polling units in the ward, that it was true that no meeting was held between him, Dr.
Agagu and thugs, that the election materials did not reach the polling units but were taken to the Local Government
Secretariat, that the doors of the Local Government were open and he entered and saw them since as
non-indigene of Irele they could not recognize him, that he did not participate in the thumb-printing of
ballot papers which was done by only soldiers, policemen and thugs, that he did not hold meeting with Akutoye
on the election day, that on that day he left Ode Irele at 2.00 p.m, that he resides in lyansan and not Irele but that
he hails from Irele, that he used to attend Labour Party's but not PDP's jelliesJbefore the election, that he had no
tag to identify him as Labour Party agent, that he did not report what happened to INEC, that there was no
need to report to the police since they were there while the thumb-printing was going on that he met policemen at
the distribution centre on that day but that only materials for 9 units were brought and they were all carted away
to the Local Government Secretariat, that policemen and soldiers participated in the thumb-printing and that
he did not attend any meeting between police, soldiers, Agagu and PDP thugs.
        PW35's evidence was that he was a registered voter and party agent for Eleyowa/Ilu-Abo Ward of Akure
North Local Government on 14th April, 2007, that he went round the: 9 polling units and knew that voting did not
take place at any of the units because the ballot boxes and all electoral materials were never brought to any of
the units, that the boxes and electoral materials were hijacked by PDP thugs and diverted to the house of a
PDP chieftain, where the ballot papers were thumb-printed in favour of the 1st Respondent with active connivance
of armed policemen and soldiers and that votes were allotted to PDP's candidates as collation was done in the
                                                         17
said PDP chieftains house.
        Under cross-examination PW35 said that there was no election so there was nothing for him to supervise,
that there were no political party agents at the various polling units because there were no elections,
that he is an Igbo-man living in Boluwaduro community and that he did not attend any meetings between Dr.
Agagu, police and army before the election.
        PW36's evidence-in-chief was that he was a voter, party agent and candidate in the election of 14th April,
2007, that he supervised the conduct of the election in Mahin Ward III of Ilaje Local Government that the 1st
Respondent commissioned and sent PDF thugs to disrupt the election and carted away election materials
to the house of Ikudehinbu Olamibo a Special Assistant to the Chairman of Ese-Odo Local Government where
ballot papers were thumb-printed by thugs and votes were allotted and recorded in Forms EC8A and EC8B which
were signed by the said Ikedehinbu Olamibo as PDP's agent and that after the purported election voters who were
denied the opportunity to vote complained to him and surrendered their voters' cards to him as evidence that they
did not vote in that election.
        PW36 identified Exhibits 1098 (11), 1098 (19), 1098 (2), 1098 (21) and 1098 (42) as the voters' cards he
referred to as the ones he received from voters who were unable to vote in paragraph 4 of his statement on
oath and Exhibit 407 (1) and 408 (1) as the Form EC8B he averred was signed by Ikedihinbu in his deposition.
        Under cross-examination PW36 said he moved from UNCP to AD and then to Labour Party for which he
was a candidate for House of Assembly election, that he was not at a meeting where Dr. Agagu commissioned
thugs to disrupt the 14th April, 2007 election, that there are 31 polling units in the ward which he visited and
saw what transpired, that election took place in only 7 units so there were no policemen and agents in other
units although they all had Labour Party agents, that his testimony was a summary of what he saw at the ward, that
he monitored the thugs to the house of Ikudehimbu Olamibo, that the materials taken to his house included those
for parts of the 7 units to which materials were supplied, that as at 2.45 p.m. when he left INEC office there
was no distribution of materials there and everything was packed there, that he did not know if all the people who
gave him Exhibit 1098 were still alive, that he was supposed to vote at secretariat polling unit but there were no voting
materials there, that although he was not inside Olamibo's house on that day he was near it, that
Olamibo's house had no fence and has plain louvres and a balcony and that if he went to the house he could not be
driven away.

The Petitioner's counsel then tendered the following documents from the bar. They are CTC's of:

         1. Governorship: Number of ballots issued as Exhibit 1124.

         2. Distribution of Form EC8 series as Exhibit 1125 (1) - (4).

         3. Retrieval of unused ballot papers as Exhibit 1126


                                                           18
         4. List of people to be accredited as JDPC Akure observers during the registration of voters exercise
               as Exhibit 1127 (1) - (4).
         5. And missing register of voters for the units in Aheri Ward as Exhibiting.
        PW37 who testified for the Petitioner to the effect that he was commissioned by his party to supervise the
election in Iju-Odo/Ereketi/Iju Oke Ward of Okitipupa Local Government Area, that the election in the ward was
characterized by violence, snatching of ballot boxes at gun point by PDF agents assisted by soldiers and mobile
policemen, that Labour Party agents waited for the INEC officers to come to the various polling units till 4.30 p.m.
when they left for their houses because they never turned up, that results entered into Forms EC8A for the units were
fabricated and recorded because there was no counting of votes and declaration of results and no result sheet, was.
signed and that Labour Party supporters and other voters who were denied the opportunity to vote in the ward
complained to him and surrendered their voters cards to him as evidence that they were:not allowed to vote.
PW37 then identified Exhibits 1098 (22) -(30) as the voters' cards surrendered to him by voters who were denied the
right to vote. PW37 added that he did not vote on that day and there were 16 units in the ward and that he went
round all the units, that although some of the voters' cards he identified were contained in envelopes he was there when
they were put in the envelopes, that he did not make Exhibit 1098, that all the persons whose voters' cards he identified
except one are alive, that he registered at St. Paul's Anglican Primary School unit where he went and saw that there was
no election.
        PW38's evidence was that he was commissioned to be party agent for Ode Aye Ward 10 of Okitipupa
Local Government which has 9 units, that the election was characterized by violence and snatching of ballot papers
by 1st Respondent's agents assisted by a detachment of policemen and soldiers, that he knew that voting did not take
place in most of the polling units and that after the purported election voters who were denied the
opportunity to vote especially members and supporters of Labour party in the ward complained to
him and surrendered their voters' cards to him.
        PW38 added that he did not vote at the election, that he did not meet with Dr. Agagu and he was not at
all the units at the same time, that every unit had a Labour Party agent and that on the day of the election he
was surprised to see so many policemen.
        PW40 said by virtue of his membership of Labour Party he was made a supervisor for the 14th April,
2007 for Igbolako Ward of Okitipupa Local Government, that on that day voting materials were distributed to
INEC's ad hoc staff each for of the units of the ward by 10.28 a.m, that he visited all the units in the ward, that he
observed that the electoral materials for Units 006, 009, Oil, 014 and 010 were carted away by one Ferni
John (Special Assistant to 1st Respondent) and some PDP thugs and Tayo Akinmosin who were armed with axes and
rifles and who shot sporadically into the air to scare away the electorates, that similar occurrences took place in
virtually all the other units in the ward, that many of the electorates who were denied the right to vote left with their
cards unmarked, that the results of some of the units were cancelled by the Returning Officer when Femi Johnson and

                                                           19
INEC's ad hoc staff supported by armed thugs brought the result to the collation centre and that there was no free and fair
election in the ward on that day.
         PW40 stated further that the materials did not get to Akinfosite Adeoye unit before they were carted away that
the materials for Korede camp, Okedebi and Adwinle units were taken to the units from where they were carted away by
Femi Johnson and the thugs, that he visited all the units, that from Igbotako to Adewinle is ten minutes drive and between
Sogbon camp and Okedebi is 7 minutes drive, between Okedebi and Adewinle is 3 minutes drive, Adewinle and
Korede 2 minutes drive, Korede to Akinfosile about 4 minutes drive, and that there was no announcement of results of
the election.
         PW39 stated that he was commissioned by Labour Party to supervise the election of Ilutitun III Ward
09 in Okitipupa Local Government as the party's agent, that while voting was going on thugs, policemen and soldiers led
by Hon. Ola Oguntimehin presently a Special Assistant to the 1st Respondent hijacked and snatched ballot boxes in
every polling unit in the ward and took them to the house of the said Hon. Oguntimehin where multiple thumb-printed
ballot papers were stuffed into the ballot boxes, that after the purported election voters who were denied
the right to vote especially members of the Labour Party surrenderd their voters' cards as evidence that they
did not vote on 14th April, 2007 and that there was no counting of votes, no declaration of results and no signature
of any election results sheets in the units by any Labour Party agent and that the results in Forms EC8A and
EC8B were fabricated and recorded in the house of Oguntimehin. PW39 identified Exhibits 1130 (1) - (13)
as the Forms EC8A he alleged were fabricated and Exhibits 734 (1) and (3) as the original and CTC of Form EC8B
he also said was fabricated.
         PW39 added that election did not take place, that he did not make Exhibits 1130(1)-(13) and he was not there
which it was made, that it is ten minutes ride on a bike between Ilutitun and Omotosho, that he covered the
entire ward, that there are signatures in the column for Labour Parry's agents on Exhibits 1130 (2) - (4) and 1130
(6) and (7), that he could not know what was happening at Omotosho when he was in Ilutitun, that although he was a
registered voter he was not allowed to vote at the election, that he went round all the 23 units on that day, that
there was no column for supervisory agent to sign on Exhibit 734 (1) and (2), that he was at each polling units while
the snatching was taking place and that he never attended any meeting between policemen, soldiers thugs
and the 1 st Respondent.
         PW42's evidence was that he was commissioned by Labour Party to supervise the conduct of the election in Erinje
Ward 20 in Okitipupa snatching of ballot boxes at gunpoint by agents of the 1st Respondent assisted by a detachment of
soldiers and mobile policemen, that while voting was taking place the said persons led by Fola Ewegbemi Special Assistant to
Femi Agagu the Chief of Staff to the 1st Respondent hijacked and snatched ballot boxes in every polling unit in the
ward and took them to the house of Fola Ewegbemi where thumb-printed ballot papers were stuffed into the ballot
boxes, that there were no counting of votes or declaration of results or signing of result sheets by any Labour Party agent,
that the purported results in Forms EC8A and EC8B for the ward were fabricated and recorded in Fola Ewegbemi 's house
                                                            20
and that after the purported election voters who were denied the opportunity to vote especially supporters of Labour
Party in the ward complained to him and surrendered their voters' cards to him as evidence that they did not
vote.
         PW42 identified Exhibits 592 (1) - (19) as the Forms EC8A and 593 (2) as the Form EC8B which he alleged were
fabricated.
         PW42 said that everything in his deposition was correct, that there are 19 units in the ward and that he
supervised all of them, that there is no ward 20 and that the code 4 in the ward he supervised is 02, that he could not be at
2 units at the same time and could not tell what was happening in Unit 02 while he was in Ward 01 but that he
got information of what was happening from his agents, that he went round and saw thugs for himself, that he was not
the maker of Exhibit 592 (1) - (19) and that he was not present when they were made, that there are signatures of
Labour Pary agents on Exhibits 592 (3) - (10), that the people he claimed did not vote are alive, that the
thumb-printing was done on the verandah of Fola Ewegbemi's house, that the glass in the house was only in
windows, that he was not a member of the thuggery group, that he was at Unit 008 at which he was registered
as a voter from 10.00 a.m. to 10.08 a.m. and could not vote and moved on to supervise other units, that
he monitored Femi Agagu and Fola Ewegbemi for 15 minutes, that he witnessed all the snatching, that the 19
polling units were not in the same location, that the ward consists of only one town and one village which has 2 units.
          PW43's evidence-in-chief was that during the Gubernatoral and House of Assembly elections he was a
voter, party agent and collation officer for Mahin Ward 002 of Ilaje Local Government Area, that the 1st
Respondent commissioned and sent PDF thugs to disrupt the election and cart away election materials to the
house of Prince Gbenga Edema Member of Ondo State Sports Council where ballot papers were thumb-
printed by thugs and votes were allotted and recorded in Forms EC8A and EC8B and same were signed by
the said Gbenga Edema as PDP's agent and that after the election voters who were denied the opportunity to vote
surrendered their voters' card to him. PW43 identified Exhibits 374A (1) and 374A (2) as the result signed by Gbenga Edema.
         Under cross-examination PW43 agreed that Form EC8B is the summary of results for each polling unit in the
ward, that he officiated for Labour Party on the day of the election as its agent, that he was there when the 1st
Respondent commissioned thugs, when they were recording results in favour of PDP and when thugs were
thumb-printing, that there was no point for him to report the issue to the police because the police colluded, that he did not
participate in the thuggery, that he was there when the thugs carted away the electoral materials to the house of Gbenga
Edema and that he reported the incidence verbally to the Electoral Officer for Ilaje.
         PW44's evidence-in-chief was that he was the main collation agent and leader for Labour Party on 14th April,
2007 Governorship and House of Assembly election, that on the day of the election he was at INEC's office in Jgbokoda
where the. distribution of materials was supposed to take place along with agents of other political parties and armed
soldiers, policemen and naval officers, that at about 1.00 p.m. party agents demanded for pasting of list of Presiding Officers
for the election and the E.O. refused which caused delay in the distribution of election materials, that at about 2.45 p.m. the
                                                                 21
election materials were loaded into 2 buses on the instruction of Chief Olusola Oke while the soldiers
pointed their guns and rifles at the protesting crowd outside, that the armed soldiers used force to
brutalise the protesters by horse whipping and chasing them with guns before the buses could convey the
electoral materials to the waterside at about 3.20 p.m, that the PDF thug led by Chief Olusola Oke armed
with sophisticated weapons in red uniforms traumatized the people in their boats while going to their I
respective wards and they also destroyed materials all over the place and that true elections did not take
place in the 12 wards of Ilaje Local Government Area, that no results were announced at the polling
stations and only allocations of votes were made by Presiding Officers who were not known before the
election but who were found to be PDF sponsored and that 90% of the results were not authenticated by any
known party agents.
        Under cross-examination PW44 said he was in AD, that he contested Senatorial election in 2003
and lost in 2003 when he moved to PDP, that he want to be a Member of NDDC and OSOPADEC but was
not appointed between 2003 and 2006, that he joined the Labour Party on 6th December 2006, that the 1st
Respondent is responsible for the appointment to the OSOPADEC but that he was not sure if he made the
nomination for NDDC's board, that he was appointed Labour Party's agent about a month and a half
before the election, that he was aware that polling agents names were to be pasted 48 hours before the election
and it was so done at Ugbokoda in accordance with INEC's guidelines, that as a good Christian he bore no grudge
for his non-appointment to NDDC and ONSOPADEC by PDP and the 1st Respondent, that he wrote to INEC and
SSS about the incidence of 14th April, 2007, that by 5.00 p.m. not a single unit had received anything on that day in
Ugbo Ward 006 and no results were announced by INEC on that day, that the 10 percent he talked about in paragraph 11
of his deposition for Ugbo Ward 006 out of 17 units, election took place in one unit called Ubale Kekere which is not up
to 10%, that he also visited Ugbo Ward 005 where election took place in only 2 units, Ajegunle I and Ojumade, which got
materials out of 16 units in the ward, that his party had agents in all the polling units in Ilaje Local Government and
to the best of his knowledge none of them was reported dead, that he wrote to SSS. to complain before the election
and he wrote to INEC on 7th April 2007, that on the day of the election voting materials did not leave Igbokoda
on time as scheduled not because Labour Party agents laid siege to search for the election materials but because
despite plea made from 8.00 a.m. up to 2.00 p.m. INEC refused to paste the names of Presiding Officers for the election, that
when Chief Olusola Oke came at about 2.00 p.m. the materials were forcefully loaded into 2 buses and were taken to
Marine Police Station where they could not gain access into, that Chief Olusola Oke was not the leader of INEC's
formation there but was controlling the INEC, police and militant men on that day.
        PW45 appeared as an expert witness, whose witness' statement on oath deposed to on 15th February,
2008 and documents annexed thereto which formed volume VIII of the Petitioner's bundle of document
were adopted as his evidence-in-chief in this petition.
        PW45 identified Exhibits 1076 as the ballot papers he mentioned in paragraph 15 of his deposition which, he
                                                             22
added, were given to him at the Conference Hall of INEC.
        PW45 stated further under examination in chief that the inventory of ballot papers, Electoral Officers'
reports. Inventory of used ballot papers, inventory of distribution of Form EC8 series, INEC's manual for Election
Officials, INEC's Directory of polling station in Ondo State and list of INEC's ad hoc staff in the disputed Local
Government areas contained in volume 8 of the Petitioner's bundle of documents were tendered as exhibits
        PW45 tendered the following
        "Letters from Labour Party to INEC dated 26th May 2007, 5th June 2007, 19th July 2007, 3rd September
2007, 9th October 2007 and letter from INEC's Liaison Officer to Labour Party dated 18th October 2007
which were admitted and marked 115, 1156, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1160 and 1161 respectively".
        PW45 also tendered CTC's of INEC's forms which he said he referred to in paragraphs 20 and 21 of
his deposition which were admitted as follows: "EC 17, EC25A, EC25B, EC25B, EC40A, EC40B, EC40C AND EC40D
and were marked as Exhibits 1162, 1163, 1164, 1165, 1 166, 1 167, 1 168 and 1 169 respectively
        PW45 also stated that in paragraph 16 of his deposition he referred to a register of voters in
both paper printed and VCD electronic version which have been tendered as exhibits
        All the exhibits were deemed read.
        Under cross examination PW45 insisted that electronic version of voters' register was admitted in evidence.
He accepted that in paragraphs 20 and 21 of his deposition he mentioned purportedly used INEC's forms and added
that there were unused INEC's forms and agreed that Exhibits 1162 - 1169 were unused INEC's forms. PW45
added that he was the author of Exhibits 1155 and 1156 but that Exhibit 1161 was written to him by INEC. PW45
admitted that he was not a member of INEC, that he led a team of specialists to conduct the inspection and obtain certified
copies of available materials from INEC following an order presented to him by the Petitioner's counsel and that he used to go
to INEC to obtain copies of documents even before the order was granted with other specialists in his team, that
he was commissioned by the Petitioner to act as an expert orally, that he was not there when Adrian Forty was
commissioned and that he was not the one who commissioned Yadeka who was introduced to him by the Petitioner and
with whom they inspected the documents, that the ballot papers were brought to them in envelopes ward by ward when they
did the inspection, that they counted the ballot papers along with INEC's officials, that he did not know if the
ballot papers were contained in ballot bags before they got into envelopes, that after counting and inspecting
the ballot papers along with the other specialist they handed them over to Yadeka, that Egunlaye handed the ballot
papers over to Yadeka and that they worked as a team in which there were Mr. Ogundeji Roju, Waheed
Yusuf, Omowole Muyiwa, Mr. Lanwa, Akinjo Oluwale and a host of others, that INEC officials signed a document to
show that the counting was correct, that pages 81-140 of Volume 8 of his deposition were recorded numbers of
ballot papers made available to them, that after certifying the correct number the ballot papers were scanned in his
presence and that no member of PDF or representative of Dr. Agagu was there when the counting and scanning
were done, that members of the public were there observing what they were doing, that he was not aware that the
                                                             23
Petitioner opposed the application for the inspection to be joint, that he was aware that there were ballot papers for
units which were not obtained and that same were recorded, that Unit 14 Code 0701014 and Unit 1011014 of
Ugbo 5 Ward 2 do not exist, that he did not work on the hard disk, that he wrote to the
Commissioner of Police for the release of Labour Party members arrested during and before the
election and that he authored the documents on pages 64 and 65 of his deposition. The said documents were
tendered and admitted as Exhibits 1170 and 1171.
        On further cross-examination PW45 maintained that the Resident Electoral Commissioner announced shortly
after the election that people were free to inspect the electoral documents to which people responded and took
copies of the documents, that he was not in a position to know how many times the ballot papers were inspected, that
he was appointed Liaison Officer just before the election and he was still the Liaison Officer, that as a prominent
member of Labour Party he worked hard to see the party to victory and that he was not happy when his party lost the
election and that he did his team work to the best of his knowledge.
        PW45 stated further that he paid for CTC's of all electoral documents exhibited, that their inspection
exercise was once disrupted by hoodlums and that the exercise took place in the presence of all electoral officers for
the disputed Local Government Areas and head of operations and logistics of INEC..
        The following documents were tendered from the Bar and were admitted and marked as follows:
          1.     Printed out scanned ballot papers in 65 bags as Exhibit 1 172
          2.    Printed out materials used by Waheed Yusuf the photographic expert in 3                bags as Exhibit 1
                173 (1) - (3).
          3.    CTC of Form EC8 A for Ikado Ward I of Akoko North East Local Government as Exhibit 1 174.
          4.    Two Forms EC8A for Oorun Ward 2 in Akoko North-East Local Government as Exhibits 1175 (1)
                and 1175 (2).
          5.    Three Forms EC8A for Edo Ward of Akoko North-East Local Government as Exhibit 1176 (1) -
                (3).
          6.    Three forms EC8A for Ilepa Ward one of Akoko North-East Local Government as Exhibit 1177 (1) -
                (3).
          7.    Five Forms EC8A for Ward 5 of Okitipupa Local Government as          Exhibits 1178 (1) - (5).
          8.    One Form EC8B for Ward 01 of Okitipupa Local Government as Exhibit 1179.
          9.    Two Forms EC8A for Ward 05 of Okitipupa Local Government as Exhibit 1180 (1) - (2).
          10. Eight Forms EC8S for Arugbo III Ward 08 of Ese Odo Local Government as Exhibit 1181 (1) -
                (8).
          11. Three Forms EC8S for Arugbo II Ward 07 of Ese Odo Local Government as Exhibit 1182 (1) -
                (3).
          12. One form EC8A for Apoi Ward 04 of Ese Odo Local Government as Exhibit 1183.
                                                               24
        PW46 testified as an expert.           His deposition is contained in volume 9 of the Petitioner's bundle of
documents.
        PW46 stated that on 14th February, 2008 he deposed to a 15 I paragraph affidavit attached to which
were his findings contained in volume IX before this Tribunal. PW46 adopted the said deposition and findings in his
evidence before this tribunal.
        PW46 said he made use of photographs, pictorial expressions, calendars, newspapers, magazines
and other printed materials in paragraphs 6, 8,15 and 10 (ii) of his deposition.                 Consequently almanacs
and calendars identified by PW46 were admitted and marked Exhibit 1184(1)-(8).
        PW46 identified Exhibits 1009 (1) - (32) as the voters' register he said he used with respect to his
observation in paragraph 8 (a) (iii) of his deposition. PW46 identified exhibit 1012 (1) - (26) as one of the
voters' registers he used in arriving at his opinion.
        The opinion of the expert on the application of the Petitioner's counsel was taken as read.
        PW46 concluded that the voters' registers he referred to were the ones which have been tendered in
evidence.
        Under cross-examination PW46 said he made use of CD and manual copies of the voters' register and
that it was from the CDs that he printed Exhibit 1173 and that he was not aware that the CDs were rejected in
evidence by this Tribunal. PW46 added that he did not participate in the inspection of documents at INEC's
office, that it was one Dr. J.I. Daodu who obliged him with the copy of the CD he used, that it was not INEC which
gave him Exhibit 1184 (1) - (8), that the minutes on Exhibit 1184 (6) were not done by him and that the only
reference in the Exhibit 1184 series done by him was in Exhibit 1184 (7) that he was not responsible for printing of
any of the exhibits in Exhibit 1184 series, that he was born in 1959 in Oyo State and that Pastor Joseph Ayo Babalola
who died in 1959 was not his relation, that he did not know how old Senator Ahmadu Ali is and that he could not tell the age
of any of the persons he mentioned in paragraph 8 (a) (iii) of his deposition nor did he visit any of the polling units
mentioned there.
        While still being cross-examined, PW46 said he did not say that anybody posed as Ahmadu Ali and that nobody
complained to him and that same went for other persons mentioned in that paragraph. PW46 added that none of the
exhibits in 1173 series was certified by INEC, that he did not belong to any political party, that it was not difficult for a
person of his expertise to apply computer graphic techniques to change and super-impose pictures if that was
what he was commissioned to do. None of the persons mentioned in paragraph 8 (a) (iii) had given him his picture before, he
said he did not have his letter of appointment as an expert because he was not asked to come along with it and that some
of the electronic voters' registers did not contain blank images. On the suggestion that none of the pictures in
Exhibit 1012 (1) - (26) belonged to Senator Ahmadu Ali, Hon. Justice Idris Legbo Kutigi, Dr. Jonathan Goodluck, Senator
Musiliu Obanikoro, Muhammad Ali, Late Apostle Ayo Joseph Babalola, Professor Murice Iwu, Peter Obi, Mrs.
Cecilia Ibru and General Oladipo Diya PW46 replied that image number 372 belongs to General Oladipo Diya but before
                                                             25
he could conclude counsel cut him off.
         On further cross-examination PW46 said he did not receive any document from INEC before he conducted the
exercise and that at the time he carried out the analysis neither the Respondents nor any of their representatives was
there.
         PW47 testified as an expert and his evidence-in-chief is contained in volumes XI and XII of the Petitioner's bundle of
documents. PW47 adopted the affidavit and attachments to volumes XI and XII as his evidence.
         PW47 identified Exhibits 1076 - 1085 as the ballot papers he referred to in his deposition, 1079 (13) as a
sample of the unused ballot papers he worked on, 1079 (2) as some of the unused ballot papers he worked on, 1079 (22)
as some of the used ballot papers he inspected and examined 1079 (9) as some of the used ballot papers he inspected and
examined and 1079 (25) as some of the unused ballot papers he inspected and examined.
         On the application of the Petitioner's counsel volumes 11 and 12 of the Petitioner's bundles of documents and
the documents listed therein and admitted were deemed identified and read without prejudice to the rights of
the Respondents to address on the issue of their identification and reading.
         Under cross-examination PW47 said he carried out the inspection under the leadership of Dr. Jacob Igbekele Daodu,
that they started the inspection immediately after the first order of the Tribunal to the Petitioner some
time in late May 2007 and that he concluded his assignment on 14th February, 2008. That he examined all
the INEC's forms,       inventories,     registers    of voters        and reports        as contained in paragraph 4 (1) -
(13) of volume 11 of his deposition, in INEC's office and obtained copies of same that he then took them
home for analysis, that he based his analysis on certified copies of all the materials he received from INEC, that
he is a strong member of Labour Party but that he is not familiar with all the contents of the petition, that
he stopped attending the proceedings in this Tribunal immediately before he commenced his testimony, that he
was not here for inspection of the 12 CDs before they were tendered, that he did not take part in the inspection
of the voters' register, that the allegation in paragraph 2.5 (i) - (ii) of the petition relates to mutilation and
alteration of results in Forms EC8A and EC8B and that in respect of Unit 001 his report is not on alteration
and mutilation of result, that members of his team examined the ballot papers one after another, that the ballot
papers for Okitipupa Local Government were brought to them in polythene bags, that he was awarded
BSc Honours in Accountancy and not BSc. Social Science, that he was not dismissed as a bursar of Secondary
School for juggling figures, that he was supervisory councilor for Odigbo Local Government under PDP
and that he was not removed, that he analysed the results based on certified copies of forms EC8S and other
documents he obtained from INEC, that the name of Ewegbemi Fola was written onjhe result sheet and that
it was public knowledge that he is Personal Assistant to Femi Agagu, that he knew that volumes 1 1 and 12
relate to the result of the examination of various election materials and documents as stated in his deposition
and that he did not know if they formed part of the forensic analysis and that he worked on certified
copies of INEC's reports before arriving at his report.
                                                              26
        On further cross-examination, PW47 said he could not remember when he obtained the Certified True
Copies from INEC, and that he is not an expert in photography and fingerprints.
        PW48 also testified as an expert witness. His evidence-in-chief is contained in volume 10 of the Petitioner's
bundle of documents.
        PW48 stated that on 14th April, 2008 he deposed to a 14 paragraph affidavit in this matter
attached to which are 2 schedules, OCE I and OCE 2 signed by him, on 31st January, 2008 which are
incorporated in Exhibit 10.          PW48 adopted the affidavit and the documents attached thereto as his
evidence. PW48 said he could recognize the used and unused ballot papers mentioned in paragraphs 5, 6 and 9
of his affidavit which were scanned: Exhibit 1076 - 1085.
        PW48 identified Exhibits 1079 (7) as unused ballot papers and 1079 (38) as used ballot papers. He also
identified Exhibits 1079 (48) and 1079 (18) as unused ballot papers and 1079 (4) as used ballot papers.
        He also said he could identify scanned ballot papers Exhibits 1172 (1) - (65) and indeed recognized Exhibits
1172 (14), (58) and (59) from paragraph 9 of his evidence-in-chief.
        On the application of Petitioner's counsel the contents of volume 10 of the Petitioner's bundle of documents and
the documents referred to therein already tendered as Exhibits 1076 - 1085 and 1 172 (1) - (65) were taken as
identified and read subject to the rights of the Respondents to address the tribunal on same.
        Under cross-examination PW48 agreed that there was a manuscripted schedule for the ballot papers
presented to Labour Party for scanning, and that on each of the schedules there is a date for collection and
returning of the ballot papers and that the ballot papers were collected and returned to each respective Electoral Officer
on the same day they were given the documents. He added that he did not work under Tunde Yadeka rather
Tunde Yadeka is his co-expert, that they worked together on the same and on different documents at different
times, that they did not restrict their scanning to PDP since the ballot papers used for all parties were the
same. For all the contested Local Government Areas, he did not crop after scanning the images for PDP out of the
ballot papers, that the head of his team was Dr. Joseph Daodu, that the equipment he used for scanning were 2
cannon DR 9080 C machines and not Toshiba Satellite pro portable personal computer with windows XP, that he did
not obtain Exhibits 1172 (14) series, 1172 (15) series and 1172 (59) from INEC and that they are scanned printed
copies. He disputed that none of the voters shown on these exhibits belong to any party other than PDP. He
identified Exhibit 1172 (14) series as an example between the 2 for Labour Party. PW48 added that all the votes in
Exhibit 1172 (68) series are for PDP except for ballot paper with serial number 6049526565, that he
scanned the papers with both valid and invalid votes, that in Exhibit 1 172 (6) there are votes other than for PDP. He
added that there are only 2 modes of scanning: manual and automatic, that while he was scanning there were Lawan
Akinbolumo, Folorunsho Aluko, Olayinka Muopelu, Tunde Yadeka, Iroju Ogundaji and Olawale Akinjo present and some
INEC's officials, that he did not know the use to which the scanned documents he was commissioned to make were to be put
but he gave them to Tunde Yadeka and he did not know if Tunde Yadeka sent them to Adrian Forty, that while he
                                                            27
was scanning the ballot papers he was storing some into the hard disc of his laptop and copied some to external disc
and at the end copied them into 2 external discs. He said he did not know Adrian Forty and concluded that the service of
designing software is to achieve a particular goal.
          On further cross-examination PW48 said each and every one of them in the team inspected the documents he
used for scanning.
          PW49 was also an expert witness whose evidence-in-chief is in volume 7 of the Petitioner's bundle of
documents.
          PW49 said he deposed to a 15 - paragraph affidavit in respect of this petition on 14th February, 2008 to
which are attached annexure marked OAYI to AOY4 and he adopted them as his evidence-in-chief and admitted
that in paragraph 3 of his affidavit he said he examined and made use of ballot papers, forms EC8A and EC8B,
paper printed and electronic versions of register of voters, inventory of distribution of forms EC8A and EC8B,
inventory of ballot papers issued to the disputed Local Government areas and INEC's directory of polling
stations which have been tendered as exhibits in this matter. He also admitted making reference to printed
scanned ballot papers in paragraph 9 of his affidavit. PW49 identified exhibits 1079 (4), 1079 (5) and 1079 (9) as
some of the used and unused ballot papers. PW49 identified exhibits 1172 (14), 1172 (58) and 1172 (59) as
part of Exhibits 1172 (1) - (65) he referred in paragraph 9 of his affidavit.
          Volume 7 of the Petitioner's bundle of documents and all the exhibits referred to therein were
deemed read and identified on the application of the Petitioner's counsel.
          Under cross-examination PW49 stated that he was along with other experts, commissioned by the
Petitioner, that his job was based in the analyses of the 14th April, 2007 results, that he used data which were the
result from scanning and some were generated and that if the data used was wrong the conclusion would be
wrong, that he did the scanning with Ogunlaye who did not generate any data for him, that after analyzing the
data he presented the results, that he examined 294 polling units, that before embarking on his analyses he obtained
ballot papers from INEC which he analysed, that he was given schedule of ballot papers generated by INEC. The
said schedule was identified by PW49 and was tendered and admitted as Exhibits 1185 (1) - 1185 (63).
          PW49 testified further that he and Ogunlaye did the cropping of images using the data he collected
from INEC, that he scanned 190, 463 ballot papers which he took to Adrian Forty, that the scanner he used was
cannon DR 9080 C at the INEC's office, that he received data drives containing the scanned images from
Ogunlaye, that he had a schedule in his report which was not in tabular form. PW49 was asked to read from his
report.
          Exhibit 1185 (1) - (63) was deemed read on the application of counsel to 1 st Respondent. PW49 added
that the cropping was done at the headquarters of Adrian Forty in the UK and some was done at his other office,
that he took the images to Adrian Forty who is a fingerprint expert to analyse them for existence of
multiple thumb printing and finger prints on them which he did.
                                                             28
        On further cross-examination PW49 stated that he led a team comprising of himself and 3 others for
the inspection at INEC, that Dr. Daodu was in-charge of the entire project, that his team and Egunlaye's
team worked in tandem all the time particularly at INEC's headquarters, that the teams worked together collectively
while they inspected the ballot papers, that Adrian Forty was not present at INEC’s office and that no
sample were taken from there.
        PW50 was also an expert witness whose evidence-in-chief is contained in volume 6 of the Petitioner's bundle of
documents.
        PW50 said he is a fingerprint and handwriting consultant. He recollected that he deposed to a written
statement on 4th February, 2008 attached to which are 8 annexures. He adopted the written statement and
annexure attached thereto as his evidence in this case. PW50 added that the persons who worked with him
reported their findings which they signed which did not form part of his report, that he did not participate in the scanning,
that he could not recognize Cyril Egunlaye but he knew Mr. Yadeka, that what were sent to him were scanned images
cropped from scanned ballot papers, that he started recording the documents on 1st November, 2007 and it
ended sometime in December, that he checked everybody who worked in the process and that AF are his initials, that in
column 1 1 he put the initials of those who checked the documents, that his name appears on pages 20 and 25, and that he
signed every sheet of annexure A8.
        PW50's attention was drawn to page 20 of A8 where AF appears in the column for ballot with code OD 1006/001
Mahin 4 ward of Ilaje Local Government Area, where the total ballot papers he examined were 199, column 11 where
his name is where the ballot box is located at Ogboye Open Space with Code OD/012/017 for Ugbo Ward 6 of Ilaje
Local Government Area where the total votes he examined was 146 and annexure 08 where only the signature is
his own. PW50 agreed that when 199 and 146 referred to are added they make 345. PW50 also agreed that they
examined 183, 219 images and that to the best of his knowledge all the people who worked with him except one were
alive, that Mr. Yadeka cropped the images which was done from a fixed area on the ballot paper to the right of the
PDD candidate reserved for thumb impression, that where the images do not appear or are poorly scanned there will be
no images for the expert to examine. PW50 agreed that the total ballot paper with no images or were poorly scanned
were 35,053 and that the total ballot papers with insufficient details to confirm multiple voting reliably or which
disclose details which could not be matched were61352 and that total for the 2 was 98, 405. He also agreed that the figure of
98,405 represents 53.71% of the 183219 ballot papers examined; that storage would not affect the object examined but if it
was soaked or turned into paper marsh it could not be scanned and that he did not state the number of persons who did
the thumb printing, that he examined documents for Osun and Ekiti States with Mr. Yadeka. PW50 added that the total
number he examined in Ekiti State was not 130978. The deposition of PW50 in Ekiti State made on 14th February,
2007 was admitted and marked as Exhibit 1186. PW50 agreed that he did not depose to any other affidavit in Ekiti
State apart from Exhibit 1186 and that he was never at INEC's office in Akure throughout the period of
inspection. PW50 stated further that sometimes where he said documents were not received they could not
                                                             29
have been of no suitable value even if they were received PW50 said he did not know Sir Francis Galton, Simon
Cole, Azzizul Haque, Edward Richard, Henry and Dr. Henry P. Deforest who, counsel said; are great and reknowned
authors of forensic analyses. He said he would be surprised if 4 of the persons he said he worked with deny ever
working with him on the assignment. PW50 insisted that Gait Stephen, G Tony, Gendel John and Harvey Derrick
participated with him in the assignment adding that Gendel John was in court then. He agreed also that in annexure A8
one of the members of his team wrote his initials as RSC and that he also put his initials on the cropped images he put
on column 11 of that unit and that the same goes for NJ
        On further cross-examination PW50 said he also worked with poor quality cropped images which brought
poor results and that the people he worked with also worked on materials from other state
         Under re-examination he said the figure examined was 130978. PW51 was on subpoena issued to him. The
subpoena was tendered and admitted as Exhibit 1187 (1) - (2). The documents brought by PW51 were the
CTCs of official reports dated 14th April, 2007 and a statement on oath deposed to by PW51 on 30th April,
2007 and were admitted and marked as Exhibit 1188 (1) - (3) and 1189 (1) - (2) respectively.
        PW52’s evidence-in-chief, as expert witness, is in volume 14 of the Petitioner's bundle of documents.
        PW52 identified his sworn statement and the annexure attached thereto and adopted same as his evidence in-chief.
        PW52 identified Exhibit 1079 (39) as the samples of purportedly used ballot papers he referred to as the
documents he examined in paragraph 3 of his deposition. The documents under reference are Exhibits 1076 -
1085. PW52 also identified the following as documents he inspected which have all been tendered in evidence:
             a. Exhibits 1125 the inventory of INEC's distribution of Forms EC8A and EC8B.
             b. Exhibits 1097 the inventory of ballot papers issued for distribution to Local Governments.
             c. Exhibit 1154 the INEC's directory of polling stations.
             d. Exhibits 1172 (1) - (65) and 1173 (1) - (3) the materials generated by teams of experts.
             e. Exhibits 1066 (I) - (3) and 981 (1) as samples of Forms EC8A and EC8B.
             f.   Exhibit 6653 (1) - (21) as sample of register of voters,
             g. Exhibits 10 and 11 the inventory of ballot papers.
             h. Exhibit 1 154 the INEC's directory of polling stations.
             i.   Exhibit 1172 (62) the samples of materials worked by team of experts.
             j.   Exhibit 1 173 (1) which was also worked upon by PW52 and the experts.
         All the exhibits and the whole of volume 14 of the Petitioner's volume of documents weredeemed
identified and read.
         Under cross-examination PW52 stated that he got all the materials he examined before he started the
examination on 1st August, 2007 and some on 28th September, 2007, that he did not get any of the           materials he
worked on from Adrian Forty but that he got the materials from materials generated by a team of experts
including Adrian Forty.
                                                            30
         That he was neither a politician nor an INEC's ad hoc staff in the election of 14th April, 2007 and
that the scope of his instructions from the Petitioner was as stated in paragraph 20 of his deposition and that the
documents he said he examined were limited to the ones he listed in paragraph 3 of his deposition.
         PW52 added that he worked on the images cropped by Tunde Yadeka and Cyril Egunlaye who
worked with him on the same number of polling units in disputed Local Government Areas, that he
examined the manual voters' register and compared it with the electronics register, that his opinions were based
on his findings and not personal opinion, that he was neither a voter nor a staff of INEC, that the results he examined
were from 69 wards, that he is not a fingerprint expert or consultant, that the documents he identified were the
documents he worked on, that Exhibits 1097 (1) -(20) and 517 (1) - (17) were certified on 21st November, 2007
and 30th November, 2007 and 30th October, 2007 respectively that Exhibits 1079 (39) were not certified
and Exhibits 1154 were not signed while Exhibit 1172 (62) was neither certified nor signed and that Exhibit 984 was
signed on 24/08/2007. PW52 added that where the data by a statistician was wrong the finding would also be wrong and
that Exhibit 653 (1) - 653 (21) was certified on 28th August, 2007. PW52 maintained that he signed volume 14.
         PW53 was on subpoena duces tecum which was admitted as and marked as Exhibit 1190 (1) - (6). PW53
informed the tribunal that all the items he was ordered to produce were not available.
         PW54 was also an expert witness. His evidence-in-chief is in volume 13 of the Petitioner's bundle of documents.
         PW54's evidence was to the effect that he is a broadcast journalist and media consultant in the
cause of which duties he made several recordings which were captured on compact discs and video tapes on the
Governorship election of 14th April, 2008 in Ondo State.
         He averred further that the recording he made included:
    1. Verbal, Visual and Audio transcriptions of the Resident Electoral Commissioner's announcement refuting
         the announcement of result of Ondo State election of 14th pril, 2007 by the INEC's National
         Headquarters, Abuja from a broadcast made by the National Television Authority (NTA) on 15th April, 2007.
    2. Verbal, Visual and Audio transcriptions of the announcement concurting 14th April, 2007 election in Ondo
         State on 16th April, 2007 by the Resident Electoral Commissioner INEC, Akure Ondo State from a
         broadcast made by Nigeria Television Authority (NTA).
    3. Visual, Verbal and Audio transcriptions of the news interview by Philip Umeadi Jnr National Electoral
         Commissioner (Publicity) in respect of various States Governorship election results including that of
         Ondo State on 16th April, 2007.
    4. News report of arrest of some Labour Party members from Irele Local Government paraded in Okitipupa
         Local Government on the Ondo State Radio - Vision Corporation Television Station on 14th April, 2007.
    5. Video record filming at Ese Odo, Ilaje, Okitipupa Local Government Areas on the activities of militants
         and rang officials activities and other election activities in Ondo State between 14th April and 21st April, 2007.
    6. News report and recording of electioneering campaign rally of Dr. Olusegun Agagu held on 13th April,
                                                              31
        2007 in Irele Local Government of Ondo State by Ondo State Radio-Vision Corporation Television
        station (OSRC).
    7. News report of monitoring of the Governorship and House of Assembly elections held in Ose-Odo Local
        Government Area of Ondo State on 14th April, 2007 on Ondo State Radio Vision Corporation
        Television Authority (OSRC) and other related recordings on the governorship election held on 14th
        April, 2007 in Ondo State.
        He averred further that the recordings were made from broadcasts by NTA, Channels Television, African
Independent Television and OSRC using ordinary normal equipment for the purpose of recording and taping of
Audio/ Visual records in VHS, VCD and DVD and later transferred to, or retained on VCD for purpose of easy
playback PW54 adopted his witness' statement on oath as his evidence before this Tribunal. PW54 then
identified Exhibits 1102 (1) - (11) as the recordings which he made and the recordings were played.
        Among the Exhibits 1 102 (66) was said to have not been specifically listed in list of exhibits.
        Under cross-examination PW54 said the incidence in Exhibits 1102 (1) happened on the eve of the
election and that he was not there when it happened, that the report said the persons in the recording were arrested
at a checkpoint and the reporter was Babatunde Yakub of OSRC, that he recorded Exhibit 1102 (1) off air,
that he could not remember if the recording played in this Tribunal during inspection show the date as 12th
August, 2007 at 10.48 a.m., that the original of Exhibit 1102 (1) was in his studio in which he recorded only what
he needed and not the news of the whole day and later PW54 said he misunderstood the question and said he
recorded the whole news, that he used computer to transfer the recording and in the process he picked only the
portion he needed manipulation, that he knew that OSRC, AIT and NTA were still in operation.
        (Exhibit 1102 (2) was played).
        PW54 admitted that Exhibits 1102 (2) should Kekemeke saying that election would start soon and that election
was going on in other wards but that time of recording and the logo were not on the screen but that the logo was in
the microphone of the reporter on the screen. PW54 added that the logo was identified and that he wrote "No
election in Ese-Odo" on the exhibit for ease of identification only and without that nobody would know the contents of
the CD, that he did not record the incidence at the scene or for OSRC news.
        (Exhibit 1 1 02 (3) was played).
        PW54 admitted that AIT logo appeared on the left hand corner of the screen when Exhibit 1102 (3) was
played but the date of the interview was not shown on the screen, that he was surprised that Umeadi who said
he was not going to announce the result did so in another tape which was tendered in court, that Umeadi said he could
not authenticate, what happened in the States, that he wa§ concerned with what was sent to them, that some of the results
were announced in the States which Umeadi did not announce and that he was not present during the interview.
        (Exhibit 1 102 (4) was played).
        PW54 admitted that there was the logo of NTA Akure Channel 11 of the exhibit, that the date the
                                                            32
statement was made was not on the screen, that the original of Exhibit 1102 (4) was still with him, that the Electoral
Commissioner eventually announced the result on 16th April, 2007 which PW54 recorded in which Dr. Agagu
was declared the winner of the election.
           (Exhibit 1102 (6) was played).
           PW54 agreed that the date of that report was not on the screen adding that apart from that of Delta
State Umeadi also referred to Ondo State twice and that if he confirmed any result it must be the result the
Electoral Commissioner for Ondo State claimed not to have announced.
           (Exhibit 1102 (7) was played).
           PW54 agreed that the programme shown there was in Yoruba language adding that it was mixed with
English.
           (Exhibit (Exhibit 1102 (9) was played).
           PW54 said that Exhibit 1102 (9) was recorded by OSRC reporter for the purpose of news, that the
inscription "No voting in Ese-Odo" was made by him and that it was not mentioned which election was being
referred to. PW54 admitted that he was the State's Publicity I Secretary of Labour Party, that he was once
Chief Protocol Officer to the 1st Respondent from May to July 2007 but he was replaced, that he joined Labour
Party as soon as it was founded and that it was not because the 1st Respondent refused to allow him to remain
in office that he came to testify against him. PW54 concluded that he recorded he recorded the judgment in the
presidential election petition which was broadcast live.
           PW55 deposition is on page 1049 of volume 5 of the Petitioner's bundle of documents. PW55 adopted the 2
statements he made on oath on 8th May, 2007 and 10th May, 2007 and the documents attached thereto as his evidence.
           In the statement on oath PW55 described himself as the State Chairman of Labour Party in Ondo State and
that for the Governorship election he was at Ikare and Ise in Akoko North-East Local Government Area of Ondo
State. PW55 averred further that on the eve of the election one Fadageri led thugs in 3 buses to his residence, fired shot into
the air and said that election would not take place and Agagu would be voted by force, that on the day of the
election electoral materials for Isowopo Ward I were handed over to the supervisor who moved them to the
distribution centre for the ward, that shortly thereafter PDP thugs with military personnel and mobile
police swooped on the distribution centre, shot into the air several times and carted away the electoral materials for the
whole of Isowopo Ward I, that he escaped to Ise where in his presence and the presence of others one Martins a personnel
of SSS who was monitoring the election in the 4 Local Governments of Akoko telephoned the Resident Electoral
Commissioner and told him that there was so much violence in Akoko North-East that he did not see where
election took place. PW55 stated further that one Bisi Ajayi, the coordinator and agent of Labour Party for
Akoko North-East met him at Ise and informed him of what happened in all the wards including those he visited.
           The shooting started simultaneously as planned by PDF in the following, wards:
           a.   Ikado
                                                              33
         b.    Isowopo Ward I
         c.   Oorun I and II
         d.    Ilepa I and II
         e.    lyan Ola II
         f.    Oyinmo
         That the thugs were commissioned by Dr. Agagu to disrupt the election with the slogan "NO AGAGU
NO ELECTION".
         PW55 added that at the party's secretariat in Akure he received similar reports to the one he
witnessed at Akoko North-East from his party's chairmen/leaders in Ilaje, Ese Odo, Okitipupa, Irele, Odigbo,
Akoko North-East, Akure North, Ile-Oluji/Okeigbo, Akoko North-West and Ose. He then wrote to the
Resident Electoral Commissioner; he added that there was election in only 3 wards out of 13 wards in Akoko
North-East because PDP stalwarts and thugs violently carted away the materials for the remaining 10 wards
which he attached as Exhibit A. He added that later he discovered that election did not take place in Edo. That he also
commissioned the Assistant Legal Adviser jtojwrite a petition to the Resident ElectoraljCmrmiLssijaner dated 14th April,
2007 which is also attached as Exhibit B. PW55 averred further that the Resident Electoral Commissioner called a
meeting of all political parties on the issue on 15th April, 2007 as a result of the protest by people of Ondo State
that they were disenfranchised. At the meeting, he concluded they asked for dispensing with all results of elections in
the affected Local Governments which was supported by PDF and Action Congress.
         PW55 also disclosed in his affidavit of 10th May, 2007 that he received petitions against the conduct of
the election which he forwarded to the Resident Electoral Commissioner, Ondo State which were attached to the
affidavit and marked A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, N and O.
         Led by the Petitioner's counsel PW55 said some of the letters he referred to in paragraphs 14 and 16 of his
affidavit of 8th May, 2007 and paragraph 4 of his affidavit of 10th May, 2007 were tendered. PW55 stated further that
he gave notice to INEC to produce the letters which have not been tendered and they failed to do so. INEC's counsel also
confirmed the receipt of the notice to produce the said documents. The 12 letters were then admitted and marked as
Exhibit 1191 (1) -(12) and they were taken as read. He also identified Exhibits 1155, 1156, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1160
and 1161 as the letters he said were tendered and Exhibits 1 100 (1) - (9) as parts of the reports he received
         Under cross-examination PW55 said on the day of the election he went to Ikare, then Ugbe collation centre for
Isowopo Ward I and then to Ikado Ward I, that Labour Party is supposed to have agents in all the units of Akoko North-
East Local Government, that to the best of his knowledge no Labour Party agent was dead, that he was sure Exhibit
1191 (8) was signed by Labour Party agent while the others in Exhibit 1191 (1) have not been specific, that he learnt of the
cancellation of result for Isowopo Ward I but not Ward 2 on 16th April, 2007 when the result for the election was
announced so there was valid result for Isowopo Ward 2, that result for lyometa II was also cancelled, that Simi
Akindele was alive but was hospitalised, and Bisi Ajayi was also alive, that he had a meeting with Ondo State Resident
                                                             34
Electoral Commissioner at 3.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. on .15th April, 2007, that INEC declared Dr. Agagu winner of the
election, that the election in Isowopo I Ward 7 was not cancelled but that there was no election there at all, that
there was election in only 3 wards in Akoko North-East and that what was contained in his affidavit of 8th May, 2007 did
not represent all that he personally saw.
         PW55 added that he attended meetings with INEC's officials but not with thugs, that elections took place in
Isowopo Ward 2, lyometa Ward I and Ikado II of Akoko North-East and that Labour Party won in the 3 wards, that INEC
conducted the election in the 3 wards and that there were policemen at the units, that he was not complaining only on
areas where his party lost the election and that he never attended any meeting with the police, army and Dr. Agagu.
         The Petitioner testified as PW56 and his testimony is on page 1094 of volume 5 of the Petitioner's bundle of
documents.
         The evidence-in-chief of PW56 as contained in his deposition was, in part, that he voted at Ago-Itunu Unit 021
in Ward 07 of Ondo West Local Government where from reports the election went on well in the whole of Ondo West
Local Government Area. PW56 averred that thereafter he received various reports from Labour Party agents in other
Polling Units, Wards and Local Government Areas across the State that normal voting process were fundamentally and
substantially breached in a number of wards and Local Government Areas across Ondo State which included stuffing of
ballot papers into ballot boxes, snatching of ballot boxes, threat of violence and intimidation of large number of voters, their
persons and properties mostly being perpetrated by agents and officers of the PDP and the 1st Respondent, that his
agents reported that what was subsequently confirmed by the media publications that the current Deputy Governor of
Ondo State led a band of thugs and guns to violently snatch, remove and take with them ballot boxes in Akure township by
force of arms and with the connivance of policemen and soldiers to unknown destinations.
         The Petitioner then went on to summarise the allegations contained in his petition.
         PW56 then adopted his statement on oath made on 10th May, 2007. He also prayed the Tribunal to grant the
reliefs he was seeking.
         PW56 then identified Exhibit 1014 (1) and (2) as one of the Forms EC8B he referred to in his deposition
for Akure North Local Government, Exhibit 1006 (1) and (2) as parts of exhibit EC8B he referred to in his
deposition, Exhibit 1051 as the form EC8B he referred to as being signed by Yemi Alao the Attorney-General
of Ondo State in paragraph 5.3 of his deposition, Exhibits 861 (1) - (2) and 832 as Exhibits he referred to in paragraph
5 (iv) of which were Forms EC8B for Wards 2, 4 and 5 of Odigbo Local Government signed by one R.A.
Akintemi, Exhibit 734 (1) - (2) Form EC8B for Ilutitun III Ward 09 signed by Honourable Ola Oguntimihim, Special
Assistant to the Governor of Ondo State, Exhibit 815 (1) and (2), Form EC8C, referred to in paragraph 5.5 of his
deposition for Qkitipupa Local Government signed by Fola Ewegbemi a Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff to the
Governor, Exhibit 849 (1) and (2) being part of Forms EC8B signed by R.A. Akintemi, Exhibit 169 (1) and (2) Forms EC8B
for lyasan/Omi Ward 5 and Irele II Ward 7 of Irele Local Government referred to in paragraph 5.5 of PW56's
deposition signed by one Yemi Tadema, Exhibit 199 (1) and (2) being Exhibit EC8B for Irele IV Ward 9 referred to in
                                                              35
paragraph 5.5 of his deposition signed by Dr. Francis Igbasan Chairman of Ondo State Scholarships Board, Exhibit
280 (1) and (2) a Form EC8C for Irele Local Government signed by Ayo Ifayofunmi, Commissioner for Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry referred to in paragraph 5.5 of his deposition, Exhibit 22, a Form EC8B for Apoi II Ward 2 of
Ese Odo Local Government signed by Agboola Ajayi, Chairman of the Local Government PDF agent referred to in
paragraph 5 (vii) of his deposition, Exhibit 1066 a Form EC8B for Afo Ward of Ose Local Government signed by Dennis
Alonge Niyi, the Chairman of the Local Government referred to in paragraph 5 (ix) of his deposition, Exhibit 554 (1)
and (2) being form EC8C for Ilaje Local Government signed by Barrister Benson Enikuomehni, Special Assistant
to Governor of Ondo State as PDP's agent referred to in paragraph 5 (vi) of the deposition.
         Under cross-examination PW56 stated that the names of Yemi Tadema and Barrister Benson Enikuomehin
were not in his deposition, that he got minute by minute briefing from his agents at the units and collation centres although
he was not there at all the units, that he was contesting the election in all of 4 Local Government areas and parts of 6 Local
Governments consisting of 69 wards and 1074 units, that since the voters' register was forged there was no basis for
concluding that the electorates in the areas he was contesting were more than double those he was not contesting,
that to the best of his knowledge there were no irregularities in the areas he won the election although the
contesting the elections in 69 out of 203 wards, that he was contesting 1075 units, that 61352 plus 37053 will amount to 98405
and when 98405 is subtracted from 183219 the figure will be 84814, that Exhibit 1014 (1) and (2) was not made in his
presence, that he was also not present in the preparation of that exhibit and that Exhibits 1006 (1) and (2), 1025 (1)
and (2) and 1033 (1) and (2) had no other designation apart from the name Oluwole Ogunlade Toyin, that he
knew that results for for Isowopo I and lyometa II of Akoko North-East were cancelled by INEC before the
announcement of election results, that he was aware that INEC gave counterparts of election result which they
were supposed to do under normal circumstances, that he agreed that under normal circumstances Forms EC8A
were supposed to be given at polling stations, Forms EC8B at collation centre and Forms EC8C at Local government
Collation Centre that it was not in all circumstances that election results for polling units were given at polling units to
party agents, that the difference between Exhibits 1033 (1) and (2) is that one looks like original and the other counterpart
otherwise they are the same. On the suggestion by counsel to the 1st Respondent that the reference made by the
Petitioner on page 1098 of his deposition that Simon Olabode lives in Igbotoko was incorrect, PW56 said he stood by his
statement on oath. PW56 was referred to Exhibit 720 (9) the voters' register he tendered for Ilititun III Ward 9
where he read the name on serial number 126 as Simon 0. Olabode which he said could mean he either registered
there or there was an irregularity. Counsel put it to PW56 that the houses of Chief Obolo Akuje and Chief
Olamayegun Festus which he referred to on page 1099 of his deposition as being in Ilititun I Ward 07, but
tendered Exhibit 718 (13) for Ilititun III Ward 09 Unit 009. Exhibit 728 (20) which PW56 tendered, he added, was for
Unit 019 of Ilititin III Ward 9 and the name on serial number 358 there is Festus A. Obolo. PW56 added that during
his campaigns he did not give out souvenirs to his supporters personally, that he had over 3000 party agents throughout
the State and that none of them was reported dead, that all complaints about the allegations he mentioned were
                                                             36
made to the police through his party, that on Exhibit 861 (1) and (2) the name of PDP's agent is R.A. Akintemi,
in Exhibit 1051 there was H.M. Yemi Alao at its foot with no other designation there from PDP and that also in Exhibits
832 (1), 849 (1) and (2), 734 (1) and (2), 815 (1) and (2), 849 (1) and (2), 169 (1) and (2) 280 (1) and (2) 22, 854 (1) and (2)
and 199 (1) and (2) there are PDP in front of the names without any designation. PW56 added that he knew their
designations. PW56 added that Exhibit 22 is a carbonized copy but that he did not know if it was a duplicate, it has no
stamp and that the wards "Certified True Copy" are not written on it and that the document was not gotten by his
agent at the collation centre but that they had a Liaison Officer at INEC and the documents could have been one of
those collected there. PW56 admitted              that he commissioned Dr. Daodu with Iroju Ogundeji, Chief Yinka
Adeyosoye, O. Fadoju and others to carry out inspection at INEC on his behalf following the order of court. PW56
added that he knew that his agents requested for some documents before the court order, that he agreed with the contents
of his petition, that since polls were supposed to close at the same time collation of results was supposed to be done at
the same time, that all polling units in Ondo State were not equidistant from their collation centres, that
collation was supposed to be done at the same time and that one could not be a collation agent at Irele and at lyasan at
the same time, that he could not recollect if results for Isowopo I and lyometa II which he was contesting were
cancelled, that schedule PW3 attached to his petition was a summary of the reliefs he was seeking.
         On further cross-examination PW56 said he was neither a thug nor had he ever hired one, that the figure, in
schedule P3 of volume 3 of his deposition was obtained from INEC while they did the computation,
likewise schedule P3 on page 86 of the petition, that lawful elections did not take place in Irele, Ese Odo and Ilaje, that
all the figures on P3 on areas where they did not join issues tally with the INEC's figures, that the whole essence of his
petition was that a person who ought to have been returned was not returned due to INEC's non-diligence, that INEC
cancelled the result for Ifedore Local Government Area and that lawful elections did not take place in Okitipupa, Ilaje,
Ese Odo and Irele Local Government Areas so there was no election to cancel and that the returns made for these Local
Government Areas were fraudulent. PW56 added that his unit is 21 of Ward 7, Ondo West Local Government Area
where he cast his vote and that he won the election in that unit and that the election there was very peaceful, that
there were policemen in many units in Ondo West, that he also won in other Local Government Areas and that he did
not wrongly use the services of policemen and soldiers to win, that he witnessed the election in Ondo West
and got reports from the field, that he won in Owo and Ondo West Local Governments Area, that he did not win the
election in Ose Local Government but he has not blamed the police or army for his failure since the votes were
lawful, that he did not complain on Akure South Local Government because the malpractice did not affect the outcome
of the election and that he was not only told of all the allegations because he witnessed some of them on television. PW57 was
the Akure Branch Manager of Guaranty Trust Bank who was on subpoena duces tecum to produce some documents.
The subpoena was admitted as Exhibit 1193 (1) - (4). PW57 was, on his own application, given up to 31st March,
2008 to produce the documents. Subpoena duces tecum issued to the Branch Manager of Fedelity Bank Pic Akure
and D.I. Kekemeke, the Secretary to the Government of Ondo State were admitted and marked Exhibits 1194 (1) -
                                                              37
(6) and 1195 (1) - (18) respectively.
         The representative of the Branch Manager of Wema Bank Akure was PW58. The subpoena duces tecum
commandiing him to appear in court and produce documents was admitted and marked as Exhibit 1196 (1) - (4).
The documents he was ordered to produce, PW58 stated, are in his head office.
         A letter from Fidelity Bank addressed to the Secretary of this Tribunal and the documents annexed thereto
were admitted and marked as Exhibit 1197 (1) - (11). The Manager of Guaranty Trust Bank PW57 said he could not retrieve
the documents he was asked to bring from the archives.
         Counsel to the Petitioner informed the Tribunal that he served writs of subpoena duces tecum on the
Managers of Akure Branches of Intercontinental bank, Skye Bank and First City Manumental Bank who were not in
court.
         The Petitioner closed his case at this stage.
         When the matter came up for defence on 7th April, 2007 counsel for the 1st Respondent tendered voters'
registers for Unit 15 of Ajowa/Igasi/Enti/Ge of Akoko North-West Local Government Area, Unit 16 of Ilutitun III
Ward 9 of Okitipupa Local Government Area, Unit 2 of Iju-Odo of Iju-Odo/Eriketi Ward 05 of Okitipupa Local
Government Area, Unit 2 of Ilititun III Ward 09 of Okitipupa Local Government Area and Unit 2, Igbotako II Ward
05 as Exhibits 1198 (1) - (38), 1199 (1) - (23), 1200 (1) - (10) 1201 (lj_^£181jnd_1202 (1) -(18) respectively.
         The 1st Respondent opened his defence on 7th April, 2008. Counsel for the 1st Respondent tendered
voters' registers for the following units from the Bar:
          1. Unit 15 of Ajowa ligasi Eritilge of Akoko North-West Local Government Area marked as Exhibit 1198
               (1) - (36).
          2. Unit 16 of Ilutitun III Ward 9 of Okitipupa Local Government Area marked as Exhibit 1199 (1) - (23).
          3. Unit 2, Iju-Odo/Erikiti Ward 05 of Okitipupa Local Government Area marked as Exhibit 1200 (1) -
               (10).
          4. Unit 2, Ilutitun III Ward 09 of Okitipupa Local Government Area marked as Exhibit 1201 (1) - (18).
          5. Unit 2 Igbotako II Ward 04 marked as Exhibit 1202 (1) - (18).
         RWl's evidence-in-chief was to the effect that he voted during the 14th April, 2007 election at about 12:
15 p.m. at Majokolasan/Idogun Unit 002, Igbotako Ward II, Okitipupa where they were waiting for their turns to vote
and that he was not harassed by anybody. RWI tendered his voter's card which was marked as Exhibit 1203.
         Under cross-examination RW1 said the distance between Ilutitun and Igbotako is about 3 or 4 kilometres,
that his voter's card was marked twice one of which was to show that he voted during the Governorship election,
that he went to the unit at 12. 15 p.m. and voted 45 minutes later, that others voted before and after him, that item
39 on page 4 of the voters' register which was ticked twice to show that he voted in the Governorship and State
Assembly and Presidential and National Assembly bore his name, that he could view what was happening at the
voting centre from his house, that there was free and fair election in his unit which was won by the Labour Party. He
                                                           38
added that the policeman at the unit maintained order and did not connive with anybody to rig the election.
         On further cross-examination RW1 added that from the marks on Exhibit 1202 (1) - (18) everybody listed
there voted, that he was not at the unit when result was entered into the result sheet. RW1 then confirmed from
Exhibit 633 (2) that Labour Party won the election in that unit and that from the Exhibit 207 person voted at the unit.
         Under re-examination RWI said he was not the maker of Exhibit 633 (2).
         RW2's evidence-in-chief was to the effect that on 14th April, 2007 he, along with others, voted at Unit 002
of Iju Odo/Erekiti/Iju-Oke Ward and that he was not harassed there. RW2"s voter's card was admitted and marked as
Exhibit 1204.
         Under cross-examination RW2 said he was neither the first nor the last to vote at the unit, that one of the
2 marks made by INEC officer at the back was to show that he voted in the Gubernatorial elections, that there
was no violence at the unit where he voted, that Chief Isaac Olajide Akinseye lied when he said election did not take
place at his unit and that he was the Traditional ruler of Iju-Oke.
         On further cross-examination RW2 said there are 3 units in Iju-Oke, that the picture on serial number 55 of
Exhibit 1200 was his, that INEC conducted a free and fair election, that the police conducted themselves well during
the election and that if there was any problem he as the traditional ruler of the place would have known, that after
casting his vote he went home, that he was not aware that there was 100% turn out of voters in his unit. The
signatures of RW2 were admitted and marked as Exhibit 1205. He concluded that he changed his signature immediately
he left service for security reasons.
         RW3"s evidence-in-chief was that he, like other voters, voted at Unit 001, Ilutitun Ward 3 of Okitipupa Local
Government Area on 14th April, 2007 Governorship election in Ondo State. RW3's voter's card was admitted and
marked as Exhibit 1206.
         Under cross-examination RW3 said his house was 3 houses away from the polling booth so he could see what
was happening there from his house, that people voted before and after him on that day, that he voted at about 2.30 p.m.
but did not know when voting stopped because up to 6.00 p.m. people were still in the queue, that between Ilutitun
and Omolosho is about 40 kilometres, that it was not possible that Ayorinde Akinrotimi moved round the whole
ward and discovered that there was no election anywhere because in some places one has to cross river, that there was
election since he cast his vote, that the said Akinrotimi voted in the same unit with him, that the name and
particulars in serial number 47 of the voters' registers, Exhibit 1201 (1) - (18), are his own and the particulars on serial
numbers 68 and 81 are for Ayo Akinrotimi and his father respectively and that the election in his unit on that day was free
and fair. On further cross-examination RW3 said he could not tell how many hours it would take for one to traverse
the ward and that the policeman at the unit was performing his job well. RW3 added further that all the 307 names on
Exhibit 1201 (1) - (18) have 2 tickings each except 216 and 218 which do not have any tickings and 152, 162, 163 and 192
which have one marking each, that voting started at the unit at 1.35 p.m., that after voting he immediately left
for home, that he knew that Hon. Akinrotimi was a member of House of Assembly between 1999 and 2003 but that he did
                                                                 39
not know if after that he became a Senior Special Assistant to the Governor. RW3 tendered his signatures which
were admitted and marked as Exhibit 1207.
        RW4's evidence-in-chef was that he voted in the Governorship election of 14th April, 2007 along with others at
Unit 005, Gedegede Quarters, Ajowa Ward 05 Akoko North-West Local Government Area.
        He tendered his voter's card which was marked as Exhibit 1208.
        Under cross-examination RW4 said the voter's card he used to vote was withdrawn by INEC and was
replaced by Exhibit 1208, that it was the one that was withdrawn which had markings to show that he voted,
that he knows Ali Walidu who is popularly called "Akayinje" meaning "one who has swallowed his teeth", that it
was not true that Ali Walidu lost his teeth on 14th April, 2007 because he had known him for over 20 years
without front teeth, that the testimony of Ali Walidu that there was no election in the unit and the whole
ward was not true adding that there was peaceful election there, that his polling unit was the only one in
Gedegede, that Labour Party won the election in his unit and that his house is close to the voting centre,
about 4 electric polls away so it was easy for him to observe the voting centre, that there was a policeman at
the centre who was performing his functions properly.
        On further cross-examination RW4 said Ajowa and Gedegede are different communities in the same ward,
that on the day of the election he was not at Ajowa and that he was not a PDP leader.
        RW5, in his examination in chief, deposed that on 14th April, 2007 Governorship election he was
PDP's agent for Lurowo Polling Unit, Irele Ward 5 of Irele Local Government Area, that the electoral materials
for each unit of the ward were distributed at L. A Primary School, the collation centre, to the Presiding Officers,
that when they arrived the polling unit the voters were in the queue waiting for the commencement of election, that
voting was conducted at about 3,00 p.m., that the result for the unit was announced and entered on EC8A, the result sheet
which was duly signed by the Presiding Officers, the security agents attached to the unit and the party agents
including himself and that the Presiding Officer, accompanied by available party agents including himself, took the unit's
result to the collation centre. The result for the unit in Form EC8A was admitted and marked as Exhibit 1209.
        Under cross-examination RW5 said he voted at the same unit and his permanent voter's card was admitted and
marked as Exhibit 1210. RW5 explained that he used the temporary voter's card to vote and was taken away in exchange
for Exhibit 1210. RW5 stated further that 3 party agents, including himself, signed the result sheet, that his
signatures on his witness' statement on oath and the result sheet, Exhibit 1209, are different because he has 2
signatures and appends whichever one he likes, that the claim of Engineer Ilesanmi Tokunbo Oladunjoye PW32, that
thugs took away electoral materials was not true. Voters' register for Unit 006 of Irele Ward 05 was tendered from the
bar and was admitted as Exhibit 1211 (1) - (22). RW5 admitted that serial number 174 on page 11 of the voters'
register for the unit, Exhibit 1211 (1) - (22), has his particulars while serial numbers 179 and 200 are the particulars of
Daisy Egbowalo and Solomon Egbuwalo the party agents for Labour Party and AC for the unit respectively. RW5
added that he did not see PW32 on the day of the election.
                                                             40
         RW5 stated further that there was peaceful election devoid of violence, that INEC officials did not
connive with others to mar the election, that election materials were available on that day, that the
policeman at the unit maintained order and did not connive with anybody to perpetrate electoral
malpractices, that in the register of voters there are many Egbuwalo's in his area because it is a large
family, that he used the signatures repeatedly in many places. The signatures of RW5 were admitted and marked
as Exhibit 1212. RW5 testified further that there are 14 units in his ward that on that day after leaving the
distribution centre he stayed at his unit and did not leave there, and that 2 INEC officials whose designations he
did not know presided at the unit.
         RW6's evidence-in-chief was that he voted at Unit 001 of Ward 11 of Irele Local Government Area on
14th April, 2007 for Governorship and House of Assembly elections and that the voter's card with which he
voted was taken from him by INEC and he was given a new one which was admitted and marked as Exhibit 1213.
         Under cross-examination RW6 said the election was conducted peacefully, that his voter's card was marked to
show that he voted, that it was not true that there was hijack of electoral materials in his unit, that there are 5 Ayo
Ifayefunmi's in his family, that Ayorinde Ifayefunmi, also called Ayo, officiated in the Governorship election at Local
Government level but that he is in Lagos, that he is familiar with his signature and handwriting and he identified
signatures of Ayorinde Ifayefunmi or Ayo on Exhibit 28 (1) and 28(2), that Ayorinde Ifayefunmi is not and has not been
a Commissioner in Ondo State. He tendered the birth certificates of Felix Ayorinde Ifayefunmi and Agnes Ayorinde
Ifayefunmi which were admitted and marked as Exhibit 144 (1) and (2) respectively. He added that Ayodele Ifayefunmi
is the Commissioner now and was Commissioner between 2003 afd 2007 in Ondo State Government.
         RW6 added that on the day of the election others voted before and after him, that policemen performed
their duties diligently at the unit and that election there was free and fair.
         On further cross-examination RW6 tendered the signature he used in his written statement on oath which
was marked as Exhibit 1215.
         RW6 testified further that Ayorinde, his son, is till alive and registered as a voter in the same unit with him.
RW6 identified his name as number 249 in the voters' register for the unit, Exhibit 151 (1) - (27) but could not see Ayorinde,
his son's name, in the same register. RW6 could not identify the signature of Ayorinde Ifayefunmi on the election result for
the ward which was admitted and marked as Exhibit 1216 (1) and (2). RW6 confirmed that from 2003 to date only one
Ayo Ifayefunmi, Ayodele, has been a Commissioner and he is a politician and a member of PDP and that he was at
Irele during the election.
         Under re-examination RW6 said Exhibit 1216 (1) and (2) was for State House of Assembly result and that he
did not know where else his son's name would be since it was not in Exhibit 151 (1) - (27), the voters' register.
         RW7's deposition was that he voted at the Governorship election of 14th April, 2007 in Unit 016
Sogbon/Ogunmida RCM Block 2, Ilutitun, Ward III Ilutitun, Okitipupa Local Government area of Ondo and then
left the polling unit. RW4 then averred that he exchanged the voter's card he used for the election for a new one
                                                              41
which was tendered and admitted as Exhibit 1217.
         Under cross-examination RW7 said the election was free and fair, that his residence is about 5 or 6 electric
poles away from the polling unit, that on the way on the day of the election he saw 4 polling units 9, 11, 12 and 13 and
that there was also Unit 17 there, that after voting on his way home he saw people voting in units 9, 11, 12, 13 and 17,
that after voting a mark was made on his voter's card, that he knew Ola Ojuntimohim as a Special Adviser to
1st Respondent and later the Director General of his campaign organization.
         On further cross-examination RW7 testified that he still works with the Local Government, that his
deposition contained everything he knew about the election, that he left his home at about 1.00 p.m. and saw people
on a long queue while he was going, that he arrived his polling unit at 1.30 -p.m. while the materials were brought
there at 1.35 p.m., that he joined Federal Service in 1965 and retired after working for 11 years in 1978, that he
joined the service at the age of 21, that he is a civil servant with the Local Government and that he did not obtain
permission from his head of department before coming to give evidence.
         RW8's deposition was to the effect that he voted on the 14th April, 2007 election at Unit 08 located at
Iju Odo/Erekiti/Iju-Oke ward where he saw voters waiting for their turns and a policeman maintaining
order. RW8 tendered his temporary voter's card which was admitted and marked as Exhibit 1218.
         Under cross-examination RW8 said the 2 marks at the back of Exhibit 1218 show that he voted in the
elections of 14th and 21st April, 2007, that there was Unit 007 adjacent to his unit a stone throw away,. that on his way
back home he saw people voting at Unit 007, that there were no problems in Units 007 and 008, that the claim,by Isaac
Olajide Akinsoye, PW37, that the election in his unit was characterized by violence cannot be true since he was
not at the units on that day, that the policemen at Units 7 and 8 maintained order on that day and did not connive
with anybody to hijack ballot papers and boxes.
         On further cross-examination RW8 said he registered at Unit 08, Iju Odo/Erekiti/Iju-Oke Ward of Okitipupa
Local Government Area, and that he was accredited as a voter, that it was not true that on Exhibit 642 (1) - (2),
item 245 on page 15 where he was accredited there are ticks all through, on that page other voters were registered,
that on Exhibit 642 (1) - (21) all the voters names were ticked twice except 4 of them, that he was a PDF member but
did not know PDP's agent at the unit. RW8 added that he did not know that 375 persons were registered to vote in his
unit, that he did not know the figures with which PDP won the election in his unit, that he did not know how many
persons voted twice in his unit and the number of votes returned, that he saw people in a queue voting in Unit 007 that he
did not know that 501 persons were registered at Unit 7 and all of them voted twice, that he did not know that out of
489 votes said to have been cast in Unit 007 486 were allocated to PDP and one each allocated to Labour Party, NNPA
and DPA, and when asked if he knew that UNPP did not contest election to the office of Governor of Ondo State RW8
said he could not recollect seeing UNPP on the ballot paper.
         RW9's deposition was to the effect that he was a councilor at Ajowa Ward V of Akoko North-West Local
Government Area and that he voted during the Gubernatorial and House of Assembly election of 14th April, 2007 at Esuku
                                                               42
Quarters Polling Unit 12 of Ajowa Ward V along with other voters under a peaceful atmosphere and that after voting
he left some other voters on the queue. RW9's voter's card was admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit 1219.
         Under cross-examination RW9 stated that the 3 marks at the back of his voter's card indicate that he
voted at the Presidential and National Assembly, the State House of Assembly and Governorship election and
Local Government elections, that he knows Yemi Alao in his Local Government Area, Honourable Fatailakinyemi Alao
who was councilor in SDP days in the Local Government and Honourable Francies Adeyemi Alao the
present Commissioner for Justice and Attorney-General for the State and that they are both referred to as
Yemi Alao for short and the latter is from the same unit and ward with him. The second, RW9 added, is a councilor
and a PDP delegate for Akoko North-West and that he is very close to both of them. RW9 stated further that
he and Yemi Alao the Commissioner voted at the same unit, that he knows Ali Walidu popularly called
"Akayinje" meaning somebody whose teeth were swallowed for a very long time, that he had known Ali Walidu
without those teeth for more than 20 years, that Ali Walidu lied when he told this Tribunal that there was no
election in their ward because the voting materials for the units were taken to the house of Yemi Alao the
Honourable Attorney-General because he (RW9) voted and he saw what was happening at the unit after that.
RW9 added that he met Yemi Alao the Attorney-General in the queue waiting for his turn to vote and that he
voted before him. RW9 identified item 242 on the voters' register for the unit, Exhibit 1045 (1) - (37), as his
photograph. He added that the conduct of the election was peaceful and meritorious, that the policeman at the unit
maintained law and order and did not connive with others to rig the election and that he left the polling unit around
12.00 noon on that day.
         On further cross-examination RW9 stated that Fatai Yemi Alao and not Adejumo Akeju was the councilor during
SDP days, that it was not the policy of the PDP to appoint agents from the unit they hail from, that Fatai Yemi Alao
signed Form EC8C as collation agent of PDP at Local Government level, that he did not know that it was the duty of an
agent to sign the result form as representative of his party, that Francis Yemi Alao did not sign the result sheet for his
ward, that the signature at the foot of the result sheet was not that of Francis Yemi Alao, that everything went on smoothly
at the unit where himself and Francis Yemi Alao voted, that he did not know that one Folusho S. Akinwande was
registered twice as a voter in his unit and that he did not want to see the evidence of that, that he did not know and did
not want to see the evidence that Folusho D. Awe, Mary Olowokeere and Bamidele Eke registered and voted twice in the
unit and that at least 16 persons were denied the opportunity to vote at that unit.
         On re-examination RW9 said the signature on Exhibit 1051 was not clear and that he did not know who signed it.
         RW10 Ogundipe Lateef informed the Tribunal in his written and oral evidence-in-chef that he is an adult, a
citizen of Igbede in Edo Ward, Akoko North Local Government Area of Ondo State, that he registered as a voter at
the 2007 General Election at Unit 002 of Edo Ward and he participated in voting in the Governorship election held on
April 14th 2007. That he arrived for voting in his unit on 14th April at about 8.00 a.m. and joined the queue and that
electoral material arrived at about 11.40 p.m, that he voted when it got to his turn to vote. That he had his voter's card in
                                                               43
Court and was admitted in evidence as Exhibit 1220.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel, the witness testified that it was not the voter's
card that was admitted in evidence that he used for the voting, but it was his temporary voter's card. That the
particulars in the Voters' Register Exhibit 910 (1) -(120) page 86 Serial No. 1038 are his own. That he met some
people in queue when he arrived the voting unit. That he left the voting unit immediately he voted at about 12 noon.
That he knew Hamsat Yesuf PW33 who is from the same street with him, that it was not true as stated by PW33
that voting did not take place in their unit. That he knew Gbenga Alegbelege. That on the election day nobody came to
disrupt the election. That the election was conducted without violence. That his voting unit was about 3 electric poles from
his house. That there was another polling unit adjacent his house but he did not vote there. That people voted in the
unit near his house and there was no violence. That INEC officials came with materials and voting was free and fair.
That he saw a policeman at his unit and Civil Defence official, usually called war brigade.            That nobody or a
policeman disrupted the election.
         Under cross examination by the Petitioner's counsel RW10 stated, that he spent about 4 hours at the
venue of the election on that day. That he could speak English and write a little. That he was a student and left school
last year. That he was studying Social Studies in the National Teachers' Institute Distant Learning at Ikere. That he spent
4 years studying and used English language to study at the Institute. That he voted at Odere/Aisha/Odiassi
Polling Unit II. (Result of the unit Form EC8A tendered and admitted Exhibit 122(1). That he did not stay up to 4 hours at
the polling unit and that when he reached his house he stayed in front of his house. That he did not know what
happened at the unit when he left. That he could not see what was happening at the unit but if there was violence he
would hear or see. That he saw his name and photograph before he voted and he did not make a copy of the
temporary voter's card. That he did not know whether 2076 people registered in his unit. That he did not know whether
468 people registered in Exhibit 960 on page 1 . That he did not know whether on page 28 of Exhibit 960 1618 people
registered. That he left the voting unit some minutes to 12 noon. That he did not know whether INEC accredited 1000
people and 1000 people voted. That he did not hear the Presiding Officer announced 500 people registered. That
he knew that Unit III is called Adeke/Aisha/Assi/Alu Unit. That Units 3 and 7 bear similar name but did not know whether
Units 3 and 7 were the same. That he was home and did not know whether the Presiding Officer declared the result.
         That he did not know when voting started and did not know how many minutes it took him from his unit to his
house. That he made his statement on oath on 13/06/07. That he knew he may come and give evidence when he swore
on oath. That the permanent voter's card was the type he used for voting, but he used the temporary voter's card to
vote. That he did not know that there was evidence that there was no voting in Units 2, 3 and 7 but what he knew
was that he voted with ballot papers. He did not know that six people were accredited twice and voted twice.
         Under re-examination, the witness said that he was not the maker of Exhibit 1221.
         RW11 Male, Adult testified in his written and oral evidence-in-chief as follows. That he is a resident of Police
Station in Okeigbo Ward 7 in Ile-Oluji/Okeigbo Local Government of Ondo State. That he voted in Unit 11 and not
                                                             44
Unit 10 as stated in his written statement on oath. That he was a voter and voted in the Governorship election on 14th
April, 2007. That he arrived the polling unit at 8.00 a.m. and queued up but electoral materials reached the unit at 10.
30 a.m. That voting started in the unit and he equally cast his vote after accreditation. That after voting he left the
polling unit. That he could identify the voter's card and his particulars in the voters' register admitted as Exhibits
1222 and 1223.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel the witness stated that he used his temporary
voter's card to vote on the day of the election. That his house is about 300 metres away from the polling unit. That he
was at the polling unit for 1 1/2 hours before he voted. That immediately he voted he left for his house. That there
were still some people casting their votes when he left. That he did not know PW25. That it was not true there was
disturbance or violence at their polling unit as claimed by PW25 and there was no shortage of electoral materials or
complaints against INEC officials. That there were policemen at the polling unit and the polling unit is close to a
Police Station. That there was adequate security at the polling unit and if there was shooting or fighting he would be able
to see because he lived in a nearby storey building. That the election was peaceful free and fair.
         Under cross examination by the Petitioner's counsel RW11 stated that he is a pensioner and he retired as a School
Headmaster in a public school of Ondo State. That as a Headmaster he had a signature which he maintained up to the
moment. That the signature is different from the one he used on his statement on oath. That he made use of his
initials on his statement on oath. That he could still print the initials as he did on the statement on oath. That he never signed
any statement on oath on behalf of anybody. That his statement on oath is at page 3506 in the Reply to the petition. That
he was not the person who signed all the statement on oath at pages 3505 - 3511 of the Reply to the petition. That he
never made a statement on oath to correct the variation in his signature on oath from his other signature. That he
voted at Unit 11 and not Unit 10 as contained in his written statement on oath. That he voted with the temporary
voter's card and did not keep a photocopy of it when he exchanged it for the permanent voter's card. That he was
invited by PDF lawyer to come and give evidence in the matter. That he went through the same process of voting
on 14/04/2007 and 21/04/2007. That he did not spend more than four hours at the polling unit. That he was at the
polling unit from 8.00 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. That he did not know how many people voted before him but at least about 12
people voted before him. That he did not know the number of people that voted after him. That he is a member of
PDF. That his unit is equally called Akiyede/Adiale polling unit. That he did not know whether 92 people voted in the
unit. That he did not know that 53 votes were allocated to PDP. That he did not know that 34 votes were allocated to
LP. That he was not interested to see the results of the voting.
         RW12 Kukoyi Temidire in his written and oral evidence-in-chief testified that he is a Male, Adult of No. 73 Broad
Street Igbobini Apoi Ward IV. That he voted on 14/04/07 at Barate Polling Unit Ward IV. That he used his voter's card
Exhibit 1225 to vote.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents, counsel, the witness testified that he did not know PW30
Patrick Udenga. That it was not true that people were denied voting because he voted. That people were allowed to
                                                               45
vote for candidates of their choice. That nobody was molested and no songs of "No Agagu" "No voting" was sang. It
was not the permanent voter's card he used at the election, but the temporary voter's card. That he laminated his
temporary voter's card as such when he voted it was punched by INEC officials to indicate he voted. That the
temporary voter's card was withdrawn by INEC when he was given the permanent voter's card. That the particulars
in Exhibit 41 (l)-(5) Serial No. 265 of the voters' Register were his. That Exhibit 41 shows that he voted. That before
he voted other people had cast their votes. That when he voted he left and others were still voting. That the
election was free and fair and no violence. That there was enough materials supplied by INEC. That it was not true
that INEC connived with other people to rig the election. That he changed his temporary voter's card because INEC
gave only 10 days to do so.
         Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel, RW12 said that he is not a member of PDP but a voter.
That he graduated from Ikere-Ekiti College of Education in 2006. That he was registered as a voter in 2007. That he
could not remember the exact date he registered. That at the time he registered he never collected his statement of
result because he had a reference in a subject. That it was not in his evidence that he graduated in 2007. That he was not
the first person to vote in his unit neither the last person to vote. That everybody presented his temporary voter's
card before voting and if laminated it would be punched. That if the Presiding officer saw a temporary voter's card
that was not laminated he ticked the card on the back. That it was not up to 400 people that voted before him, and
he could not know the exact number of people that voted. That only INEC officials that could know the number of people
that voted. That it was the same process he went through that other voters went through before voting. That it was only
INEC officials that knew much about ticking of voter's card and that the election was free and fair. That he was registered
as a voter in Barate Polling Unit. That he knew that there are 7 polling units in that ward. That he did not know how
INEC calls those units. That he still maintained that the election was free and fair and that people voted once and
not twice. That he did not know whether some people registered twice or more. That he did not want to see if
three other people voted twice on that day. That he has only one signature. That his signature is the same as that
contained on his Identity Card, but he did not have the Identity Card in Court.
         RW13 Olorunwa Akintola, Male, Adult of Igbobini Apoi Ward in his written and oral evidence-in-chief stated
that he was an agent of JBDP in the April 14th 2007 Governorship and Legislative House of Assembly Election. That he
acted as agent on the day of the election and arrived the polling unit and electoral materials were brought to the unit by
INEC officials. That INEC officials displayed ballot box and other materials in the presence of electorates and party
agents. That accreditation commenced and voting started in the unit peacefully devoid of any irregularities or
electoral malpractice. That all eligible voters were allowed to cast their votes and after the close of voting INEC
officials counted and announced the result and entered the results in INEC appropriate result sheet. That no
electoral materials were hijacked, snatched or carted away by anybody. That he knew that some agents refused to sign INEC
appropriate forms and result sheets when they discovered that the results were unfavourable to them. That there was
peaceful election in all the units in Apoi Ward V and in particular Ade polling unit where he acted as agent for the PDP.
                                                             46
         Under cross-examination by other Respondents' counsel, the witness testified that he voted on the day
of the election. That his voter's temporary card was destroyed, that because his temporary voter's card was
destroyed he could not get the permanent voter's card. That he could see Exhibit 52 (1) - (22) serial No. 63
where his photograph and particulars are stated. That the two marks on Exhibit 52 serial No. 63, show that he voted
twice in the 2007 general election. That being an agent he was present from beginning to end of the election.
That all materials were brought to the polling unit. That he did not know PW30. That it was not true as claimed
by PW30 that electoral materials were hijacked in the unit. That it was not true that people sang that "no Agagu"
"no election." That INEC officials did not cheat or rig election for any party, that there was no connivance with
the police to rig the election. That nothing disrupted the election and it was free and fair.
         Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel RW13 said that he does not bear the name of Akintunde
Akintola and he did not know Akintunde Akintola. That it was not true that he is a dismissed police officer. That he
had never been a Mobile Police Officer. That he was a teacher that he taught for two years before he joined his father
on the farm. That he was at Ade polling unit which is also called Berebe/Ade/Adai polling unit 3. That he
was present when INEC recorded the results. That it was true party agent signed the result but he was not the
one that signed the result in the unit, that he did not sign the result because he had witlow law on his hand.
         He identified Exhibit 25 and said he voted. That the photograph resemble his but it was not clear. That it
was not true that Exhibit 42 contains his photograph. It was not true that the photograph was his photograph. That
he could not identify the result sheets of the unit on that day.
         (Counsel tendered the unit result from the Bar and was admitted as Exhibit 1226). The witness did not know that
370 people registered as voters in that unit. He said he followed up to Ward Collation Centre on that day. That he did
not know the result at the Ward Collation Centre. That he did not know 400 people registered in his unit. That
paragraph 11 in his statement on oath was correct. That it was true that no body hijacked electoral materials or
destroyed electoral materials from his unit. That he did not know whether INEC did not produce ballot papers in Ako
5 Ward 5.
         In re-examination, RW13 said, that he was not the maker of Exhibit 1226.
         RW14 equally in his written deposition and oral evidence-in- chief stated that he is a male, adult of Oke Alafia II
Okeigbo Town, Ile-Oluji/ Okeigbo Local Government Area. That he resides in Okeigbo Ward 10. That he was a
registered voter in the 2007 elections. That he arrived 4iis polling unit at 8.00 a.m. on the date of the election. That
when he arrived the polling unit he joined other voters in a queue. That voting materials arrived at 11.30 a.m. on that
day. That he was accredited and voted on the date of election. That after casting his vote, he left the polling unit. He
identified his voter's card which was tendered as Exhibit 1227. He said the particulars in Exhibit 1228 were his own.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel, the witness testified that his name was confirmed on
Exhibit 1228 serial No. 113 before he voted. That he voted at Oke Lafia No. 2 at Unit 15 and not 16. That it was an
error when it was typed Unit 16. That his house is about 2 electric poles from the unit he voted. That there was no
                                                              47
other polling unit from his house to where he voted. That he got to the voting unit at 8.00 a.m., that he stayed about 3%
hours before INEC officials arrived. That voting commenced at 11.40 a.m. That he voted at 12 noon prompt. That he was
neither the 1st nor last to vote that day. That it was not true to say that there was no voting at his unit on that day. That he
did not see anybody who wanted to disrupt the election on that day. That INEC conducted the election free and fair.
That he did not see anybody who connived with INEC officials to rig the election, That there was a policeman who
was maintaining peace and order. That no policeman connived with anybody to rig the election.
         Under cross examination by counsel to the Petitioner RW14 stated: that he is a farmer as well as a
fisherman. That he is a fish seller mainly. That he has only one signature which he maintaines. That it was the same
signature he wrote on his statement on oath. That he never acted as agent to PDF. That he made his statement on oath in
the Registry of the Tribunal. That the statement shown to him was the one he made. That what he deposed to in his
statement on oath was correct. That he did not know whether INEC declared a result because he left after voting.
That his house is about 2 to 3 electric poles to the voting unit. That he is a supporter of PDF and he knew his
party sent agents to voting units. That he is called Ayodeji Fasogbon and in his statement on oath he said he is Ayo
Fasogbon. That a short form for Ayodeji is Ayo, that his other name is Timothy. That he is not the only person
known as Fasogbon. That in his unit he did not know whether there is someone called Fasogbon. That he did not
know whether he is the only A. Fasogbon in his unit.
         (Counsel tendered Result of Unit 15 and it was admitted as Exhibit 1229). The witness did not know
whether one Fasogbon acted as an agent and he did not want to see the result of the unit. He said he was not the
person who signed the result of the unit. That it was true the election was free and fair and no manipulation by
anybody. That he did not know whether other people registered six times and voted twice. That he did not want
to see evidence that people voted twice.
         RW15 Ogundoju Yisan stated in his written and oral evidence in chief that he is a citizen of Awo, Okeigbo
Town in Ile-Oluji/Okeigbo Local Government Area. That he voted in Ward 10 Unit 10 in Okeigbo Ward.
That he arrived the polling unit to vote on 14th April, 2007 at 8.00 a.m. and joined the queue to vote, that election
materials arrived at 11.20 a.m. That immediately the officials arrived they accredited voters. That he was equally
accredited and he voted. That his voter's card was the one admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit 1230. That the
voters' Register used for Okeigbo Ile-Oluji Unit 11 was Exhibit 137 serial No. 313.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel RW15 stated that Exhibit 1230 was not the
voter's card he used for the election. That the one he used was a temporary voter's card which had been withdrawn by
INEC. That the voter's card he used was ticked by INEC officials to show that he voted. That the photograph in Exhibit
137 serial No. 313 is his own. That in his statement on oath he stated that he voted in Unit 10. That he actually voted in
Unit 11. That it was a typing error that made it read Unit 10. That he voted at about 12 noon. That he was not the
first person to vote in the unit. That several people equally voted after him. That there was no problem during the
election and it was free and fair. That he did not know Sunday Oluyede, but he knows Tajudeen Usmanatu. That
                                                               48
he did not know Ra'uf Ogunshola who is PW25, but he has been hearing of his name. That there was no war song by
anybody at the polling unit. That there was sufficient voting materials supplied at the elections by INEC. That anybody who said
there was violence or electoral malpractice was not saying the truth. That he saw two policemen at the polling unit that
time. That the police were just maintaining peace and order, and that police never rigged any election.
         Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel RW15 stated that he could read English a little. That he
understood what was in his deposition. That he came to the Tribunal on13th June, 2007 to depose to the statement on
oath. That he signed the deposition himself. That his signature is that tendered and marked as Exhibit 1232. That there
was a difference in his signature on the statement and Exhibit 1232 he signed with explanation: That the laughter in
court caused the difference. That he exchanged his temporary voter's card for the permanent. That he believed
that the exchange was done in this year 2008. That he knew the exchange was this year but could not
specifically say whether it was in January or in February. That he did not know he would be called as a witness, but was
informed he might be called as a witness. That he did not have a copy of his temporary voter's card.; That he did not
know Adewuyin Rauf and Daniel James, but he knew Awo Oduwale, Femi Oduwale, Saidu Sirajo, Owonifuju Damilola,
Adewale Oyediran, Jimoh Ajibinu, Toy in B. Abilade. That he did not know Victoria Oduwale, Ogundira Adewunmi,
Oladuju Damilola, Ganiyu Poopola and Rebecca Ojutayo. That all those he knew are members of his unit. That he saw
them when they came to vote. That all the people that come to the unit voted on that day.
         Under re-examination RW15 said that he knew Toyin Abilade but she is not his friend.
         RW16 Abodunwa Ayodele H. Male, Adult stated in his written and oral evidence in chief as follows: That
he was a registered voter in polling unit 08 in Afo Ward 1 in Ose Local Government. That on the election day in
question he went to vote and met other voters in queue. That after accreditation he was given two ballot papers and
he cast his vote. That voting was peaceful in the unit. That his full names are Abodunwu Ayodele Henry. That he
used his voter's card Exhibit 1233 to vote that day. That his name and particulars are contained in Exhibit 1059 serial
No. 9 of the Exhibit 1059.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel, RW16 stated that his house is about 3 to 4
electric poles from the voting unit. That he never passed through other poll units before getting to his voting
unit. That he went to vote on that day at about 11.00 a.m. or 11.30 a.m. That he saw many people queuing when he
went for voting. That he voted about 12 noon or after. That after voting he left but others were still voting. That
he knew Samuel Amochree PW10. That he also knew Chief Alonge Niyi Denis. That it was a lie that Chief
Alonge Niyi Denis carted away electoral materials to his house. That Exhibit 1233 was not the voter's card he used
on the election date but the temporary voter's card which had been withdrawn by INEC. That he did not notice
whether his name was ticked by INEC officials when he voted. That Exhibit 1059 serial No. 9 contained his particulars
and photograph. That there was no violence or disturbance during the election .That the election as conducted
by INEC was free and fair. That there was a policeman at the unit on that day. That the police was maintaining law and
order. That election took place at the unit and not at anybody's house and no electoral materials were hijacked.
                                                              49
        Under cross examination by the Petitioner's counsel RW16 testified that he could write and read English
a little but he understood Yoruba language better. That he deposed to his statement on oath personally on
13/06/2007. That he personally signed the deposition. That he signed the deposition on 12th June, 2007. That he was not
one of those that came to vote early on that day. That he met people on the queue but could not state the number of
people on the queue. That he did not notice those in front of him or those behind him. That as soon as he cast his vote
he left the unit, but there was still a long queue. That he never came back to the polling unit and that his house is about
3 to 4 electric poles from the voting centre. That he knows Niyi Denis Alonge and he was never his driver before, That he
was from the same town with the said Alonge but was never close to him. That his nick name is "Ebo". That Niyi
Alonge was once a chairman of his Local Government between 2003-2007. That he knew Alonge also became Special
Assistant to the State Government on Local Government Affairs. That he did not know anybody's name in his unit.
That he did not know anybody because he came from a far place and also he was hungry on that day. That he knows
Amofere as his townsman and not a person from his unit. That he did not know Akinmade Odesosimi, Alakwe
Aluyemi or Alonge Adebuyan but only Niyi Alonge Denis. That he did not know Arigbo and Eleke family. That it
was not only his family he knows, but those mentioned were not known to him. That he was hungry on the
day of election but was not angry. That he voted because of Nigeria's future.
        RW17 Amune B. Ebite, Male, Christian, Citizen of Ukpe Ukparama Ward 1, swore and testified in
his written and oral evidence in chief that he was a registered voter at Pa Mannus/Open Space Mannumi
Polling Unit Ukpe Ukparama Ward 1. That he went to vote on the day of the election. That soon after his arrival
INEC officials arrived with voting materials and displayed same and soon thereafter accreditation took place. That
he misplaced his voter's card. That upon confirmation of his name and identity on the voters' Register he was
issued with two ballot papers; and he consequently voted. That all other eligible voters equally voted without
threat, intimidation or violence at the polling unit. That election was conducted peacefully devoid of
irregularities or electoral malpractices and that nobody hijacked, snatched and or carted away any electoral
material. That no thug led by anybody took away the electoral materials.
        Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel RW17 stated that, a temporary voter's card
was once given to him, but he explained to the INEC official who allowed him to vote. That the Presiding
officer checked his name on the voters' Register and found same. That his name and photograph are that contained
on Exhibit 112 Page 5 Serial No. 80. That he voted and the voters, Register was ticked. That he was not the first
or last to vote in the unit. That there was no hijacking of ballot papers or any violence at all. That all the units in the
wards are at the Bank of River and movement was by boat from one unit to another unit. That it was not possible for
anyone to visit the whole units in the ward a day. That speed boats are about 75 horse powers. That it was not
possible to cover the units with the fastest moving boat. That he did not know Ali Amunalaku PW29. That it was
not true to say there was no election as claimed by PW29. That INEC officials never connived with anybody to rig the
election. That there was only one policeman in his unit and he was only maintaining peace and order.
                                                            50
         Under cross examination by the Petitioner's counsel, PW17 stated that he did not vote with his voter's
card. That materials reached the unit at between 9.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. That materials were conveyed with two 75
- horse power boat and they were not moving fast. That he could not compare the speed of the 75 horses' power boat
with another boat until the two boats competed. That his unit was one of the units that got materials first. That he knew
only about his unit that the materials arrived, and that the river in his unit is not an Atlantic Ocean, but they are rivers only.
That he did not know the distance between his unit and the farrest unit in his ward. That it was not because of the
petition he came out from his ward but sometime he usually come out once a while. That he knows little bit of
part of Akwe and it is far bigger than his village. That there are many towns that made up his ward. That he is a civil
servant working with the State Government as a teacher. That he could not believe that the court premise is
bigger than his ward. That he could not measure the court area and his unit because his is not a surveyor. That he did
not get permission to come and testify because he was on holidays. That it was only those that have special
assignment that visit schools on holidays. That it will take hours with boat to cover the ward.
         RW18 Inuesokan Tamarawemi, Male, Adult of Ukparama Ward II testified in his written and oral
evidence in chief that he was a registered voter of F.A.C polling unit. That he arrived at the polling unit to cast
his votes on 14th April, 2007 Election. That INEG officials brought voting materials and conducted the election peacefully
without malpractice. That Exhibit 1234 is his permanent voter's card.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel RW18 testified that he used his temporary voter's
card to vote at the election. That the voters' Register Exhibit 127 (1) - (29) page 13 Serial No. 2090 contains his
particulars and it was ticked to indicate he voted at the election. That he did not know Ali Amuduku PW29. That it
was not true that electoral materials did not get to Ukparama units 1 and 2. That he was not the first or last to vote on
that day. That there was no violence and election was free and fair. That there was only one policeman at the unit
who was maintaining peace and order only. That election took place at INEC designated areas.
         Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel RW18 testified that, he was described as Civil Servant on the
Register of Voters but actually he is a businessman. That Inuesokan is his family name and he did not know all
Inuesokan family members because there are extended families. That Ikwerigimi is his father's youngest wife. That his
father was still alive. That Serial No. 201 on Exhibit 127 Page 13 is the particulars of his father's youngest wife. That Serial
No. 202 on Exhibit 127 was not known to him. That he came to swear an oath on 13/06/09. That he signed the
statement on oath himself. That his signature varies sometime depending on situation. That his specimen signature is as
contained in exhibit 1235. That no boat capsized in his area during the election period. That he did not have the
knowledge that a boat capsized that day. That he did not know Gamidara Kenneth and he never heard of his name. That
he do not know Monday and Sunday Peregbo. That he has been hearing of D.I Kekemeke but he did not know him.
         RW19 Fasogbn Robert, Male, Adult testified in his written and oral evidence in chief that on 14th April, 2007 at
about 1.00 p.m. he went to his polling unit at Agbologi village to vote. That he went with his voter's card to vote.
That when the Register of Voter Exhibit 1236 was checked his name was found and he voted.
                                                               51
          Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel, RW19 testified that he voted at Unit 14 on
the day of election. That the particulars in Exhibit 1236 Serial No. 11 are his own. That it was ticked along
with his voter's card before he was allowed to vote. That he has lost his voter's card now. That he knows PW8
Senator Omolulu Merioyi who is from the same town with him. That it was not true that people came out to vote
with guns as testified by Senator Omolulu. That there was ballot papers and materials at the polling units. That it
was not true that soldiers and police were brought to prevent people from voting. That INEC conducted the
election free and fair and whoever said to the contrary was not saying the truth. That there was only one
policeman at the unit who was maintaining law and order.
          Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel, RW19 testified that he went out to vote but could not
know the number of people that voted in his unit that day. That he did not know anything about who voted and it
was only INEC that could know. That he was not the last to vote, others voted after him. That he came to the
Tribunal Registry to make his statement on oath. That he could write or sign his specimen signature which
was tendered as Exhibit 1237. He said his other names are Aboyomi Emmanual. That he knew Averoyin but did not
know anybody else in the ward. That he is a teacher and can speak English well. That he teaches in English as well as
in Yoruba and he teaches all subjects including English Language. That he did not know Meroyi Bosede, but only
knew Senator Meroyi Bosede. That he knows Anu Fasogbon, That he did not belong to the same party with Anu
Fasogbon neither did he belonged to any political party. That he knew Anu as a Civil Servant. That Annu is his younger
brother and he knew Anna Fasogbon, and Anna Fasogbon is the mother of Annu Fasogbon. That he did not
know Bayo Ayobisowa, and Fajobi Olubomi. , That he teaches in a public school. That he is a Grade II Teacher and
had WAEC too. That he has about 2-3 signatures. That the signature on the statement on oath is not that he used to
collect his salary.
          RW20 Michael Dio, Citizen of Akgata Ukparama Ward testified in his written and oral evidence in chief that he
was the PDF agent in Tominiwei Polling Unit 002. That he arrived the unit as agent on the day of election and electoral
materials were brought to the unit by INEC officials. That voters were accredited and voting commenced. That the
election was peaceful and votes were counted, announced and entered in the appropriate result sheets. That nobody
hijacked, snatched or carted away any electoral materials. That he knew some party agents refused to sign some result
sheets when they discovered that the results were unfavourable to them or their parties. That no law enforcement
agent, police, soldiers or thugs removed any electoral materials.
          That votes cast were taken to Ward Collation Centre from all the units. That election was conducted
peacefully in all the units in Ukparama Ward II particularly in Tominiwei Polling Unit 002 where he acted as agent of
PDF. That his full names are Odisabira Michael Dio. Under cross examination by other Respondent's counsel,
RW20 testified that in Exhibit 119 Page 8 Serial No. 117, all the particulars there are his particulars. He said he
voted at the unit where he acted as agent. That he was not the person who signed the result sheet but his other
colleagues that signed the result sheet. That he voted before he started to act as agent. That he used his temporary
                                                           52
voter's card to vote and the voters' register was ticked. That he did not know PW29 Francis Ali Amalaku.
That it was not true that there was no voting in his unit or ward as alleged.
         RW21 Azeez Musa, Adult, Male, testified in his written and oral evidence in chief that he was a registered
voter at Polling Unit 05 in Afo Ward I in Ore Local Government Area in the April 14th 2007 General Elections.
That on the day of election, he met people at the polling unit on queue tiying to vote. That after accreditation he
was given ballot papers and he voted; and as soon as he voted he left the voting unit. That he used his voter's card
Exhibit 1238 to vote.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel, RW21 stated that his particulars are those
contained on Exhibit 1056 serial No. 177 on the voters' Register. That the voter's card he used at the election was
the temporary voter's card and not the permanent card. That at Unit 5 where he voted nobody fought and
nobody was prevented from voting. That he knew Samuel Adeola Amolere and it was not true that one Denis Alonge
removed electoral materials in the unit. That he met people voting and also left when voting continued. That he met
INEC officials and they were doing their job properly. That he also saw a policeman at the unit who was maintaining law
and order and arranging people to be on the queue.
         Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel RW21 testified that he voted at Unit 5 Afo Ward I. That he
could not read Exhibit 1239 which was just admitted in evidence. That he could not read and write in English but could
read and write in Arabic. That he was the person that thumb printed the statement on oath. That it was the
lawyer who read and interpreted the statement before he thumb printed. That it was lawyer Dauda that interpreted it to
him. That he met few people he knew during the election. That he did not know Esther Moyomi and Bose
Adebole. That the people he knew and'met at voting unit were Saliu Olumojere and Yahaya Aliu. That he did not
know Tope Egujobi, Ilesha Daramola, Asheyiyi Olawumi and Ayeye Akinuwu. That the crowd was growing larger and larger
on the day of the voting, but he was not sure whether everybody came out to vote on that day.
         RW22, Animola Bolorundoro R. testified in his oral and written evidence in chief that he was a registered
voter at Polling Unit 01 in Afo Ward 2 of Ose local Government Area. He said he was 73 years old and that he voted
on 14th April, 2007 election. That he met other people in the unit queuing to cast their votes; that he was accredited
and later voted. That he left other people voting when he left the voting unit. That his voter's card was the
Exhibit 1240 admitted in evidence.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel RW22 stated that he gave his age as 73 years old.
That Exhibit 1052 Serial No. 170 are his particulars. That the voter's card Exhibit 1240 was not the one he used on the
day of election but the temporary one which had been withdrawn by INEC. That at the time he voted nobody prevented any
body from voting. That he did not see thugs, soldier, and police disrupting the election on that day. That he went to vote
at about 10.30 a.m. on that day and met many people on queue and voting. That people also queued after him and
the election was peaceful. That he met INEC officials at the unit. That there was a policeman who was maintaining law
and order and making the election free and fair. That it was not true to say that there was no election on that day because
                                                            53
he personally voted.
         Under cross examination by Petitioner's Counsel RW 22 testified that he is a member of PDP. That he does
not have a petrol station now because it folded up long ago. That he was never a teacher at Akoko Anglican
Primary School. That anybody who said that he taught him at Anglican Primary School was not saying the truth.
That he did not know the person who stood up in court and claimed that he taught him. That he was telling the
Tribunal the truth. That he was once a councilor in his Local Government Area. That he has up to six children. That he
knew Olusho Animola who is his son. That his son was INEC officials just as many other people. That he was
a businessman when he became a councilor. That since he left standard six he has been in trading. That he left standard
six in 1952. That he did not know Oluwafemi Animola, Adefarati Ayodeji, Yemisi but he knew Sunday Kolawale and if he
saw his photograph he could identify it, but he is not his son. That he did not know Akinola Arnimola, Bokula
Animola, Rebecca Animola, Adedoyin Animola, Anibete Animola; Adepuju Animola and Bolake Animola. That he
did not know the person whose photograph is on Exhibit 1052 page 9 Serial No. 1599. That he could not read the
names in Exhibit 1052 because he is fairly old and does not read his Bible now because of eyes problem. That he
has a bank account but because of irregular signature at the bank he now uses thumb print at the bank. That he has a car.
That he knew Denis Alonge Niyi. That Denis was once Chairman Ose Local Government Area. That there was nothing
between him and Denis Alonge Niyi apart from being from the same Local Government Area.
         Under re-examination, the witness stated that there are many Animola family in Ofu Town.
         RW23 testified in his written and oral evidence in chief that he was an eligible voter at Unit 008 in Ikodo
I Ward 3 in Akoko North-East Local Government Area. That he arrived at his unit at 8.00 a.m. to join queue of
people to vote, that he was accredited and voted on the day of the election in his unit. That after voting he left the
polling unit. That he had his voter's card which was admitted as Exhibit 1241.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel, RW23 testified that his particulars are those
contained in the voters' register Exhibit 935 (1) - (37) page 17 serial No. 278. That he used exhibit 1241 to vote
at the elections in April, and Local Government election in December 2007. That he contested for the Local
Government election and he won the election as a councilor. That he did not think it was Exhibit 935 that was
used for the Local Government election. That he voted at his unit in the April election. That he met people on
queue at the unit. That he knew Alhaji Tiyomiyu Olubanje PW13. That he saw PW13 on the day of the April
election. That he was in his front on the day of the election to vote. That it was not true that electoral
materials were hijacked or carted away by Abass Saidi and that no thugs disrupted the election. That no materials
were taken to Olu Okere's palace because the palace was far from the voting unit. That voting materials were
available on the day of election. That he did not vote during the April 21st 2007 election because he was sick. That after
the election he saw Labour Party supporters jubilating that they won the election in his unit. That he voted in Unit 7 and
not Unit 8 as contained in his written statement. That it was an error of typist that it was stated as Unit 8. That he saw
some police men maintaining law and order only.
                                                            54
         Under cross examination from Petitioner's counsel, RW23 stated that all the evidence he gave was in respect of
Unit 7 not Unit 8. That the statement he adopted was the only sworn evidence he made before the Tribunal. That he did
not know what happened in Unit 8 on that day. That Alhaji Olubade is his brother and he did not know whether Olu
of Ikere chased Alhaji Olubade away because he testified for the Petitioner. That he has not been seeing Olubade in Ikere
for some time and that he signed his statement on oath on 12/06/07 at the Tribunal Registry, that his specimen
signature was contained in Exhibit 1242 which was admitted in evidence. That it is the same signature he used as a
councilor. That it was later in the night he saw LP members jubilating that they won the election in Unit 7. That it
was about 7.00 p.m. they were jubilating. That he voted and left and was not present when the vote was counted that
he left the polling unit at about 10.00 a.m. and no other polling unit is on the way to his house.
         RW24 Gbenga Adeyemo, Male, Adult testified in his written and oral evidence in chief that he was a
registered voter at Uro 1 Polling Unit 009 at Ajowa Ward V in Akoko North West Local Government Area. That he
went out to vote on the day of the election in his unit. That he met people on queue which he joined. That he voted
after accreditation. That the voting was peaceful and his voter's card was stamped. That after casting his vote he left.
That he voted with his temporary voter's card which was admitted in evidence as Exhibit 1244.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel, RW24 testified that he voted in the April 14th
2007 election as well as the Local Government election hi December, 2007. That he used the same voter's card for
the two elections. That the voter's card was not clear because his wife washed the voter's card in his clothes. That
he had seen Exhibit 1042 page with Serial No. 69 in the Voters' Register. That the particulars contained in that
Exhibit 1042 were his. That Exhibit 1042 was marked once because it was not the Voters' Register that was used for
the Local Government election in December, 2007. That he voted in Unit 9 on the day of the election. That there
was no obstruction on the day of the election. That at about 7.30 p.m. he heard supporters of Labour Party jubilating
that they won the election in his unit and that they were all dancing in front of his house; and that it was false to say
there was no election on that day. That he voted at Unit 9 in Ajowa Ward 5. That INEC officials performed their
duty and there was a policeman who was maintaining peace and order only.
         Under cross-examination by Petitioner's counsel, RW24 stated that he is a civil servant working with
Ajowa Customary Court. That he is a Gardner working with the Court. That he schooled up to primary
six. That it is the same signature he used in his statement that he uses in collecting his salary. That he came to
depose to the statement on oath on 12/06/07. That he voted on that day at about 12.00 noon. That after
voting he left for his home. That he was not present when the votes were counted. That he was employed
on September 22nd 2006 by the Customary Court. That he was a farmer before he was employed. That when he
registered as a voter he was 38 years old but then he was 39 years old.
         RW25 Ayeniyi Olayeye, Adult of Ode-Erinje testified in his written and oral evidence-in-chief, that he
was a registered voter for 2007 General Election at Unit 014 at Ode-Erinje Ward. That he went to the polling
unit at 8.07 a.m. to vote and waited. That electoral materials arrived at 11,40 a.m. That after accreditation he
                                                               55
voted.. That after voting he left the polling unit for his house. That he had his voter's card which was admitted as
Exhibit 1245.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel RW25 testified that Exhibit 1245 was his
permanent voter's card. That he voted with his temporary voter's card which he exchanged for the
permanent voter's card in January 2008. That he voted around 12.30 noon. That the particulars in Exhibit 586 (1) - (20)
page 2 Serial No. 95 the Voters' Register are his own. That he knew Kola Awegbemi and Folasheki Awegbemi. That
the two are his cousins and are all politicians. That Folasheki was Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff to Governor of
Ondo State. That he was familiar with the signatures of Folabayo and Folasheki because they are his cousin and he is close
to them. That Folabayo was his Personal Assistant when he was the Executive Chairman Okitipupa Local
Government between 1999 -2002. That he could identify the signature of Folabayo on Exhibit 593 (1). That he knows
Lawal Tajudeen RW40. That it was not true that the results for his units and ward were falsified as claimed by Lawal
Tajudeen who is from a different ward which is Igota Ward. That Ode-Erinje Ward is in Constituency I while Igota Ward is
in Constituency II. That he never saw Lawal Tajudeen in his ward on that 14/04/07. That INEC officials were in the unit
to perform their functions and nobody disturbed them from performing their duty. That there was one policeman in the
unit who was equally performing his duties.
         Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel RW25 testified that both Kolabayo and Folasheki Awegbemi
are his cousins. That both of them and himself are members of PDP. That both Folasheki and Kolabayo are still alive. That
he was Chairman Okitipupa between 1999 -2002. That Bayo Awegbemi was not a councilor between 1999 - 2002. If was
Elimo Bayo Awegbemi that was councilor Okitipupa between 1997 and 1998. That Elemo Bayo is different from Folasheki
and Kolabayo Awegbemi. Folasheki AwegbemL_was_tiie_Special Assistant to Chief of Staff Ondo State Government.
That it was Folabayo who signed Ode-Erinje ward result. That Exhibit 593 (2) reads Awegbemi Fola and that Fola is a
short form of Folabayo. That Folabayo was the collation agent for PDF at ward collation centre. That he saw Exhibit
515 (2) and it was the same Fola Awegbemi that signed Exhibit 515 (2) and 593 (2).
         That he did not know Abdulkabir Ajuno, but he knows chief Ajuno. That Chief Ajunu who stood up in Court
was not the Secretary to Ondo State Government now, but he was once the Secretary to Ondo State Government in
2006. That he knew that the Secretary to the Ondo State Government wrote a letter to Awegbemi Fola to convey
approval of his appointment as Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff. That Fola Awegbemi was special Assistant up to 14th
April 2007. That he did not know whether INEC regulations permit such persons to act as agent in an election for a
political party. That Folasheki voted at Unit 15. That he left the voting unit at 12.30 noon. That he sat in front of his
house after voting. That he could observe what was happening at the unit in front of his house. That INEC officials
declared results on that day. That he could not identify the result because he was not the person who prepared it.
That he did not know whether result was declared at the Ward Collation Centre. That he did not know that the result
at his unit was different from that declared at Ward Collation Centre. That Exhibit 1245 was his permanent voter’s
card. That he made his statement on 13/04/07 and got his permanent card in January 2008 and it was the temporary card he
                                                            56
used for the election.
             Under re-examination RW25 testified that he was not a staff of Ajuno in December 2007. That he was
never a staff to the Chief of Staff Ondo State Government.
             RW26 Bello Yakinni, Adult, Male testified in his written and oral evidence in chief that he was an eligible voter at unit
001 of Ward 03 in Akure North Local Government Area, that he arrived his polling unit at 8.3,0 a.m. on the day of election
and after accreditation he voted. That the election was peaceful and without disturbance. That he used his temporary
voter's card Exhibit 1246 to vote.
             Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel RW26 testified that the temporary voters' card given
to him by INEC was a laminated one, that after voting the voter's card was punched twice to indicate that he voted on
14/04/07 and 21/04/07. That he voted at the December 2007 Local Government elections and before then the
lamination was removed. That it was his particulars that were contained in Exhibit 1007 (1) - (42) at page 15
Serial No. 247 in the Voters' Register. That Exhibit 1007 was ticked twice to indicate that he voted in the April
General elections. That materials arrived at voting centre at 8.40 a.m. and he voted at 11.00 a.m. That INEC
officials conducted the election under a peaceful atmosphere without hijacking of materials. That there was a
policeman who provided security and maintained law and order and anybody who said police hijacked materials was
not telling the truth.
             Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel RW26 testified that he in person made the statement on oath.
That he explained to his counsel who reduced the evidence into writing. That he could not write and read English
properly. That he schooled up to secondary school. That he has only one signature which specimen was as
contained in Exhibit 1247. That his voter's card was perforated to indicate he voted and the cross was made in
December 2007 Local Government elections. That he made his statement on oath on 13/06/07. That he could
not inform the Tribunal of a different thing from his statement on oath. That he did not know whether INEC
requested for ballot papers because the earlier ones were hijacked. That he did not know anything about Exhibit 1106
(3) - (4).
             RW27 Ali Ayodeji, Male, Adult testified in written and oral evidence in chief that he was a registered voter
at Unit 12 of Ward 1 in Okitipupa Local Government Area, that he arrived voting unit at 8.00 a.m. on that day. That
electoral material arrived at 11.40 a.m. and voting commenced immediately on the day of the election, that he
voted and after voting left for his house. That he voted with his temporary voter's card Exhibit 1248.
             Under cross-examination from other Respondents, RW27 testified that he used Exhibit 1248 his temporary
voter's card to vote in the April election. That there was two marks on the voter's card to show he voted twice in
the April election and his unit was Unit 12. That Exhibit 745 (1) - (28) page 8 Serial No. 142 are his particulars on
the Voters' Register. That he joined queue at 8.00 a.m. and materials arrived at 11.40 a.m. and he voted at 1.00 p.m.
That he is a member of PDF. That he was once a Ward Secretary of Obiyeyi Ward I, but had resigned immediately
after the election. That the election in the ward and unit was peaceful and no disturbance as claimed by PW38
                                                                   57
Christopher Babafemi Akintunde. That it was not true that in his unit and ward, police, soldiers and thugs hijacked
electoral materials and that the election was free and fair, and that as a secretary if there was violence he would
hear. That electoral materials were supplied by INEC and no policeman carried a gun but only a baton.
         Under cross examination by the petitioner's counsel, RW27 testified, that as PDF official he was aware of
PDF policy of appointing one agent to polling units and that PDF had agents in all the units in his ward. That he was
not the agent for unit 12 but there was an agent and he could not remember the agent and he was interested that
PDF should win the election in his unit; and he could not know whether the agent in his unit signed the result sheet.
That after voting he left for the PDP Secretariat which is 30 minutes walk from the unit 12. That he saw Exhibit 1249
result sheet for Unit 12. That he did not know whether 500 people registered in the unit. That he knew two people in
his unit who are Adefuwayi Adeyemi and Sudaju Kehinde and that he was the only Alli registered in the unit and did not
know of any other Alli registered in the unit and did not know whether people who were not registered voted. That he
knew Omofarabola Gbenga who was not a councillor of Ode Ward I in 2007. That he did not know Yele Akinya
but had heard of his name and did not know his wife either. That INEC officials ticked Exhibit 1248 when he voted, but
could not remember whether it was the same INEC officer who ticked his voter's card. That the ticks were done on
April 14th and 21st 2007. That it was the Governorship election that took place first and three elections took place on
21/04/07 i.e. House of Representative, Senatorial and. Presidential elections. That he did not know whether the Voters'
Register was ticked with blue ink or not and that he was not the person that concocted the marks on the voter's card.
         RW28 Olowa Femi, Adult, eligible voter registered at Unit 1 of Ward I in Okitipupa Local Government stated in
his written and oral evidence-in-chief that he arrived his polling unit to vote at 8.00 a.m. on the election day. That he
joined queue and at about 11.40 a.m. electoral materials came and he voted after accreditation. That he lost his
temporary voter's card and never collected the permanent voter's card.Under cross examination by other
Respondents' counsel RW28 testified that he voted that day at 12.30 p.m. with his temporary voter's card. That the
temporary voter's card was misplaced after the April 2007 general elections. That Exhibit 744 (1) - (9) page 8 Serial
No. Ill are his particulars on the Voters' Register. That the tickings in Exhibit 744 were done by INEC officials on
the 14th and 21st April 2007. That he did not know Chief Christopher Baba Femi Akintade PW38. That it was not true
as claimed by PW38 that soldiers, police and thugs of Agagu hijacked ballot papers and ran away with them and it was
equally not true that voting never took place in his unit, and that INEC conducted the election free and fair and that
the policeman posted to the unit never carried a gun.
         Under cross examination by the Petitioner's counsel, RW28 testified that it was true that election in his
unit was free and fair, and that he did not know anything about Exhibit 1250 since he was not an INEC official and it was
only INEC officials that could give evidence on result sheets and he did not know whether declaration of results was part of a
free and fair election and did not know whether the result sheet was falsified; what he knew was that there was a
free and fair election in his unit. That he discovered his voter's card was missing when INEC called for its replacement
with the permanent card, and that he could not say whether he misplaced the voter's card in 2007 or 2008 and that
                                                             58
he is fairly old now and about 54 years old. That he registered as a voter 2 years back, and he is a civil servant
about to retire and working with a Community Secondary School as a teacher and in a Technical Department
and that he was not a member of the PDP.
         RW29 Idieobe Aarinola, Adult testified in written and oral Evidence-in-chief that she was a registered voter
at Unit 1 of Mahin Ward III in Ilaje Local Government Area. That she went to the unit to vote at 8.00 a.m. on the
day of the election. That INEC official came and accreditation took place. That she did not go to the voting unit
with her voter's card because she misplaced it and that after explanation she was allowed to vote. Under cross
examination by other Respondents' counsel RW29 testified that the particulars on Exhibit 384 (1) - (23) Serial
No. 160 page 10 are her particulars. That she voted between 11.00 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. on that day and that the
particulars in Exhibit 1251 (1) - (23) Serial No. 160 and Exhibit 384 (1) - (23) Serial No. 160 are her own. That
her particulars in Exhibit 1251 were ticked when she voted. That some people voted before she voted and she left
people waiting to vote and that the voting was peaceful without violence and no fighting and no hijacking of INEC
materials and INEC officials performed their duty without disturbance and the policeman she saw was maintaining law and
order and was not possessing gun.
         Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel RW29 testified that it was not good to tell lies and that she knew
that a person who had no voter's card could not be allowed to vote.
         RW30 Adeyemo Azeez, Male, Adult, testified in his written and oral evidence in chief that he was a registered
voter in Unit 012 of Obadore Ward and that he went out to vote on April 14th 2007 and after accreditation he voted and
that he was never disturbed or harassed during the election. That Exhibit 1252 was his permanent voter's card.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel RW30 testified that Exhibit 1252 was not the
voter's card he used at the election but the temporary voter's card which had been withdrawn by INEC and that the
particulars in Exhibit 858 (1) - (20) page 5 are his own. That he went to the voting unit at 9.00 a.m. but voted at about
11.00 a.m. That after voting he left for his house and when passing to Unit 12 he had to pass through Unit 16 and that he
saw people equally voting peacefully in Unit 16. That he knew Ajani Oladipo PW9. That it was completely untrue to say no
voting took place at Unit 16 because he passed that unit when going and coming from his voting unit and that he did not
see PW9 at the voting units. That he knew two people who voted with him i.e. Abdulsalam Ahmed and Azeez Bakari.
That INEC officials came and performed their duties as required and that he saw one policeman each in the two units
maintaining law and order. Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel RW30 testified that election actually took place
in Units 12 and 16 of his ward and he did not stay long in the unit but he stayed for more than 5 minutes. That he got
to the unit at 9.00 a.m. and left at 11.00 a.m. to his house and that there was no hole on the permanent voter's card
and did not know whether there was a mark on the permanent voter's card. That he did not know anything about Exhibit
1253 Form EC8A for Unit 16. That he did not know whether 51 people were not able to vote in Unit 16 and that Units 12
and 16 are units in Oniparaga village. That Azeez Bakari was not the PDF agent in Unit 12 and he did not know the
agent. That Azeez Bakari was still alive as his brother. That he did not know whether Exhibits 1253 and 1252 were ticked or
                                                            59
marked, but he could see that Exhibit 1252 was not marked.
         RW31 Akindle Ajosanmi Male, Adult testified in his oral and written evidence in chief that he was a registered
voter at Unit 009 of Jima Ward 001 of Irele Local Government Area of Ondo State. That he voted on that day in
question. That he went to the polling unit at 8.00 a.m. That accreditation took place at the unit. That he used his
temporary card Exhibit 1254 to vote.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel, RW31 testified that he was aware when INEC called
for the exchange of the temporary voter's card and that he went to the officer's house several times without meeting him
at home and that was why he never changed the temporary voter's card. That Exhibit 224 (1) - (25) on page 2 Serial
No. 7 shows his particulars and how he voted on the voters' register. That INEC officials arrived the unit at 9.00 a.m.
and he voted at 11.15a.m. That there was no malpractice at all during the election. That he did not know one Goke
Ajiero PW33. That it was false as claimed by PW33 that there was no voting. That there are two polling units in the
village where he voted and in all the two units there was voting and that since the units were in the same place he
could see everybody voting. That he is about 80 years old now and most of the members of his communities are
farmers. That he equally saw INEC officials performing their duties without problem and only one policeman
was posted to his unit and the policeman was not carrying any gun, but was maintaining law and order. That he voted
with his voter's card and if he ever said he voted without his voter's card that was an error. That he could not read or
write and could not have voted without his voter's card.
         Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel RW31 testified that it was true that he could not read or write.
That the ticking on his voter's card was done during the voting exercise and the blue ticking was made on 14/04/07
while the red ticking was done on 21/04/07. That Exhibit 224 shows he voted, and it was ticked once. That it was not
good for an old man like him to lie under oath. That he made the oath at the Tribunal and all that he said in his
statement on oath was true. That after voting he left for his house and that if there was problem at all he could
have heard of it because the two polling units were close to his house. That between 1977 and 1982 he was a
security guard at Comprehensive High School. That it could be Mr. Alabi that was the Principal at that time and
that he was never dismissed because he forged a cheque.
         Under re-examination the witness testified that he had already stated that he could not read or write and
that he could not have voted if he was not having his voter's card.
         RW32 Muleboh Owei, Male, Adult, a voter, registered at Polling Unit 001 Arogbo Ward I testified in his written
and oral evidence in chief that he voted in the April 14th 2007 election at his unit, and that the election was peaceful and
without intimidation.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel the witness testified that Exhibit 75 (1) - (75)
page 43 Serial No. 755 contains his particulars and that he voted and that he was not the first or last to vote on that
day and was at the polling unit for five hours before he voted, that there was no hijacking of election materials at all on
that day. That he knew George Felix P-W28 and it was not true as claimed by him that there was no voting in his unit.
                                                              60
That he did not ever see George Felix in any of the units on the day of the election. That Unit 001 served as a
distribution and also as a collation centre for the ward. That INEC's officials performed their duties without
problems.
         Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel, RW32 testified that he did not know PW47 Agundeji Poju and
that it was not true that there was no voters' register and result sheets in respect of unit 001 of Arogbo Ward II. That he
knew that ballot papers and voters' register were available because he voted on that day and that even if INEC said there
was no voting it would equally not be true and that he equally voted on 21/04/07 during the Presidential
election as well as on 14/04/08. That he was accredited twice on the voter's register. That he knew D.I. Kekemeke
who is a PDP Member and Secretary to Ondo State Government. That he is not a member of PDP. That he knew the
place called Agadagbo-Agbo and that it is not the Headquarters of Ebi-Aye Arogbo and that materials would usually come
from Egbi-Aye Arogbo before distribution and not from Agadagbo-Agbo. That distribution normally comes from
Ebi-Aye Arogbo to Agadagbo to Egbeyeyi, but that from Agadagbo to Egbeyeyi was only by water. That he did not
know Waribi Idekpi and he voted at 1.00 p.m. and that materials arrived at 11.30 a.m. and he did not know whether Kekemeke
said materials never arrived at 3.00 p.m.
         RW33 Oyetakin Adeduyin, Male, Adult, of Ugbo Ward 1 Ilaye Local Government Area testified in his oral and
written evidence in chief that he participated as agent for PDF in the April 14th 2007 election at Polling Unit 013.
That he arrived the polling unit at 8.00 a.m. That materials arrived the unit at 2.00 p.m. and voting
commenced immediately. That voting was concluded at 6.30 p.m. That votes were counted at the unit and
results announced in the presence of the party agents and security agents and same was taken to the collation centre.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel RW33 testified that he voted on the day of the
election at Unit 012 and that Units 012 and 013 were located at the same place. That he used Exhibit 1255 his
voter's card to vote at the election. That Exhibit 547 page 22 Serial No. 380 contained his particulars which were marked
to show he voted. That it was not true to say that there was no voting on that day and that it would be humanly
impossible to travel from Ward 5 to Ward 6 of the Local Government on the same day of the election, because it has to
be by Boat and that in April, Canoe are usually used not boat and it takes longer time to travel in Canoe than in Boat.
That he did not see anybody disrupting the election on that day and that he knew Olushola Oke, but did not see him
in Units 012 and 013 on that day. That he actually voted at Unit 012 but was agent in 013 and that INEC supplied
enough materials on that day and the election in the two Units 012 and 013 were peaceful.
         Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel RW33 testified that he is a member of PDP and that it was not
the policy of the party to send agents to where they registered as voters. That the statement on oath was made by
him and did not prepare it just to fill it at later stage. That he did not know RW27. That he has only one signature not
two. That he signed the result sheets in Unit 013. That the signatures in Exhibit 1256 and Exhibit 1148 were the
same. He said he was the party agent in Unit 012 and voted in Unit 13. That he was made party agent by his party and
he is a prince by birth, and he was equally a pioneer and a member of PDP in 1998/1999. That he never signed a letter
                                                             61
dated 28th May, 2003 which is Exhibit 1257. That as agent he waited for the counting of the result, and did not add the name
"Oxygen" to his name; and did not observe whether INEC stamped the results or not and did not know whether the
results for the two units Exhibit 1078 (8) and (10) were signed or not.
         Under re-examination the witness testified that he saw Exhibit 1257 and that he was not the person who
signed the document and he never saw the document before. That he is not the only Aredoyin in Agbokoda but there
are others. RW34 Rev. Apostle Ogoyinbo, Adult, Male of Ayoeri Arogbo Ward II testified in his written and oral evidence
in chief that he was a registered voter at Ayoeri Polling Unit Ward II in the April 14th 2007 Governorship election. That he
went out to vote for candidate of his choice on that day. That all eligible voters voted on that day and he too voted after
accreditation without intimidation or violence or irregularities taking place and that the election was peaceful. That no
law enforcement agent or thugs removed electoral materials. That his particulars are those contained on voters'
register Exhibit 1258 (1) -(18) and that he made the statement on oath on 13/06/07.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel, RW34 testified that he actually voted on 14/04/07
with his voter's card, but the voter's card was misplaced after the election. That his name is provided on Exhibit
1258 (1) - (18) page 15 Serial No. 243 on the voters' register which equally shows he voted. That he is close to 80
years now. That he voted at Ayoeri Unit. That there are two units in Ayoeri and the two units are not far from each
other. That he did not know George Felix RW28 and was not true that there was no voting in his unit as claimed by the said
George Felix PW28 and that the election was free and fair and INEC officials did their job freely too.
         Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel RW34 testified that his church is called Zion and it is in Ogbonla
Community where he was ordained. That his initial title was Rev. Apostle but now he has been promoted to Baba Ala
Kuso. That the meaning of Baba Ala Kuso is the gathering of people and places and it is a Yoruba name and that his first
name is Moses but by title he is called Baba Ala Kuso. That he saw Exhibit 1258 and the tick on the Exhibit. That he
saw Exhibit 78 (15) Serial No. 243 which are his particulars but no ticking on it. That he knew RW32 and was
together with RW32 when they made their statement on oath. That during accreditation the mark was made on
the Exhibit. That he could not speak English but could understand written English a little. That he made the
statement on oath and could read English a little (which he did in open court).
         RW35 Ehuwa Adedeji, Male, Adult, reside at Abereke in Mahin Ward II Ilaje Local Government Area
Ondo State testified in his written and oral evidence in chief that he was registered voted in Unit 30 of Mahin
Ward II. That on 14th April, 2007 he went out to vote in his unit at about 9.40 a.m. That electoral materials arrived
the unit at 1.35 p.m. on the election date; and immediately materials arrived, he was accredited and he voted. That
he used his temporary voter's card admitted as Exhibit 1259 to vote.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel RW35 testified that he was not the only one that
voted in his unit on the day of the election and that there was no violence during the election. That there were
many people but could remember two, i.e. Owoyemi Ahuwa and Maryam Ahuwa who voted. That he saw INEC
officials also on that day and nobody disturbed them from doing their job. There was a policeman who was only
                                                               62
maintaining law and order and nobody was fighting and that the election was peaceful.
         Under cross examination by petitioner's counsel RW35 testified that he was born on 5th July, 1982 and his first
name is Ehuwa and compound name is Adedeji and that he was a student of God Grace Grammar School but went to
the school to register for WAEC. That he came to the Tribunal to sign his sworn statement on oath and he met a female
before whom he swore the oath and signed the oath in her presence. That his specimen signature is as shown in
exhibit 1260 which he signed in Court. That he saw Exhibit 360 (25) Serial No. 437 which contains his name. That he voted
twice during the April 2007 election but exhibit 360 was ticked once. That he did not know the number of political
parties in the ballot papers during the election and that Abereke is his polling unit. That he did not know when election
commenced and when it stopped because he was not an INEC official, that he went out to vote on that day as a voter
only. That he went to enroll in God Grace Grammar School to pass his English because he had problem in English
language paper. That he went to a Community Grammar School first before God Grace Grammar School. That he started
Secondary School in 1995 and left 2000 and he spent six years in Secondary School. That those written words in his sworn
affidavit were written by him in his own handwriting. That it was when he came to swear on oath in the Tribunal he
inserted the words and that he did the writing with the instruction of his lawyer; and specimen of his writing was as
contained in Exhibit 1262. That he never filled in other peoples' statement on oath
         Under re-examination RW35 testified that the photograph in his voter’s card is his own.
         RW36 Chief Oduwole S.M.E. testified in his written and oral evidence in chief as follows. That he worked with
INEC as Supervisor during the Governorship/House of Assembly election held 14th April 2007. That he was a
Supervisor at Ugbo Ward IV in Ilaje Local Government Area. That his duties during the election were to collect
election materials both sensitive and non-sensitive from INEC and distribute same to presiding Officers in all
the units under his supervision. That he distributed all election materials and election actually took place in all
those units on that day. That election was peaceful in all the units under his control and there was no snatching of any
ballot papers or violence of any kind and that the police, Navy or Army never snatched ballot papers. That he would be
surprised to hear from anybody that election never took place in the units under his supervision.
         Under cross examination from other Respondents' counsel, RW36 testified that he is a teacher by
profession and worked at a Community Grammar School Ilepete Ilaje L.G.A. That the school is a Government school
and he is a Civil Servant. That he participated in 2007 election as INEC ad hoc staff for Ugbo Ward VI. Ilaje Local
Government Area. That he distributed election materials to all the Presiding Officers in the units under his control.
That he was not the only supervisor who received election materials at Ilaje L.G.A. That other Supervisors received
their materials and they distributed the materials by use of boat hired by INEC. That four other Supervisors including
himself boarded the same boat on that day. That he knew the names of the other supervisors who were Mr. Lobu
Akindekuro, Orire Eyighanto and Mr. Aniforwashi F.A. and himself, that the four supervisors joined the boat.
That they reached Ward V before getting to Ward VI. That he was present when the materials were distributed to 10
units under his control, except Unit 9 which materials were mistakenly take to other place. That after he
                                                             63
distributed the materials to the 9 units, election took place in all the units except Unit 5 where there was disagreement
between the community. That materials were distributed around 2.00 p.m. and election took place immediately. That he
knew Engr. Kola Adejimake and he came in contact with him thrice during the election i.e. at the distribution centre, in his
unit and at the collation centre.
         That after the election, he collected the unused and used materials except the result sheets which were usually
submitted at the collation centres by the Presiding Officers; and anybody who said election materials were not
distributed was not saying the truth and that after his assignment as a supervisor he wrote a report and submitted same
to INEC. That throughout the exercise no Presiding Officer complained of shortage of materials and he never received
any complaint on act of irregularities from the Presiding Officers. That a policeman was posted to each of the units to maintain
peace and order. Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel RW36 testified that he did not vote on the day of the
election in question and that he was a registered voter at his ward Asuku Ward I. That he registered in his unit with the
name of Aduwole M. Ola and was appointed as INEC ad hoc staff in January 2007 but was not given a letter of appointment
by INEC, but was given identity card and after final payment the identity card was returned to INEC. That he took
oath of neutrality at Agbokuba on the eve of the election on 13/04/07 and had no copy of the oath he took. That he was
not present in court to protect any party but to clear the misconception created by some people and did not keep a copy of
the report he sent to INEC and that he supervised Units 1 -10 of Ugbo Ward VI. That he has 10 Presiding Officers
under his supervision and one electoral officer for the whole Local Government Area and the electoral officer was Oladejo
but did not know his initials and it is correct to say that the correct name of the electoral officer is Oladoyin. That Exhibit
1106 (1) - (9) contained Mr. R.I. Oladoyin as .the electoral officer of the Local Government at page 2 of Exhibit 1106 item 9
and that no ballot paper was reported missing in the areas he supervised. That he did not handle Form EC8B but he
witnessed the collation of results at collation centre and saw the Presiding Officers submitting the result sheets.
         That he testified to some facts which were not contained in his I deposition because some questions
asked in that respect made him to I elaborate on the questions. That he registered at Erone Asuku Unit j which
was in Ugbo Ward I, that he saw Exhibit 435 (1) - (32) Exhibit \ 437 (1) (11) and Exhibit 438 (1) - (21) which are
voters' registers for I Units I, II and III and his names were not found in the 3 voters' I register. That
paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Manual for Officials contained what were called sensitive and non-sensitive materials and the
sensitive materials were election result sheets EC8 series, ballot boxes, and voters' register and non-sensitive
materials were ink pads, stamp pads, biros, correcting fluids, Form EC40 series, electoral bags, pencils and others
but ballot papers were sensitive materials too. That Forms EC8A, EC8A (1) EC8A (2) and EC8 series were
results sheets but could not recall which results they should carry, but EC8A was for Governorship election.
That the result sheets were blank when he handed them to the presiding officers, he did not witness the filling of
the results by the Presiding Officers but witnessed the submission of the results by the Presiding Officers and that
Exhibit 552 (1) - (7) were results for Ugbo VI and he witnessed when they were submitted to the collation officers,
and he witnessed training for the election. That he knew Fola Adejimake but did not know his polling unit but
                                                              64
when he met him at Odo Oyinto Unit, he knew he could be from that unit. That units have serial numbers but he
did not know whether it was general or specific to each unit, but he believed that the serial numbers could not be
the same in Forms EC8 series. That he did not expect Presiding Officer in Unit I to act in Unit 2.
         Under re-examination, RW36 testified, that he registered at Ereno Osu and Erono Osu is different from the
units in Exhibits 436, 437 and 438.
         RW37 was Toyin Abekunle a subpoened witness from INEC. He produced the following materials: 5 INEC
stamps which were admitted as Exhibit 1264, 1265, 1266 and 1267 (1) - (2). The stamps were said to be used by
INEC officials during the election.
         RW38 Salami Rasaki 50 years old testified in his written and oral evidence in chief as follows: That he was a
registered voted for the April 2007 election, that his polling unit was located at Aroromi Olu, that he arrived the
polling unit to vote on that day and after accreditation he was allowed to vote and after voting he left the polling unit.
That he made the statement on oath on 13/06/07 and that he has his voter's card which he used and was admitted
in evidence as Exhibit 1268.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel RW38 testified that he voted on 14/04/07, and he used his
temporary voter's card to vote on that day and that the temporary voter's card had been collected by INEC and
permanent voter's card Exhibit 1268 was issued to him. That it was true he was born on 28th November, 1956 and
he was 50 years old in 2006 when he registered. That it was an error when INEC put his date of birth as 1951, that
he got to the polling unit at 11.55 a.m. not 11.55 p.m. as erroneously typed in his written statement on oath. That his
voting unit was at Araromi Obu but there is a L.E.A. Primary School near his house, but during registration exercise
he could not register there because of so many people there to register. That there were two polling units in the
L.E.A.. Primary School but he did not vote in the two units but he voted at Comprehensive Health Centre Unit 006.
That there was another unit at the Comprehensive Health Centre apart from the Unit 006 where he voted. That he
voted few minutes past 12.00 noon after queuing. That voting took place at his unit and the other units close to his
unit. That there was also voting at Court Hall Centres located between his house and his voting unit. That there was
also voting at the L.E.A. Primary School close to his house. That his voter's card was stamped when he voted. That
he only voted on 14/04/07 and did not vote on 21/04/07 because he travelled. That he did not see Senator Omolola
Aleroyi at all on the day of the election in his unit. That it was not true to say there was no election at Araromi Obu
because he himself voted. That he was a driver but now he is a farmer. That he is a member of the NURTW and was
once the Chairman of the NURTW. That there was voting in all the six units he saw on that day. That he did not see a
thug or anybody disrupting the election. That he saw policemen at the units maintaining law and order only.
         Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel RW38 testified that he deposed to the sworn affidavit on
oath. That he could not read. That he was not the one that made the alteration on the affidavit and did not know
the person that made the alteration. That he voted at Community Health Centre. That he did not know that
156 people voted at the Health Centre. That he did not know 150 ballot papers where issued to the unit. That
                                                            65
he did not know that 143 votes were recorded. That it was true he did not know anything about the voting
system only that he voted. That it was true that Senator Aleroyi is a citizen from his area and that he knew some
people in his area but he did not know Sunday Idiogbo, Timiye Ayodele Tayo, Adepetu Shiyi, Akinwo Abake,
Akinmoyi Alaboyi and Sunday Mathew. That all the names were strange to him. That he got his permanent voter's
card Exhibit 1268 in January, 2008. That he did not belong to any political party and he is not a politician.
         RW39 Ehinmola Benson Male, Adult testified in his oral and written evidence in chief that he
participated in the April 14th 2007 election and he was assigned to Polling Unit 002 of Ward VI in Ilaje Local
Government Area. That he arrived the unit at 7.00 a.m. when he met other voters waiting. That INEC's officials arrived
the unit at 1.45 p.m. That before the arrival of INEC's officials large number of voters were waiting and election
commenced immediately and all eligible voters voted. That voting was concluded at 6.35pm. that
after close of election results were recorded in Form EC8A and duly signed by the Presiding Officer as well as
available party agents including himself. That the Presiding Officer took the result to the collation centre
accompanied by party agents including himself. That he made his statement on oath on 13/06/07 and he was an
agent at Awoye Ugbo Ward Unit 006 and he could identify Exhibit 1269 the result sheet of the unit he served as
agent.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel RW39 testified that he was not the only agent
at the unit on the day of the election. That three parties LP, DP A, PDP had their agents. That his polling unit was
L.E.A. Primary School Awoye. That the polling unit he served as agent was not the only polling unit in the area
and that there was another polling unit there, and it was possible to see what was happening in the other polling
unit and there was no disruption of elections in the two units and election in the two units were extended to 6.35 p.m.
and everything was concluded by 6.55 p.m. That he was the person who signed his own result sheet as agent of his
party in Form EG8A. That he did not vote on that day and it was a total falsehood to say there was no voting on that
day and that INEC supplied sufficient materials in the unit he served as agent and the election was peaceful and
orderly. That there were policemen in the units and they accompanied the results to the collation
centres. That the L.E.A. Primary School unit was the collation centre.
         Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel, RW39 testified that Ehimola is his surname. That he has
only one hand writing. That his name and Ugbo Ward were written with biro on the sworn affidavit. That he wrote
those words with biro with the instruction of his lawyer. That he wrote the words on the statement on oath by
himself. That he could write similar to those written on the statement on oath (which specimen was admitted as
Exhibit 1269). That he signed the statement on oath (which specimen he produced on Exhibit 1270). That he acted as
agent in one polling unit which was Unit 002. That he saw Exhibit 552 (2) and Exhibit 1259 but was not the one who
signed Exhibit 551, but Ehimola Benson's name is written there. That one Omojume Adenike was the
Presiding Officer in Exhibit 552 (1). That he registered at polling unit 6 at Ugbo Ward 6 and he
registered as Ehimola Benson and he was supposed to vote at Awoye II Local Authority School. That his
                                                             66
particulars are not contained in Exhibit 536 (1) – (14
         Under re-examination RW39 testified that Exhibit 536 (1) - (14) was not for his unit.
         RW40 S.E. Ikudehinbu Male, Adult testified in his written and oral evidence in chief that he is a Community
Leader and registered to vote at Unit 001 Mahin Ward III of Ilaje Local Government Area in the State. That he came out to
vote on 14th April, 2007 at 8.30 a.m. That by the time he arrived for voting in his unit, no INEC officials arrived but eventually
INEC officials arrived later. That after accreditation he voted and voters who did not come with their voter's card
were allowed to vote if their names were found on the voters' register. That the election was peaceful devoid of any
violence or election malpractices. That INEC's officials informed him that the delay in starting the voting was due to
the difficult terrain in the area. That after the voting result of the election was announced at the polling units. That no
thugs, soldier, Navy or anybody snatched ballot boxes. That he would be surprised to hear that there was no election in his
unit because he voted.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents counsel RW40 testified that he was 92 years old now. That he
voted on 14/04/07 in his Unit 007 Mahin Ward. That he saw many voters on the day of the election. That he voted with
his voter's card. That he saw Exhibit 381 (1) - (25) page 11 Serial No. 174 which contained .his particulars and Exhibit 381
was ticked when he voted. That he voted with his voter's card but while coming to testify he had an accident the
previous day and he lost his voter's card in the accident. That the voter's card was kept in his purse which he lost the
previous day in the accident. That he voted once during the April election because he was sick during the second election.
That INEC's officials arrived between the hours of 11.30 a.m. and 12.00 noon on the election day and he voted
between 12.30 p.m. and 1.00 p.m. That if anybody said that he did not vote on that day such person was not telling
the truth.
         Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel RW40 testified that he could neither read or write English
language, but his names and other information were inserted with biro on the statement on oath and those writing
were inserted by his lawyer and the lawyer is his son-in-law and he registered with the name of S.E. Ikudehinbu in
the voters' register and also as contained on his voter's card. That his name was compared or checked on the
register before he was allowed to vote. That after he voted because of his age he left for his house.
         RW41 Akin Obayomi, Male, Adult testified in his oral and written evidence in chief that he saw
and read a document titled Affidavit in Respect of April, 14th 2007 Governorship and House of Assembly
election sworn to by Odidi Opeyemi, Mrs. Lola Irinyemikan, Tenuhi Idowu, Teminhin Orimisan, Menukero Sunday,
Omotehinso Olumide, Nana Jide and Aminu Teju and that he knew that as a matter of fact paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and
7 of the affidavit were false and that the election at Mahin Ward III was free and fair devoid of any
violence, rigging, hijacking and snatching of ballot boxes and other electoral malpractices and multiple thumb-printing
of ballot papers. That he never led any thugs known and described as Dr. Olusegun Agagu thugs,
policemen and or naval men to hijack and snatch ballot papers in any polling unit at Mahin Ward III or any other
place and he did not single handedly or in connivance with anybody carry away any ballot boxes or electoral materials
                                                               67
to any where. That he never engaged in multiple thumb printing of ballot papers and never fabricated any result sheet and
that he knew that there was election in all the units in Mahin ward and electorate who wished to vote voted
without hindrance from anybody. That he knew that the deposition by those persons at pages 845, 846, 847, 848 and
849 of the written statement on oath of the Petitioner's witnesses were mischievous and that he applied that
paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of his sworn statement on oath be amended to read Mahin Ward 3 instead of Mahin Ward l.
        Under cross examination from other Respondents' counsel, RW44 testified that he registered for the
2007 April elections in Mahin Ward 3 in Unit 24 as contained in exhibit 1271 page 17 Serial No. 279 and that he voted
on 14/04/07 and he voted with his voter's card but after the April election he could not find the voter's
card for the December 2007 Local Government election. That Exhibit 1271 the voters' register shows that he
voted on 14/04/07 and 21/04/07 because there are two ticks on the voters register. That there was an armed
policeman in his unit on the day of election who assisted to maintain people on the queue. That he lost his voter's
card after the April, 2007 elections, and that immediately he voted he left for his house and that he saw INEC
officials performing their duties without disturbance in his unit and he was not the first nor last to vote in the unit
and that the police maintained law and order without any favour to any person or harassment and that it was
untrue to say police hijacked election materials.
        Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel RW41 testified that he could not read in the court
because he did not have his reading glasses and that what he was still saying was that there was election in his unit
and nobody hijacked materials. That he could not remember the month he made his statement on oath
because it had been a long time ago and all that he said in his statement on oath was correct and that Exhibit
1271 and Exhibit 279 are his names and photograph. That he saw Exhibit 398 page 17 Serial No. 279 and was not
marked and in Exhibit 1271 his name was ticked and he could see it faintly
        Under re-examination RW41 testified that he was not the maker of voters' registers.
        RW42 Professor Emmanuel Ola Adegbeyeni, Male, Adult and Expert Witness for 1st Respondent
testified in his written and oral evidence in chief that he made a written statement on oath on 24th April 2008 and he
adopted the statement on oath and was admitted as Exhibit 1272 (1) - (2) as his expert evidence. That he was
qualified to give expert evidence on computer application and that computer could be manipulated by anybody to
suit that person's desire. He demonstrated in court how ballot papers could be scanned and voting pattern changed
through computer, he stated that the expert witness called by the Petitioner did not base his report on any
primary sources and as such, such expert evidence called by the petitioner was not reliable.
        Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel, RW42 testified that with the numerous errors identified
in his report, the report could not be said to be flawless.
        RW43 Dr. Apata Temidayo Gabriel also testified as an expert witness and he adopted his report which
was admitted as Exhibit 1279 (1) - (18) and Exhibit 1280 (1) - (43). He stated further in his evidence in chief that the
report of PW48 and PW50 expert witnesses called by the Petitioner were not founded on any document
                                                              68
presented by INEC and therefore the analysis by those experts witnesses were false or not correct or reliable.
         Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel RW43 said he was instructed by 1st Respondents' counsel
to carry out the analysis and he was given the reports made by experts called by the Petitioner but was never given
their statement on oath and that he did not know the expert witnesses of the Petitioner in person, and confirmed
that there were many errors in his report.
         RW44 Benjamine Olujare, Male, Adult testified in his oral and written evidence in chief that he is a civil
servant and worked with INEC as a supervisor during April, 2007 election. That he was a supervisor for Ugbo Ward
III in Ilaje Local Government Area of Ondo State and as supervisor his duties were to receive election materials both
sensitive and non-sensitive and distribute them to Presiding Officers which he did on the election date in the units he
controlled and that elections were held in those units to which he distributed the materials. That election
commenced in those units at 1 .25 p.m., that it was not true that election materials for the ward were hijacked by Dr.
Agagu's thugs or by Nigeria Police, Navy or Soldiers and that election was peacefully conducted in that ward, that he
moved round to see things for himself, that he was shocked to hear from any person that election did not hold in
that Ugbo Ward III, and that nobody was engaged in thumb-printing of ballot papers.
         Under cross examination by other Respondents' counsel, RW44 testified that he was at INEC office by 6
or 6.05 a.m. to collect materials and that he saw representatives of political parties at the INEC office when they
were collecting materials and he saw Chief Otumba and Engineer Ijemakin the leader of LP at the INEC office. That
LP's leaders stopped distribution of materials initially complaining that ballot papers had been thumb-printed. That
because of their complaint INEC officials and all other political parties representatives had to check all the
ballot papers and found that no ballot paper was thumb-printed before election materials were –distributed.
That the LP officials delayed the distribution of the election materials and after the election materials were
distributed INEC eventually provided buses with which they conveyed the materials to their various wards.
That they went to police jetty where boats were provided to convey the materials to the various wards and units and he
arrived the ward at 1 .00 p.m.
         Under cross examination by Petitioner's counsel RW44 testified that he was employed by INEC as a Supervisory
Presiding Officer for 2007 April election, but he described himself as a supervisor in his statement on oath that in
Ugbo Ward III there are 15 units, but he supervised 7 units which were Unit 009, 010, Oil, 012, 013, 014 and 015
and that his sworn statement did not cover Units 001 - 008 and that he never mentioned those units in his statement
on oath and did not say that materials were only distributed in units 009 - 015 because he was in the same boat with
supervisor for the other units and the supervisor for the other unit was Mr. Ako Adelaba who was still alive then and
he did not know how political parties presented their candidates because this was outside his schedule
of duties as a supervisor. That he distributed ballot papers in booklets to the Presiding Officers. That it was
true he collected used and unused materials from the Presiding Officers and saw some used and unused ballot papers
that were returned and that he saw the ballot papers in boxes and did not count the political parties on the
                                                          69
ballot papers, that he recorded what he received from the Presiding Officers and forwarded same to INEC,
that he knew of Form EC25 A which was materials receipt form. He did not know of Form EC25B and did not
know what Form EC40 was for. He did not know Form EC40B but knew about EC40D which was a
statement of spoiled and rejected ballot papers and Form EC40C was ballot papers account and
verification statement and those forms were not part of the materials he returned to INEC and he was aware of the
Manual for INEC Officials i.e Exhibit 1, that he received all the forms in Exhibits 1163 - 1169 and that Exhibit 1163 -
1169 were returned to INEC either before or after the election. He did not know Toyin Abekunle and would be
surprised if INEC said it never produced Exhibits 1163 - 1169 and INEC would not be saying the truth if it said it
never distributed materials with Exhibits 1163-1169. He said there were portions for serial numbers of ballot
papers and that all the information must be filled but he could not know whether those Exhibits were the exact once he
submitted, and that if they were the exact copy of Exhibit 1078 from his units he would be able to identify
them; and that he did not know whether Form EC8A for Units 009 and 010 Ugbo Ward III tendered from the
Bar were copies of Exhibits 1281 and 1282; that he distributed Forms EC8A to the Presiding Officers and he
distributed blank forms to the Presiding Officers not completed forms. That Igbokoda was the Headquarters where
materials were distributed and that he saw Engineer Ijemakin at Igbokoda and that it was at Igbokoda that LP members
disturbed the distribution of materials. That he never distributed his materials at INEC Headquarters and that Presiding
Officers waited for him in the various units and he went to the units to distribute materials to the Presiding Officers and
after election, he went back with the boat to collect all the Presiding Officers to the collation centre with their results.
He said he started distribution with Unit 009 and that not all voters voted in the units on that day, but that voting
procedure was not within his supervision, and that it was part of his duties to supervise Presiding Officers and would be
surprised to hear that Supervisory Presiding Officers were at Igbokoda at 2.00 p.m. He is a civil servant and ordinarily he
needs not take permission before he could come and testify. That he made statement on oath on 13/06/07 and not on
16/06/07 and that when he made the statement there was possibility for him to come and give evidence, but he knew
he was to come and give evidence on 1/05/08. Under re-examination RW44 testified that Exhibits 1163 - 1169 were to
be signed by Presiding Officers and not Supervisory Presiding Officers.
         We have already said that all the counsels filed their written addresses and adopted same before us on
13/6/2008. In his written address, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent Chief L.O. Fagbemi SAN submitted
that the major and the dominant issues for determination in this petition are:
                  1. Whether ground one of the petition is competent, and if so, whether this Honourable
                       Tribunal can deal with and determine the alleged issue of result of the election being
                       vitiated by malpractices, and
                  2. Whether having regard to the pleadings, and the legal burden of proof, the
                       Petitioner has produced evidence of such quality and quantity, as required by law to
                       justify a verdict in his favour that election was vitiated by malpractices and he, the
                                                             70
                        Petitioner won by a majority of lawful votes.
         On his Issue No. 1 it was the submission of learned SAN that the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is
limited to the hearing of this petition on the grounds set out in the petition and nothing more.
         He submitted that ground one of the petition is unknown to law, since it is not one of the grounds
provided for under Section 145 (1) of the Electoral Act 2006 under which a petition could be challenged. He
submitted that since ground one of the petitions challenged the results of the election, such ground is
incompetent and should be struck out. Learned counsel relied on the cases of Afolabi vs. Tadema
EPT/OND/SH/07 decided by this Tribunal on 13th May, 2008 Ogboru vs. Ibori (2004) 7 NWLR (Pt. 871) 192
at 223 - 224, Karfi vs. Mohammed (1993) 2 NWLR (Pt 277) 602 at 616, Buhari vs. INEC (2008) 4
NWLR (pt. 1078) p. 546 at 643 and Obasanjo vs. Yusuf (2004) 9 NWLR (pt. 877) p. 144 at 222 paras C- E.
         Learned SAN submitted further that the particulars of the grounds of the petition which complain of non-
compliance with certain provisions of the Electoral Act are incompetent as the petition itself is not grounded on
reasons of non-compliance and therefore any particulars relating to non-compliance will not have root in the grounds
of the Petition and equally such particulars are incompetent and should be struck out.
         He submitted that non-compliance is not pleaded in this petition neither its substantiality pleaded; therefore the
only alternative for the Tribunal is to strike out the particulars of non-compliance if they are in the petition.
         Learned SAN relied on the case of Ojukwu vs. Yar'Adua (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1078) 435 at 458 -
459. On the whole Learned counsel urged us to strike out ground 1 of the petition.
         On Issue No. 2 learned counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that several matters are raised under this issue;
and they include the nature of the pleadings, the legal burden of proof, and the evidence produced by the Petitioner.
         On the nature of the pleadings learned counsel submitted that at a careful reading of the petition, it is clear that the
Petitioner based his claims on assertion that election did not hold in several Local Government Areas of the
State and where election took place they were marred by criminal activities like the hijacking of ballot boxes,
multiple thumb-printing, stuffing of ballot boxes and preventing eligible voters from voting, and that several
other electoral malpractices were committed.
         Learned counsel submitted further that since the Petitioner claimed that the 1st Respondent was not
elected by majority of lawful votes, the burden to plead and lead evidence to show that invalid votes were cast in
favour of the 1st Respondent and that it is the duty of the Petitioner to tender all forms e.g. Forms EC8A, EC8B,
EC8C and EC8D used during the election and also to call witnesses to lead evidence as to the
misapplication of votes scored by individuals. Learned counsel relied on the cases of Onmeje v. Otokpa
(1999) 4 NWLR (Ft. 600) 638 Rabba vs. Tafashiya (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt. 603) 468 and Dauda vs. Halidu
(1999) 5 NWLR (pt. 601) 94.
         Learned SAN for 1st Respondent submitted that to be able to lead evidence on the invalid votes cast in favour
of the 1st Respondent, the Petitioner must have pleaded sufficient facts to ground such evidence. And for the Tribunal
                                                                71
"to take such into consideration, the Tribunal must consider factors like:
                 i.    The state of the pleadings.
                 ii.   Credibility of the Petitioner's case.
                iii.   Nature and substance of the complaint of the Petitioner, and
                iv.    Whether the omission complained of actually affected the conduct of the election in
                       substantial manner.
         Learned SAN cited the cases of Ogu vs. Ekeremadu (2006) 1 NWLR (Pt. 961) 255 at 282.
Kato vs. CBN 91991) 9 NWLR (Pt. 214) 126, ACB vs. Gwagwada (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 342) 25,
Okagbue vs. Romaine (1982) 5 SC 133, Ngige vs. Obi (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 999) 1 at 141 -
142 paras H - B and several other cases to support his contention on this proposition.
         Learned SAN submitted that polling stations/units are the concrete foundation on which election
process is built and the primary evidence is form EC8A and that the Petitioner must specify the polling units in
question in his pleadings to which his grounds relate; and that where such allegations are made in general terms,
the Tribunal or any court should and shall not take notice of it. He relied on the cases of
Omoboriowo vs. Ajasin (1984) 1 SGNLR 108 at 143 - 144; and Anthony vs. Governor of Lagos
State (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt. 828) 288 at 302.
         It was also the submission of the learned SAN for the 1st Respondent that for the Petitioner to
succeed on this aspect he has to show that the allegation pleaded in paragraphs 21.1 - 21.10 of the petition
against the 1st Respondent are linked to specific polling units, and failure to do such is fatal to the Petitioner's case.
He relied on the cases of Alhaji Adamu B. Deba v. Dauda Ali Zagi & Ors. (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt. 601) 14
at 118, Buari vs. Obasanjo (supra) at 315, Omoboriowo vs. Ajasin (supra) p. 108 and Hashidu vs.
Goje (2003) NWLR (Pt. 843) 352 at 386.
         On the burden of proof, learned SAN for the 1st Respondent submitted that it is an elementary legal
position that in election matters, there is a rebuttable presumption in favour of validity and regularity of the election
conducted by the electoral body and therefore onus is on the Petitioner who is challenging the results
declared by INEC to produce credible and reliable evidence to rebut same. He relied on the authorities of Kalu
vs. Uzor (2006) 8 NWLR (Pt. 981) 66 Dauda vs. Haliru (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt. 601) 94 and Buhari vs.
Obasanjo and Ors. (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 941) p. 1
         On the evidence produced by the Petitioner, learned SAN submitted that there are three types of
evidence on which the Petitioner is trying to rely upon to prove his case. The first type was the formal ones
through subpoened witnesses which are PW1 to PW7 which class of witness produced official documents without
more and that none of them was of any assistance to prove the Petitioner's case. The second type of evidence
was that represented by PW8 to PW13; PW23 -PW41;PW55andPW56. This type of evidence submitted
the learned SAN is alleged evidence of eye witnesses, party agents and evidence the of opinion by experts
                                                               72
commissioned by the Petitioner and their evidence equally was of no assistance to the Petitioner
         The third type of evidence learned SAN submitted consists of large number of documents like voters'
registers, unused ballot papers, result sheets, various correspondences, voters' cards and others. After reviewing all
the evidence adduced by the Petitioner Learned Senior Counsel urged upon us that there is not enough evidence
to sustain the petition and as such the petition should be dismissed
         The 2nd Respondent, through their counsel A.O. Adelodun SAN also filed a written address and made some
oral submission
         In his submission the learned SAN submitted that the issue for determination in this petition is whether
the Petitioner has proved his petition sufficiently and in accordance with law to be entitled to any of the reliefs
contained in his petition
         He submitted that from the facts pleaded in the petition, the Petitioner is only alleging that there
was no election in some of the disputed Local Government Areas due to electoral materials being hijacked, or
snatched in connivance with the 1st and 2nd Respondents thugs and that electoral materials were diverted
         Learned Senior Counsel submitted that all the allegations are criminal in nature and have to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt. He relied on the authority of Imam vs. Sheriff (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt. 914) 80 at 82,
Omoboriowo vs. Ajasin (supra) at 108, Ezeike vs. Ezeugwu (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 236) 462 and Jang vs. Pariye
(2003) 15 at NWLR (Pt. 843) 436 at 461
         Learned SAN submitted that it is clear from pleadings and evidence adduced that the Petitioner
never proved any of the allegations claimed; and that in criminal allegation the defendants or Respondents as in the
present case have no obligation of adducing a rebuttal evidence unless and until the accuser or the petitioner had
established a prima-facie case. He relied on the authority of Imam vs. Sheriff (supra) at 215 and several other decided
cases to support his argument on the issue formulated
         Learned SAN therefore finally submitted that the Petitioner has woefully failed to prove the various allegations
of massive and wide spread violence and hijacking of materials and other electoral malpractices and as such the
petition should be dismissed
         The 3rd to 14th Respondents equally filed written address and also made oral submission
         In his submission learned counsel for 3rd to 14th Respondents P.O. Jimoh-Lasisi SAN contented that the issues for
determination in this petition are:
         1. Whether ground 1 of the Petitioner's petition is competent.
         2. Whether there is sufficient evidence of multiple voting, alteration of results, or fictitious results placed
              before the Tribunal to impugn or invalidate the election and
         3. Whether the alleged malpractices where proved, are of such magnitude and substantial enough to invalidate the
              election.
         On Issue 1, learned SAN for the 3rd to 14th Respondents submitted that the 1st ground of the petition is
                                                               73
incompetent: That the grounds under which an election could be challenged had been specified in Section 145
(1) of the Electoral Act 2006 and that ground 1 of the petition as contained in paragraph 21(1) page 12 of the
petition is unknown to law and therefore should be struck out. Learned Senior Counsel relied on authority of
Afolabi vs. Festus and Ors. (Unreported) in Case No. EPT/OND/SH/08/07 delivered by this Honourable
Tribunal on 13th May, 2008
           On issues 2 and 3 formulated by the Learned Senior Counsel, it is his submission that there is no cogent
evidence placed before the Tribunal by which the Petitioner could properly rely on. He contended that evidence
of PW8 to PW40 and PW42 to PW44; and the nature of the pleadings itself and the evidence of Adrian Forty
and PW45 to PW50 are not sufficient enough to vitiate the election or entitle the Petitioner for any of his
reliefs.
           Learned Senior counsel after analysing the evidence before the Tribunal and citing several decided cases
urged upon us to dismiss this petition in its entirety
           In the same vein learned counsel for the 15th and 16th Respondents J.C.A. Idachaba Esq. filed a
written address and also made oral submissions on behalf of the 15th and 16th Respondents. In his submissions
learned counsel formulated three issues for determination. These are:
               1. Whether the grounds of the Petitioner' s petition is competent in law;
               2. Whether in law, by the state of the Petitioner's pleadings, he is entitled to lead evidence in proof of
                   averments directed against statutory persons who are not joined as Respondents in the petition; and
               3. Whether by the state of the Petitioner's pleadings and evidence tendered, he has
                   discharged the onus propandi as required by law to entitle him to the judgment of this
                   Honourable Tribunal and the grant of the reliefs sought in paragraph 38 of his petition
           On issue 1, learned counsel argued that the issue raised is purely a question of law as to the
competency of the ground 1 of the petition. It is his submission that ground 1 of the Petitioner's petition is unknown
to law and not covered by Section 145 of the Electoral Act 2006 and as such should be struck out. Learned counsel
placed reliance on the decided cases of Yusuf and Ors. Vs. Obasanjo and Ors. (2004) 2 EAC 191 at 196
ratio 9 Karfi vs. Mohammed (supra). Madukola vs. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 ALL NLR 562 and Mactoy vs.
U.A.C. (1962) AC 152.
           On Issue 2 learned counsel for 15th and 16th Respondents argued that the Petitioner has no jurisdictional
powers to lead evidence against statutory persons who ought to have been joined as parties but not joined.
He submitted that by going through the pleadings particularly paragraphs 21.1 - 21.10, allegations of
criminality have been made against several persons; such as criminal conspiracy, hijacking of election
materials at gun point; illegal and fraudulent allocation of votes etc. but curiously enough such persons
have not been joined as defendants in the petition and that the law is clear that nobody can be tried in his
absence when not joined as Respondent
                                                            74
         He finally argued that having failed to join necessary parties, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to try the
matter and therefore the petition should be struck out. Learned counsel relied on several decided cases and
statutory provisions such as Sections 130 and 144 of the Electoral Act 2008 and the cases of Oban vs. Ebu
(2006) All FWLR (Pt. 327) 419 at 427 ratio 13. Biyu vs. Ibrahim (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 274) 261
at 269. Uzodinma vs. Odenwa (2004) 2 EAC 133 at 137 etc. to support his proposition
         On Issue 3, learned counsel submitted that if ground 1 of the Petitioner's petition is declared
incompetent, the only ground left is ground 2 which deals with majority of votes cast. He argued that
ground 2 of the petition is vague, nebulous, hypothetical, speculative and incurably defective for the
fundamental requirement of not joining necessary parties against which evidence could be led. He argued that
the Petitioner never led any credible evidence against the 1st Respondent so also against the 15th and 16th
Respondents, and that for failure to lead credible evidence, the petition should be dismissed. He cited several decided
cases to support his arguments on this issue
         On the whole therefore learned counsel for the 15th and 16th Respondents urged upon us to either strike
out or dismiss the petition
         Learned counsel for the Petitioner Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN in response to the written addresses and
oral submission of the 1st to 16* Respondents equally filed written address and made some oral submissions. The
written address consisted of three volumes. Volume 1 contains the submission of Learned Senior Counsel,
volume 2 contains particulars of witnesses and Exhibits; while volume 3 contains Expert witnesses evidence/Report
         In his oral submission, learned SAN for the Petitioner submitted that the reply on points of law filed by the
1st Respondent could not be classified as a reply on points of law having contained a lot of issues of facts and therefore
should be discountenanced. He urged us to rely on Kumalia vs. Sheriff (Unreported) Case No.
CA/J/EP/GOV/244/07 of 21/01/08
         In his written address it is the submission of the learned SAN that the Election to the Office of the Governor
of Ondo State requires that for any candidate "to have been duly elected to such office" where there are "two
or more" candidates, such candidate must satisfy the requirements of Section 179 (2) of the constitution of
the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and by Part 1 First Schedule of the same Constitution, Ondo State
consisted of 18 Local Government Areas, and while by the reckoning of the 3rd to 14th Respondents, the
Petitioner satisfied Section 179 (2) of the Constitution in 12 out of the 18 Local Government, while the 1st
Respondent satisfied 15 out of the 18 Local Government. But on account of various acts of corrupt practices
that characterized certain Local Government Areas in the State during the election, the Petitioner sought the
nullification of results in those areas and declaration of the Petitioner as the winner of the election based on
the remaining areas. He placed reliance on Section 147 (2) of the Electoral Act 2006.
         Learned SAN further submitted that the contest in this Petition is generally between the Petitioner and
the 1st Respondent based on the facts that the other Respondents did not call any evidence and therefore the
                                                           75
proof of evidence required of the Petitioner against the other Respondents is minimal. He replied on
the cases of Dingyadi and Anor. vs. Wamako and 3 Ors. (Unreported) Appeal No.
CA/K/EP/GOV/60/07 of 11th April, 2008, Samson Ajibodi vs. Mohowa and Anor. (1978) 7/10/SC 1,
Ohiari and Anor. vs. Akabeze and Ors. (1992) 2 SCNJ (Pt. 1) 76 and several other decided cases to
support his contention. Learned SAN after reviewing all the evidence adduced before the tribunal and Exhibits
tendered urged upon us to grant him the relief in paragraph 38 (iv) of his petition and return the Petitioner as the
duly elected Governor of Ondo State in the April, 2007 election.
         In his reply on point of law learned SAN for the 1st Respondent argued that his written reply on point of law do
not contain issues of facts but are entirely of law and the fact that it is voluminous does not mean it is a reply on
issues of fact, and that the Tribunal cannot rely on the table provided by the Petitioner in paragraph 1.08 of his
written address and that pleadings and an address cannot be used in law to substitute for evidence, and that
paragraph 1.12 of the petitioner's address on allegation of corrupt practices is synonymous with allegation
of substantial non-compliance as provided by Section 145 (1) of the Electoral Act 2006.
         He submitted further that the fact that the other Respondents abandoned their pleadings or did not
file a reply to the petition does not mean that they will be fore-closed of their Constitutional rights to argue
their case on point of law. He relied on the authority of Ekeh vs. NTA (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt 383) at 391 - 392 to
support his argument. Learned SAN submitted further that a party is not allowed in law to twist the fact of a
case with his address nor can he/she use his address to supply a missing link as the Petitioner did in this case;
and that pleadings cannot constitute evidence. He cited several cases to support his contention.
         After a review of the address of the Petitioner's counsel, learned SAN for the 1st Respondent urged the Tribunal
to dismiss the petition in its entirety. We have carefully looked at the entire issues placed before us in this petition. We
have equally gone through all the oral evidence adduced including those of the expert witnesses and other witnesses
who testified. We have gone through all the Exhibits tendered before us as well as the written and oral
addresses of all counsel in this petition and in our view the following issues call for determination in this
petition. The issues for determination are:
             a) Whether Ground one of the Petitioner's petition is invalid having regards to Section 145 (1) (B)
                  of the Electoral Act 2006;
             b) Whether the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is ousted by reason of alleged non-joinder of necessary
                  parties to the petition; and
             c) Whether the Petitioner has proved his case as required by law to entitle him to the relief sought




                                                            76
                                                         ISSUE NO. 1
        The major contention of all the Respondents against this petition is about Ground One of the petition as
contained in Paragraph 21 (i) of the petition. Their primary argument is that Ground One of the petition is unknown to
law and therefore not covered by the statutory provision of Section 145 (1) of the Electoral Act 2006. The
Respondents are unanimous of the view that Ground One of the petition is incompetent and should be struck out.
        The Petitioner on his part is insisting and urging the Tribunal to hold that his Ground One as contained in his
petition is competent and covered by Section 145 (1) (b) of the Electoral Act 2006.
        For ease of references, it is necessary for us to reproduce Ground One of the petition, as contained in
the pleadings as well as the provision of Section 145 (1) of the Electoral Act 2006.
        Ground One of the petition reads thus:
        "Your Petitioner states that the results of the Governorship election of 14th April, 2007 in the entire
four (4) respective Local Government Areas of Ese-Odo, Irele, Ilaje and Okitipupa; Ayede/Ogbese Ward
02, Ayetoro Ward 03, Iluabo/Eleyowo Ward 06, Moferere Ward 08 and Oke-Iju Ward 12 (5 wards) in Akure
North Local Government Area; Ajowa/Igasi/Eriti/Gedegede Ward 05 of Akoko North-West Local
Government Area; Edo 01, Ekan Ward 02, Ikado I Ward 03, Elepa I Ward 05, Ilepa II Ward 06, Oorun I Ward 11,
Oorun II ward 12, and Oyinmo Ward 13, (8 wards) in Akoko North East Local Government Area; Oke-Igbo I Ward
07, Oke-Igbo II Ward 08, Oke-Igbo IE Ward 09 and Oke-Igbo IV Ward 10 (4 wards) in Ile Oluji/Oke-Igbo Local
Government Area; Ago Aluye Ward 02, Araromi Obu Ward 04, Ayesan Ward 15, Koseru Ward 07 and
Oniparaga Ward 09 ( 5 wards) in Odigbo Local Government Area, and Afo Ward 01 in Ose Local
Government Area, as declared and announced variously by the 3rd - 14th Respondents are void by reasons of
malpractices and/or election not taking place at all".
        Section 145 (1) of the Electoral Act 2006 on the other hand provides as follows:
        "An election may be questioned on any of the following grounds, that is to say:
            1. that the person whose election is questioned was at the time of the election not qualified to
                 contest the election;
            2. that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practice or non-compliance with provisions of
                 the Act;
            3. that the Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election;
                 or
            4. that the Petitioner or its candidate was unlawfully excluded from the election".
        It is therefore on the basis of the above stated provisions of Section 145 (1) of the Electoral Act 2006
that all the Respondents are contending that ground one of the petition is incompetent and consequently
should be struck out. The Respondents further argued that it is the grounds of a petition that determines the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the claims of the Petitioner and that where the ground of a petition
                                                          77
is defective or unknown to Section 145 (1) of the Electoral Act or any statutory law, the Tribunal will lack
jurisdiction to hear the petition.
         They cited numerous decided cases to buttress their contention; such as:
             − Bounwe vs. Resident Electoral Commissioner, Delta State and Ors. (2006) 1
                  NWLR (pt. 961) 286 at 316.
             − Ogbom vs. Ibori (2004) 7 NWLR (Pt 871) 192 at 223 – 224
             − Karfi vs. Mohammed (1993) 2 NWLR (Pt 277)
             − Obasanjo vs. Yusuf (2004) 9 NWLR (pt 877) 144 at 222 and
             − Buhari vs. INEC (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt 1078) 546 at 643
         In response to the competency of ground one of the petition, learned SAN for the Petitioner in his written
address at page 376 submitted that in the event that the Tribunal holds that Ground one is incompetent, that make
little or no difference to their cases because Ground Two is the end product or the pillar or thrust of any Election
Petition. He urged the Tribunal to disregard the cases of Afolabi vs. Tadema (Unreported) EPT/OND/08/SH/07
decided on 13th May, 2008 by this Tribunal and Ogboru vs. Ibori (supra) cited by Respondents. Rather he urged us to
rely on the case of Abubakar vs. Mark (unreported) No. BE/EPT/SN/08/07 delivered on 20th July, 2007 by Makurdi
Election Tribunal and the case of Kumalia vs. Sheriff (unreported) No. CA/J/EP/GOV/244/07 delivered by Court of
Appeal on 21st January, 2008.
         No doubt, in an election petition such as the case at hand, the competency of the grounds of the petition is
fundamental, and cannot be over emphasized. Therefore in the case of Ojong vs. Duke (2003) 14 NWLR
(Pt. 84) the grounds of the petition read thus:

         "that it may be determined that the said 1st Respondent was not duly elected, rather in complicity
         with the 2nd Respondent was returned upon total number of invalid votes cast instead. Yet
         exceeding the registered number of voters in Cross Rivers State and that his participation in the
         said election was fraud to your Petitioner, void, and a total rape to the law of the land and
         beyond. That your Petitioner so validly elected notwithstanding the results; he ought to have been
         returned as elected; nevertheless a re-election could be ordered as the case may be".
         The trial Tribunal did not hesitate to strike out the petition on the ground that the ground of
the petition is not competent. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision.
         On the other hand in the case of Buhari vs. Obasanjo (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt. 850) 423, the Court of
appeal as per Tabai JCA (as he then was) held thus:
         "It is true that there are many cases where non-compliance with a mandatory provision of either an
         Electoral Act or Schedule of an Electoral Act has been used to nullify a petition under provisions similar
         to Section 136 (3) and paragraph 4 (6) of the First Schedule to the Act. It seems to me
         however, that the discretional powers of the Court or Tribunal whether or not to strike out a
         petition for non-compliance remains intact. I am persuaded by the Petitioner's counsel Chief
         Ahamba that the Court or tribunal has the jurisdiction to exercise its discretion whether or
                                                         78
        not to strike out a petition for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Electoral Act
        and Schedules of the Act. This is the combined effect of Section 136 (3) paragraphs 4 (6) and 49
        (1) of the 1st Schedule. And the exercise of every discretion depends by and large, on the peculiar facts
        and circumstances of each case".
        It is important to note that Section136 (3) of the Electoral Act 2002 under which the two
cases cited above were decided are in pari materia with Section 145 (1) of the Electoral Act 2006 under
which the Respondents in this petition are challenging Ground One of the petition. It is of interest to note
that paragraphs 4 (6) and 49 (1) in the Electoral Act 2002 contain similar provisions under the 2006 Electoral Act.
Therefore what is visibly discernable from the cases of Ojong vs. Duke (supra) and Buhari vs. Obasanjo
(supra) is that a Court and indeed an Election Petition Tribunal has the discretional powers to determine the
validity or otherwise of a ground of a petition. This discretional powers must however be exercised not only
judicially but judiciously too. See the case of D.P.C.C. Ltd. Vs. B.P.C. Ltd. (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1077) 376 at
306. Undue technicalities must also be avoided. See the cases of Idris vs. A.N.P.P. (2008) 8 NWLR (Pt.
1088) 1 at 30 and Abubakar vs. Yar'Adua (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1078) 538.
        Nevertheless where issues of jurisdiction or competency of a petition is raised, such an issue should
not be swept by the way side. This is because jurisdiction of a Court to determine an election petition or any other
matter depends on the claim or the pleadings. See Nigeria Institute of Medical Research vs. Akin-Olugbade
and Ors. (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1079) 69 at 73.
        The quarrel of the Respondents against the pleadings/ground of the petition is as a result of the phrase
used at page 12 paragraphs 21.1 of the petition which reads as follows:
                  ".......... The results of the Governorship election.......... as declared and announced
        variously by the 3rd - 14th Respondents are void by reasons of malpractices and/or election not taking
        place at all".
        For the Respondents the word "malpractice" used in the ground of the petition instead of the words
"corrupt practice" as provided in Section 145 (1) of the Electoral Act is defective and cannot be taken as a ground of a
petition. They contended further that the Petitioner never again rely on non-compliance which is provided by
the Act and therefore ground one of the petitioner's petition is invalid for being incompetent.
        We have looked at Section 164 of the Electoral Act 2006 and found as of fact that, that Section did
not defined what is "corrupt practice" or "malpractice". We have equally looked at Black's Law Dictionary 7th
Edition page 348. It does not also define "corrupt practice" but it defines "corrupt" as "Having unlawful
motive especially influenced bribery".
        The same dictionary, at page 971, however defines "malpractice" as "an instance of negligence or
incompetence on the part of professional".
        The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at page 329 defines "corrupt" as "..... people willing to use their
power to do dishonest or illegal things in return for money or to get an advantage". It further went to explain that
"corrupt practice" is "...... the whole system is inefficient and corrupt". The same Oxford Dictionary defines
"malpractice" at page 895 as "careless, wrong or illegal behaviour while in a professional job".
        From all the definitions given by the two dictionaries, it is clear that the words "corrupt" or "corrupt Practice" or
"malpractice" denote the same thing. They all refer to an unwholesome behaviour, or inappropriate act; or to some


                                                            79
illegal or wrongful act.
          It is our humble view therefore that in an election matter such as in the instant case, and indeed in all other
matters, the Court or Tribunal in doing justice, should not over weight itself with technical justice. This is because
technical justice is no longer in vogue.
          The Court is always inclined to doing substantial justice. See the case of Abubakar vs. Yar'Adua (supra) p. 541.
          To hold or to accept the proposition by the Respondents that ground one of the Petitioner's petitions is
incompetent for the mere reason that he used the word "malpractice" instead of "corrupt practice" will
not be doing technical justice, but also gross injustice.
          We are further strengthened by the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in King vs. Suleiman
Abdul Kokori (Unreported) No. CA/A/CP/284/07 delivered on 29th April, 2008.
          Here the Court of Appeal came face to face with interpretation of the same Section 145 (1) (b) of the
Electoral Act 2006, and the court held thus
                    "It could be seen that the Appellants challenging the validity of the election on the ground of
          non-compliance only. It is my considered opinion that this ground is proper in law. Unless the
          Petitioner is relying on both corrupt practice and non-compliance he is not bound to combine the two.
          Moreover there is no where in the Act where it is stated that Section 145 (1) (b) must be quoted
          verbatim for the ground to be valid. In the circumstances, we hold that Ground B is valid ground".
          We are bound by this decision since there is no where in the Act that stipulates that a Petitioner must
copy the exact provisions of Section 145 (1) of the Act. We hold therefore, that the pleadings by the
Petitioner that the election was void by reasons of malpractice are a valid and a sufficient ground. The
Petitioner need not to quote the provisions of Section 145 (1) of the Act word for word before his
grounds could be valid. It is enough when the words or phrase used -as in this petition - sufficiently conveyed the
grounds or claims of the Petitioner.
          Consequently we hold that ground one of the petition is a valid ground and we sustain same. We
therefore disregard the submissions of the Respondents on this issue.
          However, as to the proof or the substantiality of the alleged "malpractice" or "corrupt practice", if
any, this will be considered later under Issue No. 3 as formulated by us above.



                                                        ISSUE NO. 2
          This issue relates to non-joinder of necessary parties. It was raised by the learned counsel representing the
15th and 16th Respondents J.C.A. Idachaba Esq.
          Before now, the 9th and 10th Respondents at pre-trial session had attempted to raise this issue by way of
preliminary objection by a motion dated 8th September, 2007 and filed 10th September, 2007.
          The motion was then objected to on grounds that J.C.A. Idachaba Esq. had been representing the 15th and 16th
Respondents and not the 9th and 10th Respondents. In our considered ruling delivered on 24th September, 2007, this
Honourable Tribunal ruled as follows:
          "The picture vividly painted is that of a counsel who in one preliminary objection appears for the 15th

                                                            80
         and 16th Respondents as their Barrister or Advocate and in the same preliminary objection acts for
         the 9th and 10th Respondents as their solicitor. There is no proven evidence or ex facie circumstance to
         give away 9th and 10th Respondents as beautiful brides for whom any counsel would struggle to act in spite of
         the fact that they have a team of counsel who have regularly been appearing for them. The solicitor
         who signed this preliminary objection for them acted in a manner suggesting that there is no law or rules
         of court regulating appearance and change of counsel in court. This unsatisfactory state of affairs is
         totally unacceptable particularly as neither J.C.A. Idachaba Esq. nor the 9th and 10th Respondents or the 15th
         and 16th Respondents have taken steps in accordance with Order 12 Rules 38 and 39, Federal High Court
         (Civil Procedure) Rules aforesaid on change of counsel of parties. It is ordered that the preliminary
         objection be and is hereby struck out".
         This was the position on this issue until it was raised again by learned counsel to the 15th and 16th
Respondents in his written and oral addresses where he made a lengthy submission from pages 14 to 29 of his
written address.
         Before we shall dwell on the submissions in the written address of the learned counsel to the 15th and 16th
Respondents, it is necessary to note that the Petitioner did not address this issue in his written address. However,
during the adoption of the written addresses, learned SAN for the Petitioner submitted orally that the issue of non-
joinder had been concluded and therefore it cannot be raised again.
         The question now is, has the ruling of this Honourable Tribunal delivered on 24th September, 2007
determined the issue of non-joinder as such none of the parties is permitted by estoppel to raise same? The
question demands an answer for it is a trite law, that where a court of law has seized up of an issue or a matter,
that Court or Tribunal becomes functus officio of such issues or matter on grounds of estoppel per rem judicatam.
See the case of Ugo vs. Ugo (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1079) 1 at 4 where it was held that an issue is estoppel per rem
judicatam if the following five conditions exist. These are:
             a) The parties or their privies must be the same, that is to say, the parties involved in both the
                   previous proceedings and the present proceedings must be the same;
             b) The claims or the issues in dispute in both the previous and present actions must be the same;
             c) The res, that is to say the subject matter of the Litigation in the two cases must be the same;
             d) The decision relied upon to support the plea of Estoppel per rem judicatam must be valid,
                   subsisting and final;
             e) The court that gave the previous decision relied upon to sustain the plea must be a Court of
                   Competent jurisdiction"
         The poser now is that does our ruling delivered on 24 September, 2007 satisfied the above five
conditions as to establish the claim of estoppel made by the Petitioner
         The simple answer in our view is in the negative. This is because our ruling of the 24th September, 2007
                                                               81
satisfied conditions, (a), (b), (c) and (e). It does not satisfy condition (d) above i.e. our ruling of that date did not
pronounce a final decision on the issue of non-joinder. The motion was merely struck out on technicality.
         For the above stated reasons, the claim by the Petitioner's counsel that the issue of non-joinder had been
resolved or determined before is ill conceived. We reject same. This is because the motion filed on 10th,
September, 2007 on the issue of non-joinder was filed by J.C.A. Idachaba acting on behalf of 9th and 10th
Respondents, but when moving the said motion, the same J.C.A. Idachaba acted to move the motion on behalf of
the 15th and 16th respondents. Consequently on this technical ground the motion was struck out. The issued had
not been determined to its finality, therefore the 15th and 16th Respondents are still at liberty to raise the issue of
non-joinder. See Buhari vs. EVEC (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1078) 546 at 578.
         It should be borne in mind that issue of non-joinder is a jurisdictional issue, and since it is a
jurisdictional issue, it could be raised at any time of the proceeding and even on appeal. It could also be raise viva
voce. See the case of Wilbross (Nig.) Ltd. vs. Attorney-General Akwa Ibom State (2008) 5 NWLR
(Pt. 1081) 484 at 487 ratio 3. Therefore the fact that the matter is now raised at an address stage does
not prevent the 15th and 16th Respondents from raising the issue.
         Having held that the issue of non-joinder can still be raised at this stage, we now proceed to consider
the submission of the learned counsel for the 15th and 16th Respondents.
         His submission as earlier pointed out is contained on pages 14 to 29 of his written address. He also
raised the issue during the oral adoption of his address.
         It is his submission that going through the pleadings of the Petitioner, particularly from paragraphs
21.1 to 2.10, it is clear that several allegations were made against some persons who ought to have been joined as necessary
parties, but were not joined.
         He submitted that failure to join necessary parties will mean that no evidence could be led against such person,
and that the Tribunal lack jurisdiction to hear the matter against such persons. Learned counsel cited several decided
cases such as:
                            Biyu vs. Ibrahim (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 274) 261 at 269.
                            Buhari vs. Obasanjo (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 258) 1604 at 1610-11.
                            Clay Industries vs. Aina (1997) 7 SCNJ 491 at 507. Awuse vs. Odili (2005) 16 NWLR
                            (Pt. 952) 416 at 511. Uzodima vs. Udenwa and Ors. (2004) 2 EAC 133 at 137 ratio
                            Oban vs. Eba (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 327) 419 at 427 ratio 13 and several other cases on this
                            issue.
         In Biyu vs. Ibrahim (supra) learned counsel submitted that the court held thus:
         "that an allegation of malpractices, irregularities, falsification of votes, allocation of fictitious votes directed at
         polling units are in fact directed at Presiding Officers who, though not mentioned by name in the petition are in
         charge of polling units. They must be joined as Respondents in the election petition. A complaint will be against
                                                              82
         the Ward Returning Officer if it is alleged that false returns different from that entered by the
         Presiding Officer were made".
         The above quoted decision is apt on these issues. For example if allegations are made against
the polling units, then of course the Presiding Officers must be joined as necessary parties. Section 144 (2)
cannot operate to save the petition even though INEC might have be joined. The Presiding Officers must be
joined so as to enable them answer the allegation made against them. This is the contention of learned
counsel for the 15th and 16th Respondents.
         If on the other hand the allegations are directed against the Ward Returning Officers, then the Ward
Returning Officers must be joined as necessary parties. At the same time if the allegation is directed against the
Local Government Collation Officers, then they too must be joined as necessary parties.
         The reason for joinder of necessary parties, is to safe guard the revered pillar of natural justice,
the audi altera partem rule i.e. the rule of fair hearing. Thus in Buhari vs. Yusuf (2003) 14 NSCQR
1114 at 1117 it was held that:
         "..... no allegation can be allowed to be pleaded or made against a person if he is not a necessary party
         to the petition, or someone who will need to be called as a witness. But if he is a necessary party, it
         would offend against the rule of natural justice to dispose of the question involved in a manner to affect
         his interest without giving him an opportunity of being heard".
         Therefore it will be wrong to make an allegation and prove such an allegation against some one who has not been made a
party to the proceedings.
         No doubts, the numerous cases cited by the learned counsel to the 15 and 16 Respondents in support of his arguments
on this issue are cases decided under the provisions of the Electoral Act 2006. The present petition is filed under the Electoral
Act 2006. The relevant provision under the Electoral Act 2006 by which learned counsel is hinging his argument is Section 144 (2)
of the Act. This section provides thus:
         "The person whose election is complained of, is in this Act, referred to as the Respondent, but if the
         Petitioner complains of the conduct of an Electoral Officer, a Presiding Officer, a Returning Officer or any other
         person who took part in the conduct of an election, such officer or person shall for the purpose of this Act be
         deemed to be a Respondent and shall be joined in the election petition in his or her official status as a
         necessary party PROVIDED that where such officer or person is shown o have acted as an agent of the
         commission his non-joinder as aforesaid will not on its own operate to void the petition if the commission is
         made a party".
         This section is a clear departure from the provisions of the Electoral Act 2002. The proviso under Section
144 (2) of the Electoral Act 2006 was never contained under the Electoral Act 2002. Therefore, since all the cases cited by the
learned counsel for the 15th and 16th Respondents are cases decided under the 2002 Act, these cases could not be
relevant. Consequently since INEC the umbrella body, which conducted the election is a party to the petition, we do not
                                                               83
see any reason why all the official or the ad hoc staff of INEC be joined as parties to this petition. The proviso to Section 144
(2) is clear on this issue which provides that once INEC is joined as a party, it is not necessary to join every one that participated
in the election.
          For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that this application lacks merit and it is hereby refused. The
petition is competent and necessary parties are before the Tribunal.


                                                               ISSUE NO. 3
          Whether the Petitioner has proved his case as required by law to entitle him to the relief (s)
sought
          In considering this issue, we have noted that the parties are not disputing the election and results in respect of Akoko
South-East, Akoko South-West, Owo, Akure South, Idanre, Ondo West Local Government Areas. Their disputes centre
on certain wards in Akoko North-East, Akoko North-West, Ose, Akure North, Ile-Oluji/Oke-Igbo and Odigbo Local
Government Areas as well as the whole of Ese-Odo, Ilaje, Irele and Okitipupa Local Government Areas. These are the
wards and the Local Government Areas we are going to consider with a view to determining whether or not the
Petitioner has proved his case as pleaded in his petition and as required by law to entitle him to the reliefs sought.


          AKOKO NORTH-EAST LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA
          There are 13 wards in this Local Government Area.
          The Petitioner complained that there was voting only in 3 wards out of 13 wards. The wards
where election was conducted are lyometa I Ward 09, Ikado II Ward 04 and Isowopo II Ward 08. In the remaining
10 wards there was no election. See paragraph 21:2 of the petition.
          In paragraph 67 of the 1st Respondent's reply the 1st Respondent averred that contrary to the allegation of
the Petitioner election took place peacefully in all the wards but admitted that the result of lyometa II and Isowopo I
wards were cancelled as a result of violence perpetrated by the Petitioner's agents and thugs in the ward by hijacking
and unlawful thumb-printing of ballot papers.
          In order to prove the allegation the Petitioner called PW13, PW23, PW24, PW55 to testify in respect of this
Local Government Area.
          PW13; he is one Alhaji Tiamiyu Aminu Oluboyo. He adopted his sworn statement on oath. He identified
unused voters' cards which were tendered and admitted as Exhibit 1098 (36),
          Under cross-examination by Chief Niyi Akintola SAN counsel to the 1st Respondent PW13 confirmed that
he did not only monitor the thugs that hijacked the election materials meant for Ikado I to the Olukare"s Palace, but
he actually saw the thumb-printing of the ballot papers inside the Olukare's Palace. When further asked how he
gained access to the palace, he stated to the effect that as a prince he has unhindered access to the palace.
          When asked on the source of voter's cards not related to his wards, he stated that they were collected by the
                                                                 84
supervisors of the Labour Party.
          Under further cross-examination by the 2nd Respondent's counsel Mr. Adelodun, SAN who regarded
PW13 as impostor, PW13 debunked the claim of the counsel and stated that he attended the School of
Nursing Akure. When asked whether he reported what he saw to INEC, he stated that he did not make any report to
INEC because the Presiding Officer was part of the malpractices.
          PW23, he is Mr. Yusuf Hamzat. He adopted sworn statement on oath. He was a Labour Party Supervisor for Edo
Ward 001. He identified Exhibit 1111. The voters' cards of prospective voters who were disenfranchised and submitted
to him were tendered and admitted as Exhibit 1098 (36).
          Under cross-examination by counsel to the 1st Respondent Mr. Adedipe SAN, PW23 made it clear that there
was no election in Edo Ward 01. He further stated that although he did not follow the people he mentioned in his
sworn statement, he monitored them to where they took the election materials to that is the house of Chief Adejoro
Jamiyu.
          PW24, he is Mr. Johnson Ikola Gold. He adopted his sworn statement. He stated that he was the
Supervisory Agent for Labour Party for Oorun Ward 01. He stated that while election materials were being
distributed, members of Agagu Campaign Organisation and thugs under the leadership of Laidi Ekunusi a
Supervisory Councillor for Agriculture carted away the electoral materials to the house of Chief Olawole
Kutelu. He further stated that some members of Labour Party in protest returned their voters' cards to him
as evidence of their inability to vote. He identified the voters' cards which were admitted as Exhibit 1098
(36). The unused voters' cards are for Ward 2, Ward 5, Ward 6, Ward 11 Ward 12 and Ward 13
respectively.
          Under cross-examination, on how he came about the voters' cards from wards outside his ward,
PW24 stated that as supervising Agent and a Labour party Leader in his area, the prospective voters
and sympathisers of Labour Party returned their cards to him in protest.
          PW55, he is Dr. Olaiya Oni. He adopted his 2 sworn statements on oath. He stated that he
was the State Chairman Labour Party Ondo State. Exhibit 1191 (1) - (12) was tendered through PW55.
And he identified Exhibits 1155, 1156, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1160, 1161 and 1100 (l)-(9).
          Under cross-examination by counsel to the 1st Respondent Mr. Fagbemi SAN PW55 confirmed that
election only took place in 3 wards of this Local Government Area namely Isowopo II, Ward 8 lyometa I Ward 9
and Ikado II, Ward 4.
          On the other hand the 1st Respondent called RW10 and RW23 in defence of the Petitioner's
averment relating to Akoko North-East Local Government Area. RW10, he is Mr. Ogundipe Lateef. He testified
on 15th April, 2008. He adopted his sworn statement of 8 paragraphs. He stated that he voted at Unit 002 in
Edo Ward. He tendered his voter's card and was marked as Exhibit 1241. He identified his name and
photograph on Exhibit 935 (1) - (37) serial number 278 on page 17. He confirmed seeing PW13 on the day of
                                                          85
election. He was made to sign his signature on the statement on oath and same was tendered as Exhibit 1242.
          Under cross-examination, Form EC8A for Unit 7 was admitted as Exhibit 1243.
          RW23, he is Mr. Fagbemi Sunday. He adopted his sworn statement on oath. He stated he voted at Unit
008 of Ikado I Ward 03. He testified on 15th April, 2008. He identified his name and photograph on Exhibit 935
(1) - (37) serial number 278 on page 17 duly ticked. He tendered his voter's card as Exhibit 1241.
          Under cross-examination RW23 confirmed that he knows PW13, and that he saw him on 14th
April, 2007 at his polling station while voting was going on. He debunked the evidence of PW23 that there was
no election. Under this scenario we have to resort to documentary evidence.
          We would now proceed to examine the voters' register and unused voters' cards Form EC8A, Form
EC8B, used ballot papers tendered in respect of these wards with a view to ascertain the veracity of the
evidence of witnesses on both side. See the table below for Wards 1,2,3,5,6,11,12 and 13 respectively.

EDO WARD CODE 01
UNIT   FORM EC8A VOTES                        EXHIBIT            USED              FORM EC8B         VOTES CAST
NUMBER EXHIBIT   CAST IN                      NUMBER OF          BALLOT            EXHIBIT           IN FORM
       NUMBER    FORM                         BALLOT             PAPERS            NUMBER            EC8B
                 EC8A                         PAPERS             COUNTED

001                                           1082(17)           501               921(1)            500
003             1221          400             “                  84                                  40
003                                           “                  427                                 405
004                                           “                  535                                 480
005             1176(1)       93              “                  799                                 80
006                                           “                  559                                 93
008                                           “                  496                                 496
009             1176(2)       500             “                  450                                 496
010                                           “                  293                                 600
011             1176(3)        500            “                  498                                 500

          Consequently it is abundantly clear from the exhibits that there are so many irregularities in respect
of this ward as highlighted in the table above. It is therefore logical to find that been derived from the votes cast in the
units and not in compliance with the Electoral Act. For instance in Unit 003 400 votes were recorded in Form EC8A
while the actual votes counted amounted to 84 and 40 votes were recorded in Form EC8B. PW23's testimony
corroborated the position that there was no election in this ward. The figures in various INEC forms are fictitious, and
unbelievable.




                                                            86
                              EKAN WARD 2
UNIT         FORM    VOTES EXHIBIT USED                   FORM         VOTES    NUMBER       NUMBR
NUMBER       EC8A    CAST BALLOT BALLOT                   EC8B         CAST     OF           OF
             EXHIBIT IN    PAPERS PAPERS                  EXHIBIT      IN       REGISTER     UNUSED
             NUMBER FORM           COUNTED                NUMBER       FORM     OF           VOTERS'
                     EC8A                                              EC8B     VOTERS       CARDS
                                                                                             EXHIBIT
                                                                                             1098
001          1139(1)     587      1082(5)    587          928(1)       577      394          43
002                               1082       698                       696      499          16
003          " (2)       597      “          600                       597      479          20
004          " (3)       600      “          563                       563      510          11
005          " (4)       600      “          599                       596      474          54
006          NIL                             500                       498      503          14

        In Ward 02, the votes cast entered in Form EC8A for Units 001, 002, 003 and 005, are at variance with
the actual number of the registered voters in these units. For instance in Exhibit 1139 (1) of Unit 01 the
number of registered voters is 394. See Exhibit 922 (1) whereas the total number of votes recorded for
the same unit in Form EC8A is 587. In the same Unit, 43 unused voters' cards were returned, and no
evidence of accreditation on them. In our view, we find that the election in this ward is suspect, and the
conclusion is that the votes were arbitrarily allocated without due regard to the laid down procedure as
provided by the Electoral Act.


        IKADO I WARD 03
UNIT         FORM         VOTES    EXHIBIT     USED          FORM        VOTES     NUMBER        NUMBR OF
NUMBER       EC8A         CAST     BALLOT      BALLOT        EC8B        CAST IN   OF            UNUSED
             EXHIBIT      IN       PAPERS      PAPERS        EXHIBIT     FORM      REGISTER      VOTERS'
             NUMBER       FORM                 COUNTED       NUMBER      EC8B      OF VOTERS     CARDS
                          EC8A
001          1174(1)      500      1082(2)     493           943(1)       500      504           2
002          1174                  “           400                        389      473           2
003          -            -        1082        447                        435      455           1
004          1174(2)      800      “           798                        800      500           2
005          -            -        “           102                        102      574           1
006                                “           185                        185      569           -
007          1243         177      “           234                        177      498           -
008                                “           108                        198      718           4
009                                “           305                        108      271           -
010                                “           493                        500      516           1
 1
01           942          450      “           450                       899       1091          35
012          1174(3)      500      “           448                       458       406           6
013                                “           131                       131       601           23



                                                     87
        In this Ward 03 Ikado I, we have observed cases of discrepancies between the number of registered
voters and the entries in Form EC8A and Form EC8B and in particular in Units 004, 007, 012 and Unit 009. Hence in
Units 001, 002, 003, 005, 006, 008, 010 and 013, the entries in Form EC8A tallied with entries in Form EC8B
respectively. For these reasons, it is our view that election in Units 004, -007, 009 and 012 of Ward 3 was
invalid for various irregularities. However, we find and hold the results in Units 001, 002, 003, 005, 006, 008, 010
and 013 to be valid and in substantial compliance with Electoral Act. By our calculation from the Exhibits
(Result sheets), the valid votes scored by Labour Party and PDF in respect of those units are: Labour Party -
444 and PDP 1329.

                                         ILEPAI WARD 5
UNIT         FORM         VOTES      EXHIBIT     USED           FORM         VOTES     NUMBER       NUMBR
NUMBER       EC8A         CAST       BALLOT      BALLOT         EC8B         CAST      OF           OF
             EXHIBIT      IN         PAPERS      PAPERS         EXHIBIT      IN        REGISTER     UNUSED
             NUMBER       FORM                   COUNTED        NUMBER       FORM      OF           VOTERS'
                          EC8A                                               EC8B      VOTERS       CARDS

001          954 (1)      382        1082(1)     337            955(1)       382       447          8
002                                  “           563                         100       1045         43
003                                  “           482                         500       671          25
004          1177(1)       500       “           506                         500       359          9
005          -             -         -           503                         497       792          19
006          -             -         -           400                         407       493          12
007          954 (2)       493       “           497                         500       418          16
008                                  “           101                         101       393          14
010          1177(20       700       “           693                         700       510          26
OIOA         1173(3)       500       “           512                         500


            In Ilepa I Ward 5, the votes cast in Units 004, 007, 010 and OIOA as recorded in form EC8A are
    over and above the number of registered voters in these units. See Exhibits 947 (1) - (25), 950 (1) - (25)
    and Exhibit 953 (1) - (30) with the exception of Unit 001.
            The result in Unit 001 is not substantial enough to warrant the survival of the result for the
    ward. Conclusively therefore the votes in these units were fabricated figures, allocated without any
    regard to the Electoral Act.




                                                         88
                                        ILEPA II WARD 06
                                                                                                    r
UNIT       FORM           VOTES     EXHIBIT      USED          FORM          VOTES     NUMBER       NUMBR
NUMBER     EC8A           CAST      BALLOT       BALLOT        EC8B          CAST      OF           OF
           EXHIBIT        IN        PAPERS       PAPERS        EXHIBIT       IN        REGISTER     UNUSED
           NUMBER         FORM                   COUNTED       NUMBER        FORM      OF           VOTERS'
                          EC8A                                               EC8B      VOTERS       CARDS

001                                 1082(7)      92            966(1)        600       686          6
002                                 “            256           “             256       635          7
003                                 “            256           “             92        100          -
004                                 “            202           “             153       487          -
005                                 “            153           “             193       464          9
006        1140(1)        400       “            398           “             400       822          16
                                                                             500
007        1140(2)        500       “            500           “             500       177          7
008                                 “            280           “             280       778          22
009        1140(3)        500       “            500           “             500       496          14
010                                 “            597           “             700       89           18


      In Ward 06 the result in various Form EC8A series is at variance with result entered in Form EC8B
      series. It is a situation which calls for suspicion that the election was not properly conducted in accordance
      with the Act. For instance in Unit 007, 500 votes were recorded in Form EC8A but the total number of
      registered voters in the unit is 177. There were no Form EC8A for Units 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 08 and 010. The
      only unit that results tallied is Unit 007. All other units of this ward the results are at variance and
      abnormal.

                                           OORUNIWARD011
UNIT       FORM         VOTES       EXHIBIT      USED          FORM         TOTAL        NUMBER          NUMBR
NUMBER     EC8A         CAST        BALLOT       BALLOT        EC8B         VOTES        OF              OF
           EXHIBIT      IN          PAPERS       PAPERS        EXHIBIT      CAST         REGISTER        UNUSED
           NUMBER       FORM                     COUNTED       NUMBER       IN FORM      OF              VOTERS'
                        EC8A                                                EC8B         VOTERS          CARDS
001                                 1084(4)      498                        500          538             66
002                                 “            499                        500          136             4
003                                 “            574                        600          628             38
004                                 “            586                        -            637             36
005                                 “            500                        -            152             43
006                                 “            161                        500          561             39
007                                 “            600                        60           672             89


           In this ward the entire result recorded in Form EC8B of Exhibit 1084 is at variance with
  total number of ballot papers counted. Furthermore, the result in Form EC8B does not tally with Exhibits
  967, 968, 969, 970, 971, 972 and 973 which are the registers of voters tendered for this ward.
  Conclusively therefore the result in our view is fictitious and has no basis. Besides the Respondents have

                                                        89
  not tendered Form EC8A or voters' register for this unit to counter the allegation of no voting at all. The
  burden at this stage has shifted to the Respondents, to prove that election actually took place in these units
  of Ward Oil.


          OORUNI WARD 012
UNIT      FORM         VOTES      EXHIBIT     USED          FORM         TOTAL         NUMBER        NUMBR
NUMBER    EC8A         CAST       BALLOT      BALLOT        EC8B         VOTES         OF            OF
          EXHIBIT      IN         PAPERS      PAPERS        EXHIBIT      CAST IN       REGISTER      UNUSED
          NUMBER       FORM                   COUNTED       NUMBER       FORM          OF            VOTERS'
                       EC8A                                              EC8B          VOTERS        CARDS
001                               1082(15)    422           984(1)       426           618           12
002                               “           738                        740           879           10
003                               “           419                        421           754           10
004                               “           431                        426           569           21
005                               “           430                        430           501           11
006       1175(1)      324        “           330                        325           440           13
007                    430        “           430                        428           315           5
00                                “           835                        883           386           04
009                               “           428                        430           452           10


  In Oorun I Ward 12, apart from Unit 008, the results in other Units 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007 and
  009 have substantially tallied with one another. The disparity is not substantial to warrant the cancellation of
  the result for this ward. We therefore find and hold that the result of these units apart from Unit 008 is
  valid. By our calculation from the Exhibit (Result sheet) the valid votes scored by Labour Party and
  PDF in respect of those units are: Labour Party 759 and PDP 2498


  OYINMO WARD 013
UNIT       FORM         VOTES     EXHIBIT     USED          FORM          TOTAL        NUMBER        NUMBR
NUMBER     EC8A         CAST      BALLOT      BALLOT        EC8B          VOTES        OF            OF
           EXHIBIT      IN        PAPERS      PAPERS        EXHIBIT       CAST IN      REGISTER      UNUSED
           NUMBER       FORM                  COUNTED       NUMBER        FORM         OF VOTERS     VOTERS'
                        EC8A                                              EC8B                       CARDS
001        1141(1)      1,100     1082(6)     500                         495          336           29
002        “ (2)        500       “           312                         500          32            1
003        “ (3)        400       “           400                         400          437           14
004        “ (4)        570       “           600                         600          465           25
005                               “           700                         700          801           70
06                                “           445                         400          350           45
006                                           498                         500          -
009        (1141(6)) 389                      339                         389          512           20
           (994 (2) )



                                                      90
        In this ward, apart from the results entered in Units 003, 004 and 005 which tallied with Exhibits 987 (1) and
989 and Exhibits 1141 (3) and Exhibit 1082 (6) all other results of the units' entries are at variance with one another.
Therefore it is conclusive that apart from these units, which we consider as valid, the results in the remaining
wards of Units 001, 002, 006,007, 008 and 009 are invalid. In addition Exhibit 1141 (6) and 994 (1) are same
which relate to Unit 7 with mark on its face "INVALID" "NO ELECTION". This is indicative that there
was no election in this unit and as such no result was recorded: By our calculation from the exhibit (Result sheet)
the valid votes scored by Labour Party and PDF in respect of those units are Labour Party - 19, PDP - 2498 votes.
        Having carefully evaluated, examined and considered the evidence as a whole along with the various
documents for this ward we find that there was no valid election in majority of the units that comprise the
wards in this Local Government Area. The ballot papers meant for these wards were illegally thumb-printed, and
results were fictitiously concocted and entered in relevant INEC Forms. In addition so many voters were denied
voting and where voting took place, there was no evidence of accreditation of voters as stated in the Manual for Election
2007. We find as a fact that discrepancies exist between the various entries in relevant INEC Forms. The documents
are at war with one another. We have no difficulty in holding that these malpractices and irregularities in the entries
of results in Wards 1, 2, 5, 6 and 11 and made it suspect and unbelievable. In respect of Wards 3, 12 and 13, the total
valid votes scored by the two parties as earlier calculated are as follows: Labour Party - 1224 PDF - 5882.

    AKOKO NORTH WEST LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA
      The complaint of the Petitioner in Akoko North-West Local Government Area is limited to
Ajowa/Igasi/Eriti/Gedegede Ward 05. Election was said to have taken place in all the wards except Ward 05. The
general complaint is contained in paragraph 11 of the petition while the specific complaint is contained in paragraph
21.3 of the petition. In it the Petitioner averred that the election materials meant for all the 17 units of the ward
were carted away by thugs hired by and who acted as agents of the 1st and 2nd Respondents and led by a political
office holder in the administration of the Government of Ondo State headed by the 1st Respondent.
        He averred further that all the ballot papers meant for the Governorship election in all the said
units were thumb-printed by the said PDF thugs in the house of the said political office holder and that the
purported results were entered in INEC Forms EC8A, EC8B, EC8C and EC8D. The said political office holder
was also said to have signed Form EC8B as party agent of the 1st Respondent and the PDF.
        In paragraph 29 of the petition, the Petitioner alleged that in all the units of the said ward, the total
number of registered voters recorded in INEC Forms EC8A, EC8B and other relevant forms were
deliberately altered and gerrymandered by the Respondents to such an extent that they conflict substantially
with the authentic number of registered voters in INEC record of registered voters.
        Finally the Petitioner alleged that the thumb-prints and finger prints in the ballot papers in the ballot
boxes purportedly used for election in the polling units were not the same as the proper biometric data


                                                           91
of the thumb-print of the voters' register in the last voters' registration exercise.
        The 1st Respondent's reaction to the above allegations is contained in paragraphs 99 - 102 of his
reply to the petition. In a nutshell he averred that the electoral materials arrived at the units at the
appropriate time in the company of law enforcement agents and that the election commenced and was
concluded under a free and fair atmosphere. He denied the allegation that election materials were carted
away by thugs or any unauthorized person. He averred that there was no illegal thumb-printing of ballot
papers and that all the results were entered in Forms EC8A and EC8B except those cancelled by INEC for
Units 01, 04, 07 and 08 of the said ward.
        In proof of the allegations contained in the petition the Petitioner called PW12 as a witness and
subpoened PW15. He also tendered documents in proof of his case. These include Certified True Copies
of the voters' register for Units 02, 03, 05, 06, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17; the counterpart original of Form
EC8B with serial number 0004518 which was received in evidence as Exhibit 1051 (1) - (2); three bags of used,
unused and purportedly used ballot papers marked as Exhibit 1081 (1) - (3); official reports written by the Electoral
Officer and some Presiding Officers in the ward and were received as Exhibit 1094 (1) - (10). The voters register
for Unit 15 of the ward was received in evidence as Exhibit 1104 (1) - (36) which is the same as Exhibit
1198(1) -(36).
        The 1st Respondent called three witnesses namely RW4, RW9 and RW24 to testify in connection with
this ward
        The evidence on both sides has previously been summarized. We have carefully considered the pleadings
and we are of the view that from the petition as filed, for the Petitioner to succeed, he must prove the following:
             1. Ballot material snatching.
             2. Ballot box stuffing.
             3. Over voting.
             4. Multiple thumb-printing of ballot papers.
             5. Alteration of election results.
             6. Signing of Forms EC8B by a public office holder.
             7. That in all the units of Ward 05, the total number of registered voters recorded in INEC
                 Forms EC8A and EC8B and other forms are at variance with the number on the voters' register;
                 and
             8. That the thumb-prints/finger prints on the ballot papers are different from those in the voters'
                 register. The only oral evidence of violence manifested by the snatching of election
                 materials was given by PW12. It is noteworthy that his credibility was seriously dented
                 by cross-examination. He stated that he lost his teeth in the violence that erupted in the house
                 of Hon. Yemi Alao when he went there and dared to ask about the election materials that
                                                            92
                 were carted away. He was cross-examined to show that he lost his teeth long before the date
                 of the election. In addition the 1st Respondent called RW4 and RW9 who are PW12's in-law and
                 political associate respectively to show that for over twenty years before the date of the
                 election he had no frontal teeth hence he was nick-named Akayinje (meaning one who has
                 lost his teeth). The Petitioner's counsel did not cross-examine these witnesses to the contrary.
        In "the circumstances the tact that PWT2had no frontal teeth before the election of 14th April, 2007
has been established. In other words the PW12's testimony that he lost his teeth in the violence that ensued
on 14th April, 2007 has been debunked. PW12 in course of his evidence-in-chief said that his three front
teeth that were forcefully removed have been attached and bound with wire. However when he opened his
mouth in the open Tribunal there was nothing there.
        In the circumstance the evidence of violence given by the PW12 is incapable of belief. Also
incapable of belief is his testimony that his son was given a matchet cut on his forehead at the same venue but
yet he was able to ride his motorcycle to take his father to the police station where the later lodged his complaint,
and even waited to make a written statement before taking him to the State Hospital at Ikare while he
continued his journey to a private hospital at Ajowa for treatment. If one may ask - Does it sound convincing
that two people who were jointly assaulted would go to separate hospitals at different locations for treatment,
i.e. Ikare and Ajowa? Is it also convincing that someone with severe matchet cut on the forehead would be riding
his motorcycle all over the place, first to the police station, next to Ikare and then later to Ajowa. The answer
seems to us to be in the negative. In the circumstances we hold that the PW12 is not a witness of truth, and it is
therefore impossible to ascribe any weight to his testimony in this regard. In any event the alleged violence
took place not at the distribution centre, polling unit or collation centre but in the private house of one Hon. Yemi
Alao.
        The case of the Petitioner to the effect that there was no election at all in all the seventeen
(17) units of the ward is predicated on the fact that the election materials were hijacked or snatched by thugs
led by Hon. Yemi Alao and that the said electoral materials were taken to his house where the ballot papers
were illegally thumb-printed and the INEC's result sheets concocted
        It is interesting to note that in an effort to prove the above allegation the Petitioner tendered Exhibit
1094 (1) - (10) which are the reports on the election by the Electoral officer and some Presiding Officers in
the ward. The said reports thus form part of the case of the Petitioner. In Exhibit 1094 (2) the Electoral
        Officer, Akoko North West Local Government Area stated as follows:
                 "The materials were distributed units by units collected by the SPOS and the materials were
                 duly signed for. The election started without any hitch. Through (sic) the election period there was
                 no problem........
                 During the collation of result at the Local Government level and constituency level (sic) that the collation
                                                            93
                    officer in Ajowa/Eriti/Igasi/Gedegede Ward reported that some ballot
                    Presiding Officers and the results of such polling units was cancelled. The units are Units 1, 4, 7 and 8.
                    The collation Officer in Erusu/Ikaram/Ibaram also reported that a ballot box allocated to Unit 17
                    was forcibly taken away and efforts to retrieve it by the police proved abortive. There was no
                    result for that unit.
                    Apart from the above stated units in the Local Government the election was free ......."
           The report of the Presiding Officers for Unit 04, 08 and 07 of Ward 05 showing how the election in their units were
disrupted leading to the cancellation of the election in those units are Exhibits 1094 (3) 1094 (4) and 1094 (5) respectively.
Exhibit 1094 (6) is to the same effect but the polling unit to which it relates is not stated.
           Exhibit 1094 (1) shows that the election in Unit Oil was peaceful free and fair. Exhibit 1094 (7) relates to
Unit 13 which shows that the election commenced at 10.00 a.m. and was initially peaceful until the arrival of hoodlums
whose activities disrupted the election for a while leaving some people injured. However peace was restored by the
army and police and the election came to a successful and at 3.00 p.m.
           Exhibit 1094 (8) is the report by the Presiding Officer for Unit 17. He stated as follows:
                    "That the election starts (sic) schedule (sic) without any hitches. During the conduct
                    of the election there was no incident of violence, no thurggery (sic) and no election
                    malpractices what so ever.
                    The election came to an end in peace at 3.00 p.m. without any violence".
           Exhibit 1094 (9) is the report of the INEC staff in Unit 03. In it the Presiding Officer stated as follows:
           "The electoral process commenced at exactly 10.00 a.m. with all due protocols observed. The
           election proceeding was peaceful and in fact it ended in the same way at exactly three minutes past
           four".
           Finally Exhibit 1094 (10) is the report by the Presiding Officer for Unit 09. In it he stated as
follows:
           "The election in my centre went and ended up smoothly, freely and fairly. I want to state
           here that there was no rancour or disruption at my very centre through-out the period the
           election was held. Thanks."
           In the face of these reports tendered by the Petitioner and thus forming part of the Petitioner's
case, is it open to him to still say that there was no election at all in all the 17 units of Ward 05. We do not
think so. The claim that the materials did not get to the various units cannot therefore be correct. The
Petitioner has therefore presented contradictory evidence and this Honourable Tribunal cannot pick and
choose. In the circumstances the evidence of PW12 that he was at the distribution centre throughout from
where he saw Hon. Yemi Alao leading thugs to cart away the election materials contradicts other evidence
(documentary) of the Petitioner contained in Exhibit 1094 (1)- CIO).
                                                                 94
        The evidence of RW4, RW9 and RW24 to the effect that they voted and the ticking of their names on the
voters' register shows that election was conducted in the units where they voted. This position is amply
supported by Exhibit 1094 (1) - (10) tendered by the Petitioner.
        The Petitioner through PW12 testified that people who were driven away from voting reported to
him and submitted their voters' cards to him. He identified Exhibit 1098 (35) as the unused voters' cards for
Unit 01, 04, 05, 07, 08, 12 and 13 which were submitted to him.
        The voters' register for Unit 01, 04, 07 and 08 were not tendered in evidence. Additionally the
election in these units were cancelled by INEC. In the circumstances we hold that the unused voters' cards for Units
01, 04, 07 and 08 are no longer necessary to prove that election did not take place there.
        159 unused voters' cards were tendered in respect of Unit 05. 17 unused voters' cards were tendered in
respect of Unit 12 while 108 unused voters' cards were tendered in respect of Unit 13. We observe that all the
unused voters' cards were not marked to indicate that their owners were accredited to vote as required
by law. With regards to the 17 unused voters' cards tendered in respect of Unit 12 we find that 16 of them
had the names of their owners ticked twice on the voters' register. We also find that one of the said 16
owners of the unused voters' cards presented two voters' cards pertaining to him which brought the number
to 17. The number of registered voters in Unit 12 is 611. The Form EC8A for this unit was not tendered in
evidence so as to know the total number of votes cast. However in Form EC8B, Exhibit 1051 the total votes cast is
put at 600. We hold that the record that 600 votes were cast out of 611 cannot be correct in the face of
16 unused voters' cards for the unit. There is therefore an anomalous situation bothering on irregularity which
is weighty enough to adversely affect the result of the election in the unit.
        In respect of Units 05 and 13 we examined thirty unused voters' cards each on grounds of
expediency. In Unit 05 we found that 26 of the 30 were ticked twice. Three (3) were ticked once while one was
not ticked at all. In Unit 13 we found that while 25 out of the 30 examined were ticked once the other 5
were not ticked at all.
        The total number of registered voters for Unit 05 is 831. The total votes cast in the unit as per form
EC8B is 505. The unused voters' cards are 159. Majority of the names of the owners of these unused
voters cards were ticked as having voted. With respect to Unit 13, the total number of registered voters is
875. The total votes cast in this unit is 756. The unused voters' cards are 108. Majority of the names of the
owner of these unused voters' cards were ticked as having voted once.
        Although the figures when added up do not show over-voting they however show that there was no proper
accreditation before the voters' registers were ticked. A person cannot vote unless properly accredited.
Accreditation is therefore a fundamental aspect of an election. Improper accreditation vitiates an election. In
the circumstances we hold that the election in the units where there was no proper accreditation is void
by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act.
                                                           95
         We have also examined the voters' register and found many instances of multiple registrations and
multiple voting which is contrary to the provisions of the Electoral Act 2006.
         The Petitioner also alleged alteration or concoction of results. The concocted results of the election from
the various units were not tendered. In any event in view of the reports by INEC officials to the effect that election
in some units went on peacefully the allegation of alteration or concoction of results cannot stand.
         The Petitioner alleged that in all the units of Ajowa/Igasi/Eriti/Gedegede Ward 05 of Akoko North West
Local Government Area, the total number of registered voters recorded in INEC Form EC8A, EC8B and other
relevant INEC Forms were deliberately altered and gerrymandered by the Respondents to such an extent that they
conflict substantially with the authentic number of registered voters in INEC record of registered voters.
         The Petitioner unfortunately did not tender any Form EC8A for any of the units in the ward. He however
tendered the Form EC8B which is Exhibit 1051 (1) - (2). He also tendered the voters' register for
thirteen out of the seventeen units. Our examination of the voters' registers and the Form EC8B for the
ward is captured in the table below.-
UNIT   EXHBIT NUMBER OF NUMBER OF REGISTERED NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTER
NUMBER VOTERS' REGISTER VOTERS IN REGISTER   IN FORM EC8B - EXHIBIT 1051
2                                       754                          710
3                                       606                          603
5                                       831                          831
6                                       500                          500
9                                       603                          609
10                                      502                          502
11                                      460                          460
12                                      611                          611
13                                      1196                         875
14                                      663                          506
15                                      24 ) 643 619)                643
16                                      952                          941
17                                      792                          792


        We observe that the number of registered voters entered in Form EC8B, Exhibit 1051 for the ward, in seven
of the thirteen units above are the same as the number of registered voters' in their respective voters' registers. As
regards units 3, 13, 14 and 16 we observe that the entries in Form EC8B did not take into account the number of the
registered voters in the additional booklet with 3, 321, 157 and 11 respectively. In other words the entry in Form EC8B
only took account of the number of registered voters written on one and not the two volumes of the voters register.
        The Petitioner also complained of ballot box stuffing. He tendered Exhibit 1081 (2) and (3) as the used ballot
papers for Ajowa Ward 05. All the eight bundles of used ballot papers found in Exhibit 1081 (2) do not relate to any
particular unit. Similarly six out of the eight bundles of used ballot papers found in Exhibit 1081 (3) do not also
relate to any particular unit. Only two bundles of used ballot papers found in Exhibit 1081 (3) were found to

                                                              96
relate to Units 002 and 011. While 446 used ballot papers were found and counted for Unit 002, 497 is
recorded in Form EC8B as the total votes cast. In the case of Unit 011, while 95 used ballot papers were found
and counted, 460 is recorded in Form EC8B as the total votes cast. In view of these discrepancies we hold that it
is an anomaly which cannot be allowed to stand.
        The Petitioner also alleged that Form EC8B for Ajowa Ward 05 was signed by a political office holder in
the person of Hon. Yemi Alao, the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Ondo State. PW12 testified
in this regard and the said Form EC8B allegedly signed by the said Hon. Yemi Alao, the Attorney-General
and Commissioner for Justice was tendered and received in evidence as Exhibit 1051.
        In reaction to this, the 1st Respondent called RW9 who testified to the effect that he knows of two
persons who go by the name Hon. Yemi Alao. One is Hon. Fatai Akinyemi Alao and the other is Hon. Francis
Adeyemi Alao who is the current Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Ondo State. He stated that the
PDP's agent at the collation centre for the entire Local Government Hon. Fatai Akinremi Alao. Under
cross-examination by the Petitioner's counsel he said that while Hon. Fatai Akinyemi Alao is of ward 4, Hon. Francis
Yemi Alao, the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice is of Ward 05 which is the ward under
consideration. The witness stated that himself and the Attorney-general and Commissioner for Justice voted at the
same unit in Ward 05 on 14th April, 2007.
        The natural presumption is that it is the Hon. Yemi Alao of Ward 05 that signed the ward collated
result for Ward 05. The attempt to rebut that presumption failed when RW9 stated that it was at the Local
Government Area Collation level that the other Hon. Yemi Alao of Ward 04 acted as the PDF agent.
Therefore while Hon. Yemi Alao of Ward 4 was at the Local Government Area Collation Centre, Hon. Yemi
Alao, the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice was at Ward 05 where he signed Exhibit 1051.
        We therefore disbelieve RW9 when he said the signature of Hon. Yemi Alao on Exhibit 1051 is not
that of the Attorney-General and commissioner for Justice more so when he said under re-examination that he
was not sure. In the circumstances we hold that Exhibit 1051, i.e. Form EC8B for Ajowa/Igasi/Eriti/Gedegede Ward
05 of Akoko North West Local Government Area was signed by Hon. Yemi Alao the Attorney-General
and Commissioner for Justice, Ondo State. It was open to the Respondents to have called the Attorney-
General and Commissioner for Justice to destroy the prima facie case established by the Petitioner as
regards his signature but they woefully failed to do so.
        We hold that the signing of the form EC8B by Hon. Yemi Alao, the Attorney-General and Commissioner
for Justice who is a political office holder is contrary to the provisions of the Electoral Act and therefore renders the
same void.
        In the final analysis we hold that the election purportedly conducted by INEC in this ward was
characterized by several irregularities and non-compliance with the Electoral Act thereby rendering the
election in Ajowa/Igasi/Eriti/Gedegede Ward 05 a nullity.
                                                           97
        OSE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA
        The Petitioner's allegation as contained in Paragraph 21.10 (iii) of his petition is that in this ward, Afo Ward
I, election did not take place in any of the 9 polling units that make up the ward. He also alleged that election
materials for all the units were carted away from the distribution centre and that ballot papers were
illegally thumb-printed by thugs hired by 1st and 2nd Respondents in the Afo residence of a political office holder
and that figures were allotted and recorded on Forms EC8A and EC8B and later transferred onto Forms EC8C
and EC8D.
        In his response to those allegations, the 1st Respondent in paragraph 275 of his Reply to the petition
denied any illegal or unlawful allocation of votes to him. He said the election was properly conducted; votes
duly counted and entered on Forms EC8A, EC8B and EC8C by the Electoral Officers. He also said that
election materials were duly distributed to all the units and accordingly used for the election.
        In an effort to prove his allegations, the Petitioner called PW10, Hon. Samuel Adeola Omotere who
testified in Court on 23/1/2008 and identified Exhibits 1098 (6) as the unused voters' cards surrendered to him by
those who could not vote. He adopted his statement on oath made on 10/5/2007 as his evidence-in-chief to the
effect that there was no election in the units. Under cross-examination by the 1st Respondent's counsel L.O.
Fagbemi SAN, the witness said he did not hear that any of those who surrendered to him the unused voter's card had
died. On being cross-examined by the 15th and 16th Respondents' counsel, J.C.A. Idachaba Esq., the witness said no
election materials were taken to any of the units in the ward. The statement on oath of the witness showed that he
was Labour Party Supervisor for the ward.
        In an effort to disprove the Petitioner's allegations, the 1st Respondent called RW16, Abodunwa Ayodele
Henry who testified in Court on 16/4/2008, RW21, Musa Azeez and RW22 Arimola Bolorunduro Reuben who both
testified on 17/4/2008. They separately testified that they were voters and actually voted in the ward. RW16
tendered his voter's card as Exhibit 1233. He identified his photograph, name and other details under serial number 9
in the voters register tendered as Exhibit 1059 (1) - (22). He confirmed knowing PW10 and debunked his evidence.
Under cross-examination by the Petitioner's counsel 0. Akeredolu SAN, the witness said on the queue he did not
know the voters in front and behind him because he was hungry.
        RW21 tendered his voter's card as Exhibit 1238. He identified his phtograph, name and other details under
serial number 177 of Exhibit 1056 (1) - (28) used as voters' register for Unit 5. He confirmed knowing PW10 whose
evidence he said was "a white lie". Under cross-examination by the Petitioner's counsel, the witness said the crowd
that came to vote at the unit was very large but he was not sure if all the registered voters' showed up to vote.
        RW22 tendered his voter's card as Exhibit 1240 and identified his photograph, name and other details
under serial number 178 in the voters' register tendered as Exhibit 1052 (1) - (43). He said he voted at Unit I and that
election there went on smoothly without any disturbance.
                                                           98
              When cross-examined he confirmed being PDP member.
              In respect of this ward some documents such as voters' registers, unused voters' cards, Forms
       EC8A, used ballot papers and Form EC8B were tendered as Exhibits and duly marked as such. These are
       documentary evidence. The importance of documentary evidence was underscored in the case of:
              -     Obi - Odu vs. Donald Duke (2006) 1 NWLR (Part 961) 375 at 401, in which it was held per Donghban
                    - Mensem JCA that:
              "By the provisions of Section 132 of the Evidence Act, documentary evidence prevails over any other
              matter as only the document itself will be admissible evidence".
              We have formed the chart below to accommodate all the Exhibits for analysis:
UNIT   VOTERS'          NUMBER OF        UNUSED       FORM         VOTES         EXHIBIT   NUMBER    FORM       VOTES
       REGISTERS'       REGISTERED       VOTERS'      EC8A         CAST          NUMBER    OF USED   EC8B       CAST
       EXHIBITS         VOTERS    IN     CARDS IN     EXHIBIT      IN            OF USED   BALLOT    EXHIBIT    IN
                        THE REGISTER     EXHIBIT      NUMBER       FORM          BALLOT    PAPERS    NUMBER     FORM
                                                                                                                EC8B
                                         1098(37)                  EC8A          PAPERS    COUNTED
001    1052(l)-(43)     749              97                                      1085      724       1062(1)-   740
002    1053(l)-(32)     548              39           1061         539                     529                  546
003    1054(l)-(43)     788                                                                          “          750
004    1055(1)-(19)     374              85                                                348       “          350
 0
05     1056(1X28)       477              54           1239         448                                          450
 0
06     1057(1)-(21)     354              59                                                                     349
 0
07     1058(1)-22)      407              29                                                288                  400
 0
08     1059(l)-(22)     360              57                                                345                  343
 0
09     1060(1)-(30)     517              51                                                                     500


               As shown in the chart, some unused voters' cards in Exhibit 1098 (6) were recorded for Units 1, 2, 4 - 9.
       Having regard to the number of registered voters in each of the units, these unused voters' cards will not
       have any adverse effect on the votes cast and recorded in Forms EC8A (Exhibits 1061 and 1239) and Form
       EC8B (Exhibit 1062 (1) - (2)) or on the total number of used ballot papers counted in Exhibit 1085. We have noted
       that out of the 9 units Forms EC8A showing units' results were tendered as Exhibits 1061 and 1239 for
       only units 2 and 5 respectively. What happened to the unit's results in Forms EC8A for the remaining 7 units? We
       cannot answer. It is a question the 1 st Respondent who claimed that election took place in all the units,
       should have answered. In respect of Units 2 and 5 for which Forms EC8A were produced, we have observed that
       the votes recorded as cast in the two forms for the two units (2 and 5) are at variance with the votes recorded as
       cast for the two units in Form EC8B (Exhibit 1062 (1) - (2)). We have also observed that the used ballot papers
       counted in Exhibit 1085 for Units 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 are at variance with the votes cast in Form EC8B for those
       units. The number of registered voters as stated in the chart above for each of the units was correctly captured
       in form EC8B (Exhibit 1062 (1) – (2)).
               That alone is not conclusive that election was held in all the units. RW16, RW21 and RW22 may have


                                                                 99
noted but the discrepancies between the votes cast in Exhibits 1061 and 1239 for Units 2 and 5 and in Exhibit
1062 (1) - (2) for the two units in addition to unavailability of Forms EC8A as unit's results for the remaining
7 units have made nonsense of their evidence. The conclusion to draw is that the votes cast as recorded in
Form EC8B (Exhibit 1062 (1) - (2)) were concocted and allotted and therefore not an outcome of actual and
credible election in the ward. We hereby nullify the election and results from all the units of the ward.


          AKURE NORTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA
          The case made out by the Petitioner in respect of the Akure North Local Government Area, is as per
paragraphs 11,13,21:1 (i) - (iii), 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the petition.
          In paragraph 21:1 of the petition he averred that Akure North Lcoal Government Area, comprises of 12
wards namely: Agamo/Okeoore/Akomowa, Ayede/Ogbese, Ayetoro, Igbatoro, Igoba/Isignigbo, Iluabo/Eleyowo,
Isimi/Irado, Moferere, Oba He, Odo-Oja/Ijigbo, Oke-Afa/Owode and Okeiju.
          The Petitioner averred that out of 12 wards of this Local Government Area, no lawful election
was held in any of the 5 wards of Ayetoro, Moferere, Oke-Iju, Eleyowo/Iluabo and Ayede/Ogbese, that total
number of votes purportedly cast in the 5 wards was 10,3 90 out of which the aggregate score of 10,132 votes was
unlawfully allotted to the 1st Respondent, 94 votes allotted to the Petitioner and other candidates were in the
aggregate unlawfully allocated 164 votes with 187 votes unaccounted for by reason of nullification and alteration
of relevant INEC forms for Oke-Iju ward. The Petitioner complained that no lawful election was held in those 5
wards by reason of unprecedented violence, hijack of ballot boxes, ballot papers and other electoral materials
coupled with other fraudulent electoral malpractices perpetrated by leaders of PDP and thugs hired by the 1st and 2nd
Respondents who illegally took over the entire processes of the said election in the wards aforementioned with
assistance of policemen and soldiers. Furthermore, he alleged that there was no accreditation of voters and
results were concocted and figures manipulated to generate result.
          The 1st Respondent in paragraph 35 of his reply to the petition denied all allegations in paragraph
21,1 (ii) and (iii) (a - s) of the petition. The 1st Respondent said voting took place in the 5 wards peacefully and that
he validly and legally scored 10, 132 votes whilst the Petitioner scored only 94 votes. The Respondent further
contended that the Petitioner complaint in respect of the 5 wards mentioned above was baseless, misconceived, and
incompetent. The Respondent vehemently denied all the allegations contained in the petition as shown in paragraphs
35 -66 of his reply to the petition.
          In order to prove his case the Petitioner called 10 witnesses including 8 expert witnesses. The non-expert
witnesses called by the Petitioner were PW35 and PW51, while the 1st Respondent called one witness and 2 expert
witnesses.
          PW35 - he is Mr. Uche Anthony. He was an accredited party agent for Labour Party in Eleyewo/Iluabo ward.
He adopted his deposition as his evidence-in-chief. He deposed as follows:
                                                              100
         "I am a registered voter and an accredited party agent saddled with the responsibility for supervising the
         conduct of the Governorship/House of Assembly election in Eleyewo/Ilu- Abo ward, Akure North Local
         Government on 14th day of April, 2007".
         He said he went round the 9 polling units, and that voting did not take place in any of the said units as the ballot
boxes with all the electoral materials were never brought to any of the units.
         That the boxes and electoral materials were hijacked by PDP's thugs and diverted to the house of PDP's
chieftain wherein the ballot papers were thumb-printed in favour of Dr. Agagu. That the shameful acts were carried out
with active connivance and support of armed policemen and soldiers.
         That votes were allotted to PDP candidates as collation was carried out in the said PDP chieftain
house. PW51 - He is Oluwafemi Ojo Fakunrin. He was called as a person summoned on account of Subpoena
Duces Tecum issued to him. He tendered at the proceedings of 6 March, 2008 his certified copy of official report and
statement on oath which were admitted as Exhibit 1188 (1) - (3) and 1189 (1) - (2) respectively. He was not
cross-examined.
         The 1st Respondent called RW26. He is Bello Yekini. He adopted his deposition as his evidence-in-chief.
His evidence related to Unit 001 of Ward 03. He stated that he arrived at his polling unit on 14th April, 2007 at
about 8.30 a.m. and joined the queue of voters waiting to vote. That the elections materials were brought at about
8.40 a.m. And on getting to his turn he was accredited by the polling officials, and his voters' card marked by
polling officials. Then he cast his votes, and the election was conducted peacefully. Under cross-examination,
he maintained that the election was free and fair and peaceful. Under further cross-examination by Petitioner
counsel, RW26 affirmed that if he said something different from what was in his sworn statement, it would be a lie.
He was confronted with paragraph 6 of his sworn statement in which he stated that his voter's card Exhibit 1246
was marked by a polling official on 14/4/07; while under cross-examination he stated that his voter’s card was perforated.
         The following Exhibits were tendered. They are Exhibits 1070 (1) - (3), 1071 (1) - (2), 1072 (1) - (2),
1073 (1) - (3), 1074 and (1) - (7), 1075 (1) - (2). There are also Exhibit 1080 (1) - (4) used and unused ballot paper;
Exhibit 1093 Official Report written by INEC officials for Wards 02, 03, 06, 08 and 12. Also tendered were Exhibits
1102 (1) - (11), 1105, 1106 (1) - (9) 1151 - 1169, 1172-1173,1184-1185,1187-1189,1190-1195,1264-
1267 and 1283. Additionally Exhibit 997 (1) - (3) - Exhibit 1005 are voters' register for Ward 02. And
Exhibit 1006 (1) - (2) are counterpart original and certified copy of Form EC8B serial number 0004569
for Ward 02. Exhibit 1007 (1) - (43) - 1013 (1) - (2) are voters' register for Ward 03. Exhibit 1015 (1) - (40) -
1023 are voters' register for Ward 06. Exhibit 1025 (1) - (2) is the counterpart original and CTC for Form EC8B for
Eleyew/Iluabo Ward Exhibit 1026 (1) - (6) - Exhibit 1032 are voters' register for Ward 007. Exhibit 1033 (1) - (2)
are counterpart original and certified copy of Form EC8B for Moferere Ward. Exhibits 1034 -1036 are voters'
register for Ward 012, and Exhibit 1037 is the original copy of Form EC8C serial number 000011 for Akure
North Local Government Area.
                                                              101
        We have considered the pleadings. It is our view to take the allegation against each ward one after
the other. And for the Petitioner to succeed, he must prove, the allegations of ballot box snatching, ballot box
stuffing, over voting, multiple thumb-printing, irregular signing of results, or irregular entries in INEC form of
result, non-accreditation of voters, or allocation of fictitious votes, among others.


        AIYEDE/OGBESE WARD 0
        The complaint of the Petitioner on this ward was premised on no election non-voting, and that where
there was voting thugs carted away the election materials in violation of electoral procedure. PW47 is an
expert witness; he testified in respect of this ward. The Respondents contended that the evidence of PW47 in
respect of this ward was at variance with pleadings. We have read paragraph 21: (i) - (iii) (a) - (s) of the petition
and we are satisfied that the pleadings therein duly cover the evidence of PW47.
        We have noted that for this ward no Forms EC8A were tendered. However Form EC8B was
tendered as Exhibit 1006 (2) for this ward. There are no scores recorded for any of the unit, except Unit 07 in
which Labour Party had no vote and PDP was credited with 352 votes. In the absence of Form EC8A from the
Petitioner or Respondents it is difficult to know the source of the score for Unit 07. That being the case, and Form
EC8A not having been tendered for any of the other units of this ward, we are on the firm ground that no election
took place in this ward as testified to by PW47. See the case of ALHAJI UMARU MUSA YAR'ADUA vs. ALHAJI
SAIDU BARDA & OTHERS (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.231, 638) at 648 - 650. In the case of REMI vs. SUNDAY
(supra) Salami JCA said –
        "The primary evidence of the result of the election is Form EC8A.. ......."
        Similarly in NWOBODO vs. ONOH (supra) Bello JSC observed that:
        "Polling stations are the concrete foundation on which the pyramid of an election process is built.
        Primary and secondary collation centres are administrative machinery devised by FEDECO in order
        to enhance efficiency and the speedy declaration of the final result of the election".


                                             AYETORO WARD 03
In this ward the Petitioner complained that there was no voting in all the 7 polling units as the election in this ward
was characterized by massive electoral irregularities including unlawful allotment of votes. The Respondents
contended that there were no pleadings or allegations in respect of Unit 001 of that ward. We again refer to
paragraph 21: (i) - (iii) (a) - (s) of the petition and hold that the allegations are pleaded therein. We have
noted that no Forms EC8A were tendered, by the Petitioner. The 1st Respondent in his written address page
221, pointed out, that unit's result which is the basis of any deduction that election took place was not
tendered. The contention of the Petitioner is that no election took place therefore he has no obligation to tender
Forms EC8A, it was for the Respondents who claimed that election took place to tender Form EC8A to sustain


                                                           102
that claim. And this they failed to do. In the absence of Forms EC8A, the source from which the scores in Form
EC8B Exhibit 1014 (1) - (2) emanated, is suspicious and doubtful. It is our view therefore that no credible
election took place in this ward. We believe the evidence of Pw47.
The evidence of RW26 who claimed to be an eligible voter of Unit 001 of this ward was discredited under
cross-examination, so his evidence hangs on nothing and is hereby disbelieved. See AWUSE vs. ODILE
2005, 16 NWLR (Pt. 952, 46. ALHAJI IBRAHIM MALUNFASHI vs. ALHAJI USMAN YABA & OTHERS (1999) 4
NWLR (Pt. 598) 239 at 237


                                         ILUABO/ELEYOWO WARD 06
           The complaint of the Petitioner here was on unlawful allocation of 1,781 votes and that in the units no
voting took place as ballot boxes with all electoral materials were never brought to the various units, the same
having been diverted by thugs acting for 1st and 2nd Respondents.
           The Respondents contented that the evidence of PW47 was at variance with pleadings and it went to no
issue. We again refer to paragraph 21: (i) - (iii) (a) - (s) of the petition, and hold that the allegations are pleaded
therein. We have noted that apart from Forms EC8A for Unit 002, 004 and 009 no Forms EC8A were
tendered for other units in this ward. The ward's result in Form EC8B was tendered as Exhibit 1025 (1)
and (2). We have observed that in the Exhibit there is no entry for Units 1, 3, 7 and 8 an indication that no
election took place in these four units out of the nine units of the ward. In respect of the remaining 2 units that is
Units 005 and 006 although entries were made for them in Exhibit 1025 (1) - (2) (form EC8B) no Forms
EC8A (units' result) were tendered, a confirmation that there was no election in the 2 units. Furthermore, we
have observed that the number of registered voters were not entered for Units 001, 003, 007 and 008 in Form
EC8B; (Exhibit 1025 (1) - 92)).
           As regard voters' register for Unit 004, we have observed that while 390 registered voters were
entered in Exhibit 1025 (1) - 92), in Exhibit 1018 (1) - (24) (voters' register) for Unit 004, 396 registered voters
were recorded. We observe that voters registers were tendered as Exhibits 1015(1)- (40); 1017 (1) - (16);
1020 (1) - (28); and 1023 (1) - (34) for Units 1, 3, 6 and 9 even though election did not hold in these
units. They therefore go to no issue. Exhibit 1024 (1); Exhibit 1024 (2) and Exhibit 1024 (3) were tendered as
Form EC8A for Units 002, 004 and 009 respectively.
           In view of all these and in the absence of Forms EC8A (units' results) for other units the
conclusion to arrive at is that no credible election took place in those unit, namely Units 001, 003, 005, 006, 007
and 008.
           This position was corroborated by the evidence of PW35 who testified as a party agent for this ward; we
accept his evidence as credible.


                                                            103
                                                      MOFERERE WARD 08
         The allegation of the Petitioner in respect of this ward is as per paragraph 21:2 (iii) of the petition.
         The Respondent contended that the evidence of PW47 in respect of Unit 001, on allegation of
over voting should be discountenanced because no evidence was led to that effect. We discountenanced this
argument because evidence was led.
         We have noted that no Forms EC8A were tendered for this ward. The ward's result was tendered in
Form EC8B as Exhibit 1033 (1). There is no Form EC8A tendered for the units in these ward. We have
observed that voters' registers were tendered as Exhibit 1026 (1) - (6); 1027 (1) - (33); 1028 (1) - (23); 1029 (1) - (16);
1031 (1) - (41); and Exhibit 1032 (1) - (19). All these voters’ registers were for units 001,002,003,004,005,006 and007.
We have looked at the entries in the Form EC8B and the figures in the voters' registers. For instance the total
number of voters' registered in Unit 001 is 73 while in Form EC8B 500 voters were entered. And in the same Unit 400
votes were cast. It is also the same with other units in this ward - except Unit 002.
         It is therefore logical, in view of the anomalies in the entries and discrepancies between INEC register of
voters and Form EC8B entries to find and hold that the election in this ward was not valid with the exception of result in
Unit 002 which is not enough to conclude that election took place in all the units of the ward.


                                                          IKE-IJU WARD 12
         The Petitioner's complaint in respect of this ward is as per paragraph 21: (i) - (iii) of the petition.
         In respect of this ward Form EC8B was tendered as Exhibit 1036 (1) - (2). Voters' registers were also tendered
for Unit 003 and Unit 008 marked as Exhibit 1034 (1) - (19) and Exhibit 1035 (1) - (5) respectively. We note that no Forms
EC8A were tendered in respect of this ward; and Form EC8B tendered is full of mutilation and
cancellations. It is our view in the absence of Forms EC8A for this ward to discern and hold that no credible
election was conducted in this ward; the entire scenario from the available document is suspicious and unbelievable.
         Furthermore the Respondents have not proffered any defence by way of evidence in respect of this
ward. And on the authority of INEC AND ANOR. vs. ONYINBAH E.C. RAY AND ANOR. (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt.
892) at 131 - Ogunbiyi JCA said
         "It is settled law that an unchallenged piece of evidence ought to be accepted by a trial court or tribunal
         as proof of the fact or issue in respect of which the evidence is given".
         In respect of these wards there are also other exhibits tendered in support of various allegations
of irregularities and corrupt practices. Exhibit 1188 (1) - (3) is the report of Supervisory Presiding Officer
for Ward 2, to INEC. He narrated how thugs invaded the polling units under his supervision; as a result the election
materials were carted away by thugs. He reported that no election took place and where there was any it
wasinconclusive.
                                                               104
        Exhibit 1093 (1) is the report of the Akure Local Government Area Electoral Officer. In his report he stated that
the election conducted in this Local Government Area for Gubernatorial and House of Assembly was full of
complaints and violence. The expert evidence of PW47 corroborated Exhibit 1188 and Exhibit 1093. We accept it
and find as a fact that election did not hold in wards 2 and 3.
        We also observe that Exhibit 1014 (1) - (2), 1033 (1) - (2), 1025 (1) - (2) and 1006 (1) - 92) were
signed on the same date 14/4/07 by one Prince Oluwale Ogunlade Toyin as PDP's party agent. We so find on
the unchallenged evidence borne out by his name and signature. The same agent also signed Exhibit 1037, Form
EC8C (Summary of Results from Registration Areas for the entire Local Government Area). The four wards are
located at different places. There is no evidence before us to confirm that Prince Oluwale Toyin can be in 2
places at the same time. That attribute is only God's attribute who is omnipresent to be at four Wards
Collation Centre at the same time. In addition, he was also at the Local Government Area Collation Centre to
sign Exhibit 1037 (Form EC8C) on the same day and same time. The proven fact that Prince Oluwale Ogunlade
Toyin signed the said 4 wards' results in addition to the Local Government Area summary of result on the
same date creates serious doubt on the genuineness of the results contained in Exhibit 1014 (1) - (2), 1033 (1) - (2)
1025 (1) - (2), 1006 (1) - (2) and 1037 and are therefore suspicious and doubtful. This evidence preponderate in
favour of the Petitioner that the election in these 5 wards was marred by serious irregularities; and we so
hold.
        The other allegations in respect of Ward 12, as pleaded by Petitioner including violence, violation of
electoral proceedings, manipulation of results, rigging and other malpractices, and non-voting remain unchallenged
by the Respondents. The Tribunal is bound to accept unchallenged evidence. We therefore find in the absence of
any document or oral testimony from the Respondents that there were no credible election in this ward, and we
so hold. Furthermore in addition, to the allegation of malpractices and irregularities in these 5 wards there
were allegations of crime. The allegation of crime in any proceedings requires proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The allegations of crime which bordered on snatching of election materials, hijacking of ballot boxes,
multiple thumb-printing and violence at polling units by thugs were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Furthermore, there was no cogent evidence of agency relationship linking the said thugs to the 1st and 2nd
Respondents. The criminal allegations require clear evidence of perpetrators of the criminal acts working or
acting for the 1st Respondent, before he would be held responsible for their alleged acts. All these ingredients are
lacking in evidence of the Petitioner. Consequently, we hold that aspect of the Petitioner's allegation on crime
not proven beyond reasonable doubt. See the cases of AYUA vs. ADASU (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 321) 59,
AJOMO vs. IROAZAKI (1998) 19 NWLR (Pt. 568) page 133, NNACHI vs. IBOM (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt. 900) page
614 and MUSA vs. NEL (1989) 1 NEPWLR page 20.
        In the end, and having found that the election in the five wards was marred by serious irregularities, we hold that
there was no credible election. We therefore nullify the election in the 5 wards.
                                                           105
                                    ILE-OLUJI/OKE-IGBO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA
          In respect of Ile-Oluji/Oke-Igbo Local Government Area, the witnesses the Petitioner called to prove his
case were PW17, PW18, PW25 and PW26. PW17 is the secretary of the Ile-Oluji-Oke-Igbo Local Government
who was subpoened to produce and tender certified copy of list of the names, specimen signature, designation,
tenure and payment vouchers of all political office holders in the Local Government. PW17 appeared in Court and
testified that such documents did not exist. The Petitioner applied that the subpoena be admitted in evidence. This
was done and the subpoena was admitted as Exhibit 1115 (1) - (2).
          In like manner, PW18 was equally a subpoened witness. He was also to produce and tender a certified
copy of the list of the names, specimen signature, designation, tenure and payment vouchers of all political
office holders in the same Local Government. PW18 appeared and informed the Tribunal that such document did
not equally exist.
          PW25 testified in his sworn statement that he was commissioned by Labour Party as a Supervisory Party
Agent in Ward 10 Ile-Oluji-Oke-Igbo Local Government Area and that the 1st Respondent commissioned and sent
thugs led by one Hon. Oluwale Ojo shouting war songs "No Agagu No Election".
          That except for Units 013 and 017, no electoral personnel or materials were brought to the several other units of
Ward 10 of the Local Government Area.
          That ballot papers were thumb-printed and stuffed in Hon. Kusamoru Tajudeen's residence.
          That Forms EC8A and EC8B were signed by the same Hon Kusamoru Tajudeen. That after the purported
election members of Labour Party met him and complained and equally surrendered their voters' cards due to their
inability to vote.
          The witness identified the rubber band used by 1st Respondent's thugs and it was admitted as Exhibit 1119.
He also identified Exhibits 1068 and 1098.
          Under cross-examination PW25 insisted that there was no election in this ward and that he collected Exhibit
1119 on the road after it had been abandoned by 1st Respondent's thugs. That he is a member of Labour Party but
never attended meeting with 1st Respondent before the Election and that apart from Units 013 and 017 materials for
election were never taken to the other units of the ward. That on Exhibit 1068 (4) political parties scored votes
as follows. AC 7, AD 0, ANPP 1, LP 56, PDP 27, DPA 3, PPA 2, ADC 2 and DPP 1. That he did not enter the
house where the thumb-printing took place but he met people outside the house thumb-printing and that
the owners of the voters' cards he collected were still alive.
          PW26 equally testified in respect of this Local Government Area. His statement related to Ward 7. His
statement on oath was that he was the Supervisory Party Agent for Labour Party in the April 14th 2007
Governorship and House of Assembly election. He testified that in most of the units in Ward 7 of Ile-Oluji/Oke-
Igbo Local Government Area, ballot boxes were stuffed with ballot papers by thugs of the 1st Respondent. That
                                                            106
the election was marred by various malpractices, violence and massive rigging and that after election those
who were denied the right to vote surrendered their voters' cards to him and he identified same in Exhibit
1098. Under cross examination PW26 testified that his party - Labour Party-posted polling agents on the
day of the election and those agents were still alive; that some people voted on that day of the election in
question, but there was no accreditation and also no election in his town; and that there are 15 units in the ward,
and that those who gave him their voters' cards were still alive and that he is the Secretary of his party in his ward.
That his party has Vests, Face Caps and Souvenirs but has no rubber bands. That election materials were
brought but election did not take place. That Unit 012 is his unit and he did not know how long he stayed in that
unit.
         In order to debunk the evidence of the Petitioner on this Local Government Area the 1st
Respondent called RW14 and RW15 to testify on his behalf. They both testified in respect of Oke-Igbo
Ward 10. While RW14 testified in respect of Unit 15; RW15 testified in respect of Unit 10. Their evidence was
that they both voted in their respective units without any form of violence; and that there was no hijacking of
electoral materials. They all tendered their voters' cards which they used for the election and tendered as
Exhibits 1227 and 1230. They also identified their particulars on the voters' register Exhibits 1228 (1) - (17) serial
number 113 and 1231 (1) - (27) serial number 313.
         In general their evidence was that there was peaceful election in Units 10 and 15 of Ward 10 of Ile-
Oluji/Oke-Igbo Local Government Area.
In paragraph 11 of his petition, the Petitioner has pleaded thus:
         "........... your Petitioner states further that elections in some wards and units in ............. Ile-
         Oluji/Oke-Igbo Local Government Area were marred by electoral malpractices arising from multiple
         reasons of ballot materials snatching, ballot stuffing and alteration of election results".
In paragraph 21.9 (ii) of his petition, the Petitioner equally pleaded thus:
         "Your Petitioner further states that the results of the Governorship election of 14th April*
         2007.............. in Oke- Igbo I Ward 07, Oke-Igbo II Ward 08, Oke-Igbo III Ward 09 and Oke-Igbo IV Ward 10 (4
         Wards) in Ile-Oluji/Oke-Igbo Local Government Area ........... as declared and announced variously by 3rd - 14th
         Respondents are void by reasons of malpractices and/or elections not taking place at all".
In paragraph 21.9 (i) the Petitioner pleaded that this Local Government Area consists of 10 wards, but their complaints
are in .respect of 4 wards viz Wards 7, 8, 9 and 10 in which the Petitioner claimed there were no elections.

         The 1st Respondent denied all these allegations in paragraphs 242 to 271 of his reply to the petition.
         As stated above, the Petitioner called 4 witnesses in respect of this Local Government Area in order to prove
his case. They are PW17, PW18, PW25 and PW26. The evidence of PW17 and PW18 was not helpful since they both
claimed that the documents they were subpoened to produce and tender were not existing in the Local Government
Area. However PW25 and PW26 testified in respect of Ward 10 and Ward 7 respectively. Their

                                                               107
testimonies were that no election took place in the two Wards of 10 and 7.
          On the other hand the 1st Respondent called RW14 and RW15 in respect of this Local
Government Area. The Evidence of the two witnesses was however restricted to Ward 10 Units 15
and 10.
          Although the Petitioner complained of 4 wards in this Local Government Area, 1.e. Wards 7,
8, 9 and 10, he was able to call evidence in respect of two wards 1.e. Ward 7 and 10.
          The Respondents did not call any evidence to debunk the allegations in respect of Ward 7 of
the Ile-Oluji/Oke-Igbo Local Government Area neither did they call a witness to counter the
testimony of PW26 in respect of the said Ward 7.
          Since there is no contrary evidence in respect of ward 7, we hold that the Petitioner has
proved his case in respect of Ward 7 that no election took place in that ward. Consequently we
nullify the results of the election in the entire units of Ward 7 of Ile-Oluji/Oke-Igbo Local
Government Area.
          In respect of Ward 10, the Petitioner called PW25 who testified that no election took place
in the whole of Ward 10. The 1st Respondent called RW14 and RW15 in respect of this Ward 10
but their evidence relates to two units in which they claimed there was election.
          Both parties have called evidence in respect of this ward, one claiming that no election took place, while
the other is claiming there was valid election, therefore it will be necessary for us to look into documentary
evidence tendered to ascertain whether there was a valid election in this Ward 10.
          These documents are Forms EC8A and EC8B
UNIT         NUMBER OF VOTERS VOTE CAST ON NUMBER VOTERS ON VOTE CAST ON
             ON REGISTER FORM FORM EC8A    REGISTER FORM EC8B FORM EC8B EX
             EC8A                          EXHIBIT 1068 (4)   1068 (4)
013          EXH. 1067: 166            EXH. 1067: 99     166                        99
015          EXH. 1229: 277            EXH. 1229: 200    277                        130
021          EXH. 1067: 54             EXH. 1067: 52     154                        52
014          -                         -                 38                         1572
016          -                         -                 —                          154
017          -                         -                 11                         93
018          -                         .                 -                          167
022          -                         -                 -                          100
001          -                         -                 -                          198
002          -                         -                 -                          397
006          -                         -                 4                          63
008          -                         -                 -                          248
010          -                         -                 -                          295
010          -                         -                 -                          294
 1
01           -                         -                 -                          308
012          -                         ~                 -                          195

                                                         108
        It is clear from the above data that out of 21 units of Ward 10 only 3 Forms EC8A were tendered. Apart from
that the entries in Form EC8A are at variance with Form EC8B as to the numbers of registered voters and some actual
votes cast. There are a lot of discrepancies on Form EC8A when compared with Form EC8B -Exhibit 1068 (4). These
therefore confirm the allegations of the Petitioner that figures were fictitiously entered into the various electoral
forms. From the above findings, we do not have difficulty in holding that there was no valid election in Ward 10 of
Ile-Oluji/Oke-Igbo Local Government Area and therefore we equally nullify the election in this Ward 10.
        As regard Ward 8 and Ward 9, none of the parties called oral evidence in respect of the two wards. However
the Petitioner tendered some documents in respect of them. And by the authority of TERAB vs. LA WAN (supra) we
are entitled to look at these documents (Exhibits) which were tendered and admitted in evidence.
        In respect of Ward 8, the Petitioner tendered only Form EC8B. There was no other evidence
tendered in respect of this ward. The Petitioner is alleging that there was no election is this ward; while the
Respondents are contending that there was valid election. The production of Form EC8B Exhibit 1068 (2) is not
enough to prove there was an election. The primary evidence to prove an election is the production of
Form EC8A. The Respondents never produced any evidence either documentary or oral to prove that there
was valid election in this ward. And since there is no any primary evidence of an election in this Ward 8, we hold
that there was no valid election in the ward.
        As regards Ward 9. The Petitioner also alleged that there was no election in this ward. The Petitioner
tendered (four) 4 Forms EC8A (Exhibit 1063 (1) and Exhibit 1066 (1) - (3)) and Form EC8B (Exhibit 1068
(3)). No other documents were tendered apart from these documents. From Exhibit 1068 (3) (Form EC8B) this
ward 9 consists of 18 units. The results in Form EC8A are in respect of Units 004, 005, 006 and 009 in
Exhibits 1066 (1) - (3) and 1063 (1) which results tally with the result declared in Form EC8B (Exhibit 1068 (3)).
Therefore only 4 units' results out of 18 units were declared in respect of this Ward 9. Fourteen (14) units' results
were not declared in any Form EC8A. There is no substantial proof that there was election in this
ward 9. Consequently we equally nullify the result in this Ward 9.
        On the whole, the Petitioner has proved that there was no election in these wards namely 7, 8, 9 and 10
of Ile-Oluji/Oke-Igbo Local Government Area, consequently we nullify the results in these 4 (four) wards.


        ODIGBO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA
        This Local Government Area has 11 wards. The Petitioner's allegation here was that election did not
take place in 5 of the wards; Oniparaga, Ayesan, Koseni, Ago-Alaye and Araromi Obu. This means that he has
accepted the outcome of the election in the remaining 6 wards of Ore I, Ore II, Ajue, Ebijaw, Agbabu and
Odigbo. See generally paragraphs 11 and 21.4 of the petition. In paragraph 103 of his reply to the petition,
the 1st Respondent averred that contrary to the allegations of the Petitioner, election took place in all the
                                                          109
eleven wards of the Local Government Area and that results from the polling units were collated at designated
centres unaltered.
        The Petitioner called PW8 and PW9 on 23/1/2008 to testify in respect of this Local Government Area.
PW8 identified unused voters' cards in Exhibits 1098 (32), 1098 (33), 1098 (34) and 1098 (37) for Koseru Ward 7,
Ayesan Ward 5, Araromi Obu Ward 4 and Ago-Alaye Ward 2 respectively. Under cross-examination he said he was
Labour Party Agent for Ward 4 and that he was not aware that the owners of the unused voters' cards were
dead. He did not produce his own voter's card but said it could be in Exhibit 1098 series. PW9 testified in
respect of Oniparaga Ward and identified the unused voters' cards in Exhibit 1098 (38). Under cross-
examination he said he was not aware that any of the cards' owners died.
        For the 1st Respondent RW19, RW30 and RW38 testified on 16/4/2008, 21/4/2008 and 24/4/2008. RW19
testified that he voted and identified his name and other particulars under Serial Number 11 of Exhibit 1236 (1) - (2)
(voters' register for Unit 14, Araromi Obu Ward 4). The voters' register and his voter's card were ticked.
He said he later lost his voter's card. He debunked the evidence of PW8 that there was no election. RW30
testified that he voted and tendered his permanent voter's card as Exhibit 1252. He identified his photograph,
name and other particulars under serial number 5, page 2 of Exhibit 885 (1) - (20) i.e. voters' register
duly ticked. He voted at Unit 12 and on his way he saw people on queue voting at Unit 16. He debunked the
evidence of PW9 that there was no election in Oniparaga Ward 9. The Petitioner's counsel tendered
from the Bar Exhibit 1253 (Form EC8A) for Oniparaga Ward 9 Unit 16.
        RW38 testified that he voted at Comprehensive Health Centre, Unit 6 of Araromi Obu Ward and
tendered his permanent voters' card as Exhibit 1268. He said he saw people voting at adjacent unit at the
Health Centre, at two units at court premises, and at 2 units at L.A. Primary School. He debunked the evidence
of PW8 that there was no election. No voters' register was tendered or identified by RW38 for Unit
6. However, voters' registers for the 5 wards were tendered by the Petitioner's counsel from the Bar. We
will now proceed to examine the voters' registers, unused voters' cards, Forms EC8A, Forms EC8B, and
used ballot papers tendered in respect of the 5 wards with a view to ascertaining the veracity of the evidence of the
witnesses on both sides. We will take Wards 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 in that order:
        AGO-ALAYE WARD 2
UNIT   VOTERS'         NUMBER        UNUSED      FORM       VOTES          EXHBIT    NUMBER     FORM         VOTES
       REGISTERS'      OF            VOTERS'     EC8A       CAST           NUMBER    OF USED    EC8B         CAST
       EXHIBITS        REGISTERED    CARDS       EXHIBIT    IN             OF USED   BALLOT     EXHIBIT      IN
                       VOTERS        IN          NUMBER     FORM           BALLOT    PAPERS     NUMBER       FORM
                       IN THE        EXHIBIT                EC8A           PAPERS    COUNTED                 EC8B
                       REGISTER      1098(37)
001    816(1)-(21)     341                                                 1084(3)   299        832(1)-(2) 300
02     817(1) (21)     342                                                 1084(3)   294                   300
004    818(l)-(49)     734                                                 “ (1)     294                   700
005    819(1)-13)      206                                                 " (3)     195                   195

                                                         110
005     820(l)-(5)       64                                                 " (3)       210                        56
006     821(1)-(20)      182             11                                 " (1)       268                        200
007     822(1)-(16)      205                                                " (1)       199                        198
008     823(1)-(30)      554                                                " (3)       49                         200
009                                                                         " (3)       200                        200
010     824(1)-(12)      184                        1134(1) 160             " (3)       117                        160
011     825(1X7)         98                                                 " (3)       89                         90
012     826(1X6)         88                                                 " (3)       7                          80
013     827(1X16)        259                                                " (3)       220                        220
014     828(1)-(15)      248                                                " (3)       103                        200
015     829(l)-(26)      448             55         1134(2)     400         " (3)       404                        400
016     830(1)-(17)      269                                                " (3)       271                        231
017     831(1)-(12)      182                                                " (3)       149                        150


         In Ago-Alaye Ward 2, two Forms EC8A as Exhibits 1134 (1) - (2) were tendered for Units 10 and 15 with 160
and 400 votes and reflected on Form EC8B tendered as Exhibits 832 (1) - (2), even though there are 17 units in the
ward. Forms EC8A were not produced for the remaining 15 units. They should have been produced because units'
results are primary and very important results that must be collated into Form EC8B. Although Form EC8B (Exhibit
832 (1) - (2)) has entries of numbers of registered voters substantially corresponding with Exhibits 816 (1)-(21) to 831
(1) - (12), all voters registers tendered for all the units except Unit 9 and also has entries of votes scored in each of the
units, the absence of Forms EC8A for the remaining 15 units has seriously questioned the origin of votes scored in those
units. We have also observed that except for Units 4, 9 and 13, the votes recorded for the other units are at
variance with the number of used ballot papers in Exhibits 1084 (3) or 1084 (1) for the units. In the chart above it
is shown that 11 and 55 unused voters' cards in Exhibit 1098 (37) were returned in respect of only Units 6 and 15.
These are most insignificant in view of 4404 registered voters for all the units. However, from all we have said above
the conclusion to reach is that no credible election was conducted in the ward and that scores in the units except 10
and 15 were arbitrarily allocated to the parties.




                                                              111
        ARAROMI-OBU WARD 4

UNIT VOTERS'           NUMBER OF       UNUSED        FORM            VOTES   EXHIBIT      NUMBER       FORM         VOTES
     REGISTERS'        REGISTERED      VOTERS'       EC8A            CAST    NUMBER       OF USED      EC8B         CAST
     EXHIBITS          VOTERS IN       CARDS IN      EXHIBIT         IN      OF USED      BALLOT       EXHIBIT      IN
                       THE             EXHIBIT       NUMBER          FORM    BALLOT       PAPERS       NUMBER       FORM
                       REGISTER        1098(34)                      EC8A    PAPERS       COUNTED                   EC8B
001     833(12)–(24) 405               21            848(1)          400     1084(7)      332          849(l)-(2)   398
002                                    24            " (2)           200     “            300          “            200
003     834(l)-(9)     108             7             " (3)           108     “            208          “            75
004     835(l)-(7)     79              23            " (4)           70      “            69           “            108
005                                    1             1135(2)         80      “            69           “            80
006     836(1)-(10)    156             7
007     837(1)-(13)    199             9             1135(3)         200     “            198          “            199
008     838(1X58)      736             78
009     839(1X7)       96              19            1135(5)         44      “            119          “            43
010     840(l)-(5)     86              4
011     841(l)-(7)     105
012     842(1)-(15)    256             2             1135(8)         249                  249          “            249
013     843(1)-(11)    105                           " (12)          100                  264                       100
014     844(1)-16)     184             15            " (9)           147                  193                       147
015     845(1)-(19)    281             6             " (10)          184                  183                       182
016     846(1)-(22)    367             47            " (11)          350                  346                       350
017     847(1)-(12)    217


        In the above chart for Araromi-Obu Ward 4, it is clear that the total number of surrendered unused
voters' cards in Exhibit 1098 (34)for each of the units compared with the total number of registered voters in
Exhibits 833 (1) - (24) to 847(1) - (12), all voters' registers is nothing to write home about. There are 17 units in this
ward and a comparison of Forms EC8A in Exhibits 848 (1) - (4), 1135 (1), 1135 (3), 1135 (5) and 1135 (8) - (12) with
Form EC8B in Exhibit 849 (1) - (2) shows that the votes scored in only Units 2, 5, 12, 13, 14 and 16 tallied. We have
observed that there were no Forms EC8A and used ballot papers counted in Exhibit 1084 (7) for each of Units 6, 8,
10 and 11, meaning that no election took place in these units. One more point to make is that the number of votes
cast in each of units as recorded in Form EC8B except 12, is at variance with the number of used ballot
papers counted in Exhibit 1084 (7). We are of the view that no credible election was conducted in this ward.




                                                               112
                                             AYESAN WARD 5
UNIT VOTERS-    NUMBER OF            UNUSED      FORM         VOTES   EXHIBIT    NUMBER       FORM        VOTES
     REGISTERS' REGISTERED           VOTERS'     EC8A         CAST    NUMBER     OF USED      EC8B        CAST
     EXHIBITS   VOTERS               CARDS IN    EXHIBIT      IN      OF USED    BALLOT       EXHIBIT     IN
                IN     THE           EXHIBIT     NUMBER       FORM    BALLOT     PAPERS       NUMBER      FORM
                REGISTER                                                                                  EC8B
                                     1098(33)                 EC8A    PAPERS     COUNTED

001      850(1)-(51)     288                                          1084(6)    135          861(1)      44
002      851(1)-(12)     91
003      852(1)-(8)      57                                           “          50           “           50
004      853(1)-(12)     90          3           1136(2) 90           “          89           “           89
005      854(1)-(19)     277                                          “          260          “           256
006      855(1 )-(52)    405                                          “          799          “           799
007      856(1)-(10)     152         6           1136(3)      150     “          145          “           150
008      857(1)-(14)     215         57          1136(4)      200     “          204          “           196
009      858(1)-(19)     307         3                                “          292          “           296
010      859(1)-(11)     163         21          1136(5)      150     “          150          “           144
011      860(1 )-(! 5)   165         4                                “          149          “           148
012                                                                              129          “           128


        In Ayesan Ward 5, there are 12 units.
        Forms EC8A in Exhibits 1136 (2) - (5) were tendered for Units 4, 7, 8 and 10 and even then it is only the
score in Unit 7 that tallies with the score for that unit in Form EC8B (Exhibit 861 (1)). Although the number of
unused voters’ cards in Exhibit 1098 (33) is negligible compared with the number of registered voters in Exhibit
850 (1) - (51) to 860 (1) - (15), all voters registers and although number of used ballot papers counted in
Exhibit 1084 (6) for Units 3, 4 and 6 tally with entries in Exhibit 861 (1) for the three units, we hold that in the
absence of Forms EC8A for the remaining units, it could not be said that credible election was conducted in
substantial portion of the ward.
        Before we move to and consider Koseru Ward 7, we want to note that we have read the statement
of PW47 sworn to on 18/2/2008 and contained in Petitioner's bundle of documents Volume II. He
testified in Court on 5/3/2008 and adopted same as his evidence-in-chief. On page 2.64 paragraph e (i) of his
statement on oath, he said R.A Akintemi was a political office holder, a fact not pleaded expressly by the
Petitioner in paragraph 21,4 page 26-31 of the petition and therefore goes to no issue. PW47 also therein said
that the said R.A. Akintemi signed Forms EC8B for Ago-Alaye Ward 2, Araromi-Obu Ward 4 and Ayesan Ward 5
which are several kilometers apart. The 3 Forms EC8B were tendered as Exhibits 832 (1) - (2), 849 (1) - (2) and
861 (1) -(2) respectively. We have looked at them and we confirm that they were actually signed by the said R.A.
Akintemi as PDF agent. Having regard to the fact that the three wards are several kilometers apart and
the collation of units results into Forms EC8B was supposed to be done at about the same time at different wards'
collation centres, the said R.A. Akintemi could not have signed those Forms at the wards collation centres.
The conclusion to reach is that he signed them at places other than the collation centres. As regards
                                                        113
those forms, his signature on them has constituted devastating virus which has destroyed the collation in the
three wards. We hereby nullify he results of the election in the 3 wards of Ago-Alaye Ward 2, Araromi-Obu Ward
4 and Ayesan Wards.
         KOSERU WARD 7
UNIT      VOTERS'            NUMBER OF    UNUSED      FORM         VOTES     EXHIBIT     NUMBER         FORM          VOTES
          REGISTERS'         REGISTERED   VOTERS'     EC8A         CAST      NUMBER      OF USED        EC8B          CAST
          EXHIBITS           VOTERS IN    CARDS       EXHIBIT      IN        OF USED     BALLOT         EXHIBIT       IN
                             THE          IN          NUMBER       FORM      BALLOT      PAPERS         NUMBER        FORM
                             REGISTER     EXHIBIT                  EC8A      PAPERS      COUNTED                      EC8B
                                          1098
                                          (32)
 001      862(l)-(29) 500                 26                                 1084(10) 198               875(l)-(2)    67
 002      863(l)-(24) 399                 26          872(2)       399       “        94                “             100
                                                      872(1)       95
 003      864(l)-(36)        480          34                                 “           110            “             70
 004      865(1)-17)         206          71          1137(1)      206       “           195            “             194
                                                      873(l)-
                                                      (2)
 005      866(1)-(11)        124          1           1137(2)      124       “           99             “             95 ,
 006      867(1)-(13)        161          11          873(3)-(4)   198 98    “           96             “             55
                                                      873(5)-(6)
 007      868(1)-(16)        258          22                                 “           100            “             200
 008      869(1)-(12)        185          24                                 “           69             “             124
 009      870(1)-(10)        146          17          874          62        “           34             “             98
 010      871(l)-(25)        131          3                                  “           79             “             NIL
 011      NIL                             18                                 “           56             “             NIL


        Koseru Ward 7 has eleven units. The above chart shows in Exhibits 862 (1) - (29) to 871 (1) - (25) the voters
registers with registered voters in the units. When the unused voters' cards in Exhibit 1098 (32) are compared with
them, the cards are clearly insignificant. Forms EC8A in Exhibits 872 (1) - (2), for Unit 2, 1137 (1) and 873 (1) - (2) for
Unit 2,1137 (1) and 873 (1) - (2) for Unit 4, 1137 (2) for Unit 5, 873 (3) - (4) and 873 (5) - (6) for 6, and 874 for Unit 9
were tendered. For Unit 2, the two Forms EC8A have different numbers of votes cast. The same situation arose for Unit 6.
These are unexplained confusion which has no place in this type of election. Furthermore the votes cast as recorded in
the said Forms EC8A are clearly at variance with those recordED for the units in Form EC8B tendered as Exhibit 875
(1) - (2). From the impression we have the scores in Form EC8B were concocted.
        We have also observed that the votes cast as recorded in Form EC8B are at variance with the used ballot
papers counted for the units in Exhibit 1084 (10). Due to all the confusion and these far-reaching irregularities, we
hold that no credible election was conducted in the ward. We therefore nullify the results purportedly recorded
for the units of the ward.




                                                            114
       ONIPARAGA WARD 9
UNIT    VOTERS'        NUMBER OF     UNUSED       FORM        VOTES   EXHIBIT    NUMBER       FORM         VOTES
        REGISTERS'     REGISTERED    VOTERS'      EC8A        CAST    NUMBER     OF USED      EC8B         CAST
        EXHIBITS       VOTERS IN     CARDS IN     EXHIBIT     IN      OF USED    BALLOT       EXHIBIT      IN
                       THE           EXHIBIT      NUMBER      FORM    BALLOT     PAPERS       NUMBER       FORM
                                                                                                           EC8B
                       REGISTER      1098(38)                 EC8A    PAPERS     COUNTED

001     876(1)-(81)    1423                       1253    200         1084(11)   374          907(1)-
002     877(1)-(17)    273                        1138(1) 1344        " (11)     1387                      1350
003     878(1)-(17)    254                                            " (4)      246          “            248
004     879(1)-(20)    326                                            " (4)      299          “            300
005     880(1)-(20)    228                                            " (4)      194          “            197
006     881(l)-(7)     104                                            " (4)      99           “            100
007     882(1)-(26)    206
008                                                                   1084(4)    399          “            171
009     883(1)-(28)    871                        1138(2)     800     " (11)     801          “            800
010     884(1)-(23).   406           17           1138(3)     400     " (11)     397          “            400
Oil                                  51.
012     885(1)-(20)    291                                            1084(4)    381          “            92
013     886(1 -(44)    336           79
014     887(1)-(22)    440           52           1138(5)     400     1084(11)   399          cc           400
015     888(1)-(10)    148
016     889(1)-(13)    207           51           1138(6)     200     1084(4)    198          907(l)-(2)   200
017     890(l)-(29)    500           55                               " (4)      515          “            500
018     891(1)-(18)    298           33                               " (2)      220          “            346
019     892(l)-(22)    375           19
020     893(1)-(16)    262
021     894(l)-(33)    559           58           1138(7)     546     1084(2)    550          “            546
022     895(1)-(30)    508           31           " (8)       506     " (2)      500          “            506
023     896(1)-(28)    508           52           " (9)       500     " (2)      495          “            500
024     897(1)-(22)    349                                            " (U)      199          “            202
025     898(1)-(31)    541           49           1138(10)    500     " (2)      498          “            500
026     899(1)-(22)    355           12           " (11)      350     " (4)      350          “            350
027     900(1)-(29)    502                        " (12)      500     " (2)      195          “            500
028     901(1)-(20)    327                        " (13)      191     “ (11)     293          “            191
029     902(1)-(13)    137                                                       63           “            63
        903(1)-(28)    473           63           1138(14)    200     " (4)      200          “            200
 3
01      904(1)-(14)    229           34           " (15)      135     " (U)      135          “            135


        The last ward to consider in this Local Government Area is Oniparaga Ward 9. It has 31 units. The total
number of unused voters' cards in Exhibit 1098 (38) is a far cry compared with the total number of registered
voters as can be gleaned from the voters' registers from Exhibits 876 (1) - (81) to 904 (1) - (14) in the above
chart. Forms EC8A in Exhibits 1253, 1138 (1) - (3) and 1138 (5) - (15) for the units were tendered. Votes cast in
them for Units 9, 10, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31 tallied with the votes cast and recorded
in Exhibits 907 (1) - (2) (i.e. Form EC8B) for those units. In Exhibit 1084 series for used ballot papers counted,
none was counted for each of Units 7, 11, 13, 15, 19 and 20. Forms EC8A were not tendered for the 6 units and

                                                        115
no entries were made for them in Form EC8B (Exhibit 907 (1) - (2)). It follows that election was not conducted in
the 6 units. It also follows that election was conducted in remaining 25 units out of which votes cast and
recorded for 13 of the units i.e. Units 9, 10, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31 in Forms EC8A tallied with
the entries in Form EC8B for those units. IN the circumstance it will not be right to hold or conclude that
there was no credible election in the entire ward. However we have observed that though the number of
registered voters recorded in Form EC8A and Form EC8B for each of Units 28, 30 and 31 tallied, they are at
variance with the actual registered voters in the voters' registers for the 3 units. That being the case, we hereby
nullify the results for the 3 units i.e. Units 28, 30 and 31. What remains for us to do is to compute the
results from the 10 remaining units for Labour Party and PDP and the outcome is as follows:
UNITS            VOTES BY LABOR PARTY                            VOTES BY PDP
9                2                                               776
10               38                                              316
14               4                                               383
16               4                                               186
21               3                                               543
22               31                                              469
23               70                                              400
25               43                                              414
26               1                                               308
27               42                                              341
TOTAL            238                                             4136


ESE-ODO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA
        The Petitioner alleged that no election was conducted in any of the 10 wards in this Local Government Area
because ballot boxes and other electoral materials were carted away by leaders of the 2nd Respondent and agents
of the 1st Respondent in collaboration with armed militants, military men and police officers who worked
to see that the 1st Respondent was returned as the Governor of Ondo State. They added that accreditation of
voters was not done and election was not held.
        The Petitioner alleged further that the distribution centre for Arogbo Wards I, II and III and
Ukparama Wards I and II has always been Arogbo but agents of the 1st and 2nd respondents did not allow the
distribution to take place there but in the residence of a serving political office holder in the 1st Respondent's
administration in the current Government of Ondo State.
        In the said 5 wards, it was further alleged, armed militants and thugs led by one Honourable
Nanaopiri the Chairman of Christian Pilgrims Board Ondo State in the administration of the 1stRespondent and
who were agents of the 1st and 2nd Respondents engaged in sporadic shootings, scared away residents, and in the
process shot one Waribi Idepe who later died on or around 7th May, 2007as a result of the injuries he sustained.
        The Petitioner alleged also that in the said Wards all the electoral materials were seized with the


                                                           116
connivance of Returning Officers by armed thugs and militants who acted as agents for the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
        The same scenario, the Petitioner alleged, were repeated in Apoi I to V where no election was conducted.
        The Petitioner avers further that his agents complained about the conduct of the 3rd, 4th and 8th
Respondents and thugs and agents of the 1st and 2nd Respondents and that several of his agents and leaders of the
Labour Party were arrested by the police and armed soldiers. That votes were allocated illegally to the 1st
Respondent to the detriment of the Petitioner and that they experienced detention and humiliation and
that among them were Dr. F.I. Ajih, Mr. Kennedy Peretei, Mr. M.T. Agitan, Love Sofiyea, Ebenezer Iwabi, Kuro
Iwabi and Titus Ikulobunu and a member of AC Mr. Akintiewe who also complained of the conduct of the election.
        The Petitioner concluded that no election was conducted in any of the 10 wards of the Local Government
Area.
        The 1st Respondent countered that the electoral materials were brought and distributed by INEC
officials to the various polling units and that elections were peacefully conducted under the watchful eyes of
law enforcement agents, that INEC officials performed their duties of distributing materials to the designated
areas in the presence of law enforcement agents and all the parties' agents and that the distribution of materials
was done in the distribution centre and not in any private place as alleged.
        The 1st Respondent replied further that he did not employ thugs or militants and no public official was
appointed by him as his agent and that he was not aware that anybody was shot nor did he authorize the shooting of
anybody.
        The 1st Respondent countered further that no vote was allocated to him rather the results
emanated from the various polling units where election took place peacefully, that there was no hijacking of
electoral materials or illegal thumb-printing or manipulation or concoction of results and he did not
appoint anybody for that purpose, that he did not arrest, intimidate, deter anybody and nobody did so on his
behalf and that election duly took place.


        APOI I WARD 001
        On this ward the Petitioner alleged that the election materials for all the 12 units were forcibly carted away
by 2nd Respondent's chieftain and thugs engaged by the 1st and 2nd Respondents with the assistance of heavily armed
soldiers who fired several shots to scare away voters and party agents, that no votes were counted at any polling
unit and no result declared, and that collation of result at ward level did not take place and that the results emanated
from illegal voting which took place at unknown destinations which were later recorded in INEC's Form EC8B
and EC8C.
        The 1st Respondent stated that there is no ward known as Apoi I Ward 002 as alleged by the
Petitioner but stated that election took place in all the polling units in Apoi Ward 001, that like in other wards
no electoral materials were carted away by thugs or anybody, that there were no malpractices, that no voter or party
                                                          117
agent was scared, that votes were duly cast and counted and results announced and declared at the various polling
units. He added that collation of results took place at ward level and the results from votes cast appropriately
recorded in Form EC8B and EC8C.
         The 1st Respondent then placed reliance on authentic result annexure 30 in the schedule as set out in the
Form EC8B duly issued by INEC at the end of the election in this ward, and the witnesses' statements on oath in
respect of the units in this ward.
         We note that the 1st Respondent, despite questioning the existence of this ward, went ahead and joined
issues with the Petitioner with respect to the allegations and therefore leaves us with no alternative than to
resolve the issues in contention in this ward.
         PW47 has highlighted what, in his opinion, are discrepancies between the results in Forms EC8A and EC8B
and between the said results and the voters' registers for the units in this ward.
         We have critically examined the documents tendered for this ward with a view to arriving at a fair
determination of this petition.
         For Apoi I Ward 001 only 2 Forms EC8A were tendered for units 004 and 005 as Exhibits 5 and 6
respectively.
         We have noticed that there are differences in the entries for number of valid votes in Forms EC8A
and their representation in the wards result in Form EC8B (Exhibit 133 (1)). They are as follows:
                1. In Exhibit 5 the number of valid votes for the unit is 198 while in Exhibit 133 (1) it is 300.
                2. Exhibit 6 the number of valid votes is 196 while in Exhibit 133(1) it is 200.
         We have also found that the number of used or thumb-printed ballot papers for some units is
different from how they are reflected in the ward result sheet, Form EC8B. The ballot papers are Exhibit
1076 (2) while the form EC8B is Exhibit 133 (1). They are as follows:
                1. For Unit 002 the used ballot papers are 296 while in Form EC8B they are 292.
                2. For Unit 003 the used ballot papers are 398 while in Form EC8B they are 399.
                3. For Unit O i l the used ballot papers are 499 while in form EC8B they are 415.
         There are glaring discrepancies in the number of registered voters in the voters register, in the
polling units' results and in the collated ward's result in Form EC8B in respect of Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9
and 10 for this ward. In respect of Units 3 and 4 two different versions of the voters' register were tendered
with different numbers of voters' registered.
         The discrepancies in the entries of number of registered voters in the Forms EC8A, EC8B and the voters’
registers are illustrated as follows:




                                                           118
UNIT       UNITS'              UNITS               NUMBER OF              NUMBER OF       NUMBER
           RESULT              VOTERS'             VOTERS   IN THE        REGISTERED      OF VOTERS IN
           EXHIBIT             REGISTER            VOTERS' REGISTER       VOTERS     ON   THE     WARDS'
           NUMBER              EXHIBIT             FOR THE UNIT           UNITS' RESULT   RESULT:
                               NUMBER                                                     EXHIBITS 133 (1)
                                                                                          AND133 (2)
1          21(1)               7(1) -(9)           147                    600             600
2          21(2)               8(1) -(29)          499                    499             500
3          21(3)               9(1) -(17) AND      282 AND 500            500             500
                               10(1) -(64)
4          21 (4)              11(1) -(36) AND     622 AND 1000           920             920
5          21(5)               3(1) -(12)          188                    500             500
6          21(6)               14(1) -(23)         379                    231             32
7          21(7)                                                          BLANK           318
8          21(8)               15(1) -(23)         336                    336             371
9          21(9)               16(1) -(21)         318                    348             309
10         21 (10)                                                        359             359
11         21(11)              20(1) -(8)          111                    368             368


         These discrepancies raise doubt on the integrity of the results for the 11 out of 14 units in the ward
because the number of registered voters is expected to be derived from the voters' register. This is
offence to the provisions in page 30 of the "Manual for Election Officers 2007".
         These also give more credence to the allegations of the Petitioner that the results were from illegal voting.
         It is observed that there are differences between the number of thumb-printed ballot papers and the number of
votes cast in the wards' result in some circumstances. This is shown below:


         APOI I
 UNIT                    NUMBER OF USED BALLOT NUMBER OF VOTES THE FORM EC8B:
                         PAPERS FOR THE UNIT: EXHIBIT 6A AND 133 (1) CAST IN EXHIBIT
                         1077 (2)

 2                       296                                      292
 3                       398                                      399
 9                       300                                      NOT LEGIBLE
 10                      178                                      173 .
 11                      499                                      415
 12                      306                                      300
 13                      400                                      Not Clear


         These differences constitute evidence that the results in these 7 units are not the products of valid votes
cast at the polling units.
         The irregularities we have cited on this ward affect 13 out of the 14 units of this ward which we hold to be
                                                            119
substantial.
         Our attention has, however, been averted to the fact that in the cause of the proceedings we ruled that
there was no pleading in the petition with respect to Apoi I Ward 001.
         We, accordingly, accept that and as far as that ward is concerned we have become functus officio.


         APOI II WARD 002
         The Petitioner alleged that on the day of the election the election materials meant for all the 13 polling
units in this ward were forcibly hijacked at the ward collation centre located at Methodist Primary School, Kiribo
by the 2nd Respondent's chieftains and thugs engaged by the 1st and 2nd Respondents led by agents of the 1st
Respondent with the assistance of heavily armed soldiers and were carted to the house of a political office holder
at Kiribo where the ballot papers were illegally thumb-printed by thugs engaged by the 1st and 2nd respondents who
stuffed already thumb-printed ballot papers into ballot boxes the result of which was recorded on INEC's
prescribed Forms EC8A and EC8B and the latter was personally signed by the said political office holder.
         The 1st Respondent replied that election duly took place in all the 13 units of this ward where all the
electoral materials were distributed by INEC's officers and utilized at the designated units and that no electoral
materials were hijacked and carted away, no ballot paper was illegally thumb-printed or stuffed in the ballot
box. The 1st Respondent added that the results reflected in Forms EC8A and EC8B were derived from lawful
votes cast at the polling stations and that no serving political office holder signed the Form EC8B and none was
appointed as party agent of the 2nd Respondent and that collation took place at the various collation centres.
         The 1st Respondent indicated that he would rely on Form EC8B, witness' statements on oath and the
forms EC8A in respect of the units of the ward.
         In the Petitioner's volume 11 of bundle of documents PW47 has condemned the results in Forms EC8A
and EC8B for this ward for irregularities.
         We have studied the said results and all the documents tendered in respect of this ward and
have arrived at our own conclusions
         APOIII WARD 2
         There are discrepancies in the number of registered voters in the voters' registers, in the polling
unit's results and collated results for the units in the ward. These discrepancies affect Units 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 they are illustrated below:




                                                        120
UNIT    UNIT'S           UNITS VOERS      NUMBER OF VOTERS              NUMBER OF           NUMBER OF
        RESULT           REGISTER EXHIBIT IN THE VOTERS'                REGISTERED          VOTERS IN
        EXHIBIT          NUMBER           REGISER FOR                   VOTERS IN UNITS'    THE WARD'S
        NUMBER                            THE UNITT                     RESULT              RESULT: EXHIBIT
                                                                                            22 AND 133 (2)

1       21(1)            7 (1) - (9)           147                     600                  600
2       21(2)            8 (1) - (29)          499                     499                  500
3       21(3)            9(1) -(17)            282 AND 500             500                  500
4       21(4)            11(1) -(36)           622 AND 1000            920                  920
5       21(5)            13(1) -(12)           188                     500                  500
6       21(6)            14(1) -(23)           379                     231                  325
7       21(7)                                                          BLANK                318
8       21(8)            15(1) -(23)           336                     336                  371
9       21 (9)           16(1) -921)           318                     348                  309
10      21 (1))                                                        359                  359
11      21 (11)          20(1) -(8)            111                     368                  365


         The implication of these discrepancies is that it puts doubt in the authenticity of the result for failure
 to adhere to the rules contained in paragraph 4.3 on page 30 of the "Manual for Election Officials 2007" which
 provides that the number of voters in Form EC8A shall be as contained in the voters' register for the unit. In
 other words, it is a clear manifestation that the results were arbitrarily made.
         We have observed that the used or thumb-printed ballot papers for Unit 004 of this ward Exhibit
 1076 (1), are in 2 sets; one with 400 and the other with 800 ballot papers.
         We have also observed that there are differences between the number of ballot papers for same units of this
 ward and the number of votes cast on the ward result in Form EC8B (Exhibit 133 (2)). The ballot papers are
 Exhibit 1076 (1). The differences are illustrated hereunder.
UNIT                                  NUMBER OF USED                      NUMBER OF CAST VOTES
                                      BALLOT PAPERS                       IN EXHIBIT 133 (2)
3                                     399                                 400
4                                     800                                 (800)
8                                     296                                 300
10                                    200                                 189
11                                    301                                 300


        In respect of Units 3 and 4 two different versions of each of their voters' registers were tendered
with different number of registered voters.
        The differences in the used ballot papers and the results in Form EC8B mean that for the 5 units the
results were not obtained from the voting process. They lend credence to the Petitioner's allegations that they
were not the outcome of an election duly conducted in the said 5 units.


                                                          121
           These irregularities affect 11 out of the 13 units in this ward.
           It is shown clearly that the results for the 11 units are smeared by the fact that they were not
obtained as a result of election duly conducted in the units of this ward.
           We, therefore, have no hesitation in accepting the Petitioner's allegations and not according any weight to the
results.


           APOI III WARD 003
           The pleadings on this ward are the same with those in Apoi I Ward 001 and Apoi II Ward 002 which we have
stated earlier on.
           PW47's opinion on the results of the election for this ward, as expressed in Volume 11 of the Petitioner's
bundle of documents is that they are irregular.
           We have considered the pleadings and the evidence before us and we have arrived at the resolution of issues
on this ward.
           We observe that the polling unit's result for Unit 017, Exhibit 39 (14), has 297 as the number of valid
votes. It is, on simple addition, found to be 296 which is correctly reflected in the ward's result, Exhibit 133 (3) and
Exhibit 40.
           We have noticed differences in the number of valid votes recorded in some of the unit results in Forms
EC8A and the ward's result in Form EC8B. The differences are stated hereunder:
UNIT                           EXHIBIT NUMBER OF            NUMBER OF VALID         NUMBER OF VALID
                               UNITS' RESULT                VOTES IN UNIT'S         VOTES IN FORM EC8B
                                                            RESULT                  EXHIBIT 133 (3)

1                              39(1)                        202                     204
2                              "(2)                         284                     300
3                              " (3)                        200                     199
17                             "(17)                        297                     296


            These are evidence that the results for the units in respect of the 4 units were not collated. In
 essence, one of the essential requirements of the election has been breached. We have observed that there
 are differences between the number of used or thumb-printed ballot papers, Exhibits 1076 (5), and the entries
 for votes cast in the wards' results for the units in Form EC8B, Exhibit 133 (3). The differences are shown below:
UNIT                         NUMBER OF USED BALLOT PAPERS NUMBER VOTES IN OF VALID
                                                          EXHIBIT 133 (3)

5                            490                                              204
6                            200                                              300
9                            299                                              400
10                           400                                              200
11                           280                                              200

                                                                122
12                          398                                        199
13                          397                                        396
15                          423                                        399
16                          375                                        374
17                          300                                        296


 In this case the results for 10 out of the 17 units of the ward have been shown to have been improperly obtained
 giving force to the Petitioners claims that the results were obtained from illegal voting.
 On the whole 12 out of 17 results for this unit have been shown to be stained by illegalities. This, we hold to
 be substantial enough to warrant the setting aside of the result for all the units of the ward.


 APOI IV WARD 004
           The pleadings on this ward are the same as those of Apoi I Ward 001, Apoi II Ward 002 and Apoi III
Ward 003 which we have treated earlier.
           On page 232 and 233 of the Petitioner's bundle of documents, PW47 expressed the opinion that
the results for the election which emanated from this ward are irregular.
           We have considered the evidence led and have arrived at the following conclusions.
           We have noticed that Form EC8B for this ward, Exhibit 49 and 133 (4), is very badly mutilated with
a lot of calculations which have no bearing with the collation of election results.
           We have, however, decided to ignore the mutilations since they do not seem to have affected the result of
the election.
           We have noticed differences in the number of registered voters for the units between the unit's
results in Forms EC8A and their reflection in the ward's result in Form EC8B. They are illustrated below:
    UNIT           UNIT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER          NUMBER OF REGISTERED NUMBER OF REGISTERED
                                                  VOTERS IN UNIT'S     VOTERS IN WARD'S
                                                  RESULT               RESULT EXHIBIT 133 (4)
1                  48(1)                          406                           400
2                  " (2)                          334                           360
5                  " (4)                          402                           434

7                  " (6)                          461                           396


           The wards' result in Form EC8B is expected to be derived from the collation of Forms EC8A, the polling
unit's results. The entries for the number of registered voters in Form EC8B for any unit cannot be different from
the number of registered voters recorded in the unit's results. The differences in the entries for the units in the two
sets of results can only mean that there was no collation of the unit's results at the ward level.
           This occasions a breach of an essential linkage in the electoral process.


                                                            123
        It is noted that in paragraph 21.8 XI of the petition and paragraph 234 of the 1st Respondent's reply the
parties agreed that the ballot box and ballot papers for Unit 005 of this ward were burnt by thugs. We are, however,
astonished to see that a CTC of the result for the said Unit 005 was tendered in evidence. We refer to Exhibit 48
(4).
        We conclude that the said Exhibit was concocted.
        Moreover, there are differences between the numbers of used or thumb-printed ballot papers for 5 units with the
number of votes cast in the Form EC8B for this ward as shown below:
UNIT                  THUMB-PRINTED BALLOT PAPERS                       NUMBER OF VOTES CAST FOR THE
                      FOR THE UNIT                                      UNIT IN FORM EC8B EXHIBITS 49
                                                                        AND 133 (4)
1                     244                                               295
2                     299                                               298
3                     298                                               300
4                     385 AND 300                                       293
5                     300                                               292


          The inconsistency in the number of used ballot papers with the number of votes cast as reflected in From EG8B
 shows that the results for the units were not the outcome of valid election held in the said units.
          The sum total of these occurrences in evidence are that there was no collation at the ward level in 4 units and
 the results for 5 units were fabricated. There is even evidence that a result which both parties agreed did not exist
 for Unit 005 Exhibit 48 (4) was tendered.
          By the admission of the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent there was violence at Unit 005 during the
 election which led to the burning of the ballot box and ballot papers for the unit.
          This means the election was fraught in some instances with violence.
          There are 7 units in this ward. There was no collation in 4 and no election in 5 from our findings. In all,
 the irregularities affected 6 units. Election, as held in AONDOAKAA vs. A JO (1991) 5 NWLR (Part 602)
 page 206 consists of accreditation, voting, counting, collation of results and announcement of these results.
          All these are essential for a valid election to be said to have been held. On this ward the elections in 6
 out of 7 units suffered from non-voting or non-collation. The conclusion is therefore that there was no election in
 all of the 6 units which form a substantial part of the units in the ward.
          The result for the election in this ward is also nullified.


          APOI V WARD 005
          The pleadings on this ward are the same as those of Apoi I Ward 001, Apoi II Ward 002, Apoi III
 Ward 003 and Apoi IV Ward 004. The entries in some units' results are not properly reflected in the wards' result in
 Form EC8B. It is shown as follows:

                                                               124
 UNIT                  EXHIBIT NUMBER                   NUMBER OF VOTERS IN NUMBER OF VALID
                       OF UNIT'S RESULT                 UNIT'S RESULT       VOTES IN WARDS'
                                                                            RESULT: EXHIBIT 133
                                                                            (5) AND 159
 1                     58(1)                            390                     400
 2                     " (2)                            388                     400
 6                     " (4)                            390                     400


          This shows that the results in Form EC8B were not obtained from Forms EC8A.
          It is the entries in form EC8A that gets to Form EC8B and subsequent other results.


          APOI V WARD 005
          We found two sets of RESULTS used or thumb-printed for Unit 006, one with 399 votes and the other with 299
votes.
          We also observe that there are differences between the number of used ballot papers for Units 1, 2 and
6 and the number of valid votes in the ward's result in Exhibit 133 (5). This is shown below:
 UNIT              NUMBER OF USED BALLOT PAPERS:                 NUMBER OF THE WARD'S 133 (5) VALID
 1                 399                                           400
 2                 398                                           400
 (6                397                                           (400)
 (6                299


            This shows that the results in Form EC8B with regards to the 3 units were not obtained from the
    outcome of valid elections in the units.
            We have observed differences in the number of registered voters between the voters' registers
    and the units' and wards' results for this ward. They are illustrated as follows:


UNIT      UNIT RESULT'S      NUMBER OF         VOTERS'        NUMBER OF                 NUMBER OF REGISTERED
          EXHIBIT            VOTERS IN         REGISTER       VOTERS IN THE             VOTERS' IN THE FORM
          NUMBER             THE UNIT'S        EXHIBIT NUMBER VOTERS' REGISTER          EC8B: EXHIBITS 59 AND
                             RESULT                           FOR THE UNIT              133 (5)

1         58(1)              473               50(1) -(28)           473                450
2         " (2)              494               51(1) -(29)           494                500
3         1226               370               52(1) -(22)           370                400
4                                              53(1) -(27)           444                475
5         58(3)              315               54(1) -(19)           315                555
6         58 (4)             459               55 (1) - (27)         459                500
7                                              56(1) -(25)           421                192
8                                              57(1) -(28)           493                500



                                                               125
         These showed that the number of voters recorded in the Forms EC8A and EC8B of this ward,
were not obtained from the voters registers for the units as required by the "Manual for Election Officials
2007" on page 30.
         These affected all the 5 units which Form EC8A were tendered and all the 8 units of the ward as
reflected in the Form EC8B.
         In simple terms, these indicate that the whole results for the ward were arbitrarily written. These bear
out the allegations of the Petitioners that the results did not emanate from elections.
         The results for this ward are, accordingly set aside for being obtained in manners which are not
consistent with free and fair elections.


         AROGBO I WARD 006, AROGBO II WARD 007 AND AROGBO III WARD 8
         The Petitioner's allegations and the Respondents' defence ARE stated in the introduction of issue on
these wards, and can be seen in paragraphs 21.8 (i) (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (viii), (ix), (x), (xii) and (xiii) of the petition
and paragraphs 218, 219 220, 221, 222 and 230 of the 1st Respondent's reply.
         Generally, the allegations of the Petitioner which have been refuted by the 1st Respondent with respect to
these 3 wards are that as a result of certain acts perpetrated by the 1st and 2nd Respondents through their agents and
armed policemen, thugs, militants and armed soldiers elections did not duly take place in any of the units in the 3
wards in contention.
         Petitioner's witness, (PW27) testified to the effect that he was Labour Party's agent for Orijatu unit on
the day of the election and that at about 8.30 a.m. the election materials were brought by INEC's staff accompanied
by armed soldiers and policemen, that the INEC's staff went to the house of one D.I. Kekemeke and
reported their arrival and the said D.I. Kekemeke ordered that the electoral materials be taken into his residence
which was resisted by the other parties as a result of which some thugs came out of Kekemeke's residence and
a fight ensured and the policemen and soldiers started shooting into the crowd and one Waribi Idepe was shot in the
loins and was receiving treatment. The policemen and soldiers, PW27 stated further went away with many ballot
boxes and other materials and the PDP thugs led by the said D.I. Kekemeke made away with 8 ballot
boxes, that the materials in question were brought for Arogbo I, II and III.
         PW27 then identified Exhibits 101 (1) - (10) as the reports made concerning Waribi Idepe which he said
he never made but he got from the immediate family of Waribi Idepe. He said under cross-examination that prior
to the election day he did not hold any meetings with D.L Kekemeke and PDP members or armed policemen
and soldiers, that he could not tell who shot Waribi Idepe because the armed policemen, armed soldiers and
thugs were shooting at the same time, that Felix and Godspower Idepe who are brothers of Waribi Idepe are alive,
that he did not enter into D.I. Kekemeke's house, that he did not complain about the conduct of the soldiers and
police to their respective authorities, that the fight he referred to took place at Agadagba Obon and it lasted
                                                                126
for between 5 and 6 hours, that he observed the fight without taking sides, that he was at Orijatu at 7.30 a.m.
but he was not there at 3.00 p.m. and that there was no crossfire on that day because the shooting was from only
one side.
         PW28 said he was trained and commissioned by the Civil Liberties organization (CLO), a non-
governmental organization, to act as an observer for the 14th April, 2007 Governorship and House of Assembly elections
to cover Arogbo II and III wards of Ese Odo Local Government Area of Ondo State. He said that in the
morning of that day he went to Agadagba Obon to witness dispatching of electoral materials to wards
collation centres for onward distribution to various polling units in Arogbo II and III, that the materials arrived at
about 8.40 a.m. accompanied by armed soldiers and armed policemen led by one Mr. Fadele, a staff of INEC,
that instead of dispatching the materials the soldiers and policemen started shooting sporadically into the air on
the ground that there was heated argument between leaders of other political parties and D.L Kekemeke, a
PDF leader on the suitability of Agadagba Obon as the distribution centre, that thereafter PDF thugs in
collaboration with INEC's officials and PDF leaders carted away the electoral materials to an undisclosed
destination that the electoral materials did not get to any of the collation centres in Arogbo II and III so
there was no election in any of the polling units, that thereafter he filed his report with his organization and
that he was issued with identification card by INEC and a pass by his organization which he tendered and were
marked as Exhibits 1120 and 1121.
         PW28 under cross-examination said further that he was a majority leader for Ese Odo Local
Government between May 1999 and May, 2002 which he contested on the platform of Alliance for Democracy,
that he contested for vice chairmanship on the platform of the same party and lost to the PDP. He
tendered the observers' checklist which was admitted and marked as Exhibit 1122 (1) - (2). He testified
further that he gave the originals of Exhibit 1122 (1) - (2) to the Civil Liberties Organisation, that some
aspects of Exhibit 1122 were not filled by him, that he did not file in some aspects of the exhibit because it was not
necessary to do so since there was no election and that it was meant for situations where there was election or the
election was not properly conducted that he did not see any party agents since there was no election, that the
distribution of election materials for Ese Odo Local Government Area was supposed to have taken place at
Igbekebo, the headquarters of the Local Government, that there were two observers for CLO, that he did not get
to Igbekebo, that from the report he filed he was at Agadagba Obon from 9.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. and that Igbekebo was
outside his area of coverage, that he was at Fadele and Agadagba Obon and not at Igbekebo and that he reported the
conduct of the election to CLO and not to INEC. The 1st Respondent led RW32 and RW34 to rebut the
evidence led by the Petitioner.
         RW32's evidence was that election in Polling Unit I of Arogbo II ward and the whole of
Arogbo II ward was duly conducted in a peaceful atmosphere devoid of violence, snatching and carting away of
electoral materials under the watchful eyes of law enforcement agents. He said he and others voted under a
                                                         127
peaceful atmosphere at Polling Unit 001 and that he lost his voter's card after the election. He then identified his
name and his particulars in the Exhibit 75 (1) - (75) which is the voters' register for the unit in which he said he voted.
He added that it took him about 5 hours to vote at the unit and that within that time he did not experience any electoral
malpractice, that the unit where he voted also served as collation and distribution centre for the ward, that he voted
around 1.00 p.m. and the electoral materials were brought to the unit around 11.30 a.m., that he did not know that
there was evidence that electoral materials did not arrive in the whole of his ward on that day as at 3.00 p.m.
         RW34 testified that he and other voters voted at Agoeri Polling Unit of Arogo II in a peaceful
atmosphere devoid of malpractices under the watchful eyes of law enforcement agents, that the election in the
whole of Arogbo II was conducted in like manner and that he misplaced his voter's card after the election. RW34
identified his picture and details on Exhibit 1258 (1) - (18), the voters' register for his unit.
         RW34 confirmed that on exhibit 78 (15) which was voters' register for his unit his details were not ticked at all.
         RW34 stated further that the card he used to vote was marked during accreditation and that he did not know and
did not want to see the evidence that INEC produced to show that register of voters for his unit was not available.
         Exhibits 1258 (1) - (18) and 78 (1) - (18) are certified copies of one and the same voters' register for
Unit 004 open space of Arogbo II Ward 007 of Ese-Odo Local Government Area. Exhibit 78 (1) – (18) was certified on
24th August, 2007 while Exhibit 1258 (1) - (18) was certified on 3rd September, 2007 by INEC. It is astonishing that while
on Exhibit 78 (15) the picture and particulars of RW34 represented as number 243 and all other registered
voters were not ticked, in Exhibit 1258 (15) the same particulars of RW34 and all the other registered voters on the
same page were ticked to show that they voted.
         Ordinarily each of the two documents should enjoy the presumption of regularity and genuineness
attached to every CTC of a document. This, however, is not an ordinary situation because the same document is telling
lies about itself in two different circumstances: one saying RW34 voted and the other saying otherwise. We
therefore arrive at the inevitable conclusion that the voters' registers represented in Exhibits 78 and 1258 have so
abused the whole purpose of the presumption of regularity and genuineness that they cannot enjoy such
presumption. Furthermore, we cannot pick and choose which of the two voters' registers to believe in the
circumstances. See Section 114 (1) of Evidence Act.
         We have also looked at CTC of "Request for New Ballot Boxes" from Electoral Officer for Ese-Odo
Local Government Area to the Resident electoral Commissioner in Akure, Exhibit 1106 (5), dated 18th April,
2007 wherein it was reported that the registers for Units 1-12 of Arogbo II were missing. This includes one for
Unit 004 of Arogbo II.
         We note that Exhibit 1106 (5), was made before the two voters' registers were certified.
         In other words the two CTC of the voters' register for Unit 004 of Arogbo II Ward 007, Exhibits 78 (1)
- (18) and 1258 (1) -(18) are not credible.
         Furthermore, since the voters' register upon which RW34 is relying to show that he voted has lost
                                                                  128
credibility and by his own evidence he has lost his voter's card there is no basis for this Tribunal to accept
his evidence that voting took place and he and others voted at Unit 004 of Arogbo II Ward 007. We rely on
Sections 50 (1) and 19 of the Electoral Act to show that the voting the witness said he did was unlawful because he
did not comply with the statutory requirements of these sections.
         See also Section 114 and 156 of the Evidence Act on presumptions of regularity and genuineness of
the voters' registers.
         To support his allegation that there was a fight on the day of the election at Agadagbo Obon where the
armed thugs, armed soldiers and armed policemen shot into the crowd of protesters the Petitioner tendered Exhibit 48
which shows that one Waribi Idepe was a patient in the hospital because of injuries be sustained as a result of gunshots
on 14 April, 2007 and Exhibit 4 which is a Medical Certificate of Cause of Death of the said Waribi Idepe shown to
be gunshot injury.
         The Petitioner's allegation as contained in paragraph 21.8 (v) of the petition was countered by the 1st Respondent
in paragraph 220 of his reply in which he said he was not aware that anybody was shot and did not authorize the shooting
of anybody.
         The evidence of RW34 has been thoroughly discredited.
         The only other Respondent's witness who testified on the events at Agadagba Obon which culminated in the
shootings and eventual wounding of Waribi Idepe is RW32 whose evidence was clearly restricted to Unit 001 of Arogbo II
Ward 007. He never claimed that he visited Agadagba Obon on that day.
         The result for the said Unit 001 Exhibit 87 (1), is so defective that it cannot be conferred with any credibility for the
following reasons:
         1.          It was not signed by the Presiding Officer and this contravenes the mandatory requirements of
                     Section 64 (2) of the Electoral Act 2006 which provides that –
                     "The form shall be signed and stamped by the Presiding Officer and counter-signed by the
                     candidates or their polling agents where available".
                     The "Manual for Election Officials 2007" also provides in paragraph 4.3 step 8 that the
                     Presiding Officer shall, among other things, sign the result form.
         2.          The number of registered voters on the result sheet contradicts the number in the
                     voters' register for the unit (Exhibit 75 (1) - (65)). The number of voters in the voters'
                     register for the unit is 1132 while in the result sheet it is recorded as 1130. This contravenes
                     the clear and mandatory requirement of the "Manual for Election Officials 2007" which
                     provides in item 4.3 step 2 as follows: "The Presiding Officer shall record the number of
                     registered voters as contained in the register of voters".
         3.          It has also contravened the requirements of Item 4.3 steps 4, 5 and 7 of the "Manual for
                     Election Officials 2007" with regards to recording the number of spoilt and rejected ballot
                                                                129
                  papers, recording the number of valid votes in wards and adding up the spoilt and
                  rejected and recording same.
        In the light of the above we find it difficult to accept that the result is the outcome of valid election bearing in
mind the failure to comply with the simple requirements which would lend credence to the election in the unit.
        Furthermore, Exhibit 1106 (5) which emanated from INEC shows that 13 ballot boxes for Arogbo
I were smashed and destroyed by irate youth.
        Exhibit 1089 which is a letter from the Electoral Officer for Ese-Odo Local Government to the Resident
Electoral Commissioner of Ondo State which says election was not held in Arogbo II because some hoodlums
carted away ballot boxes and some other electoral materials at Agadagba beach emanated from INEC which is a
Respondent in this case. It constitutes a clear admission against INEC's interest which has been held to be the
best and most reliable evidence.
        The implication of the contents of Exhibits 1106 (5) and 1089 are that INEC, which was
statutorily charged with the conduct of the election admitted the occurrence of thuggery and violence as a
result of which free and fair election could not be said to have been conducted in the Arogbo I and II.
        Furthermore, neither the Petitioner nor Respondents tendered the results from the units or the ward for
Arogbo I Ward 006.
        The Petitioner pleaded that there was no election in any of the units of this ward so he could not be
expected to produce the results of the election which he claimed did not take place.
        That, clearly, is the duty of the Respondents who asserted that elections in all the units of the ward
were duly conducted in a peaceful atmosphere. We refer to Section 137 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act.
        In respect of the same AROGBO II WARD 007 we have observed very serious discrepancies
between the number of voters registered in the results for Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of this ward
and the collated result for the ward and the voters' register for the respective units. They are illustrated hereunder:
UNIT     EXHIBIT       NUMBER OF                     NUMBER OF            VOTERS' REGISTER NUMBER OF
         NUMBER OF     VOTERS IN UNITS'              REGISTERED           EXHIBIT NUMBER VOTERS IN
         UNIT'S RESULT VOTERS'                       VOTERS IN            OF UNIT          WARD'S RESULT
                       REGISTER                      UNIT'S RESULT                         133 (6) AND 88
1        87(1)               1132                    1130                 75 (1) - (65)           1130
2        " (2)               318                     325                  76(1) -(18)             325
3        "(3)                269                     304                  77(1) -(17)             270
4        " (4)               303                     303                  78(1) -(18)             304
5        " (5)               282                     282                  79(1) -(17)             304
6        " (6)               288                     288                  80(1) -(17)             286
7        " (7)               116                     318                  81(1) -(8)              321
8        " (8)               327                     254                  82(1) -(18)             327
9        " (9)               446                     327                  83(1) -(26)             327
10       " (10)              854                     327                  84 (i) _ (49)           327

                                                            130
11       " (11)               337                        327                  85 (1) - (20)      327

12       Not Available        86                         Not Available        86(1) -(6)         316

        These add weight to the fact that there was no election in the ward because the number of voters in the
result sheets were not obtained from the voters' register as required by the "Manual for Election Officials 2007"
at page 30.
        This means that the entries in the Form EC8A and EC8B were arbitrarily inserted in the forms.
        There are also discrepancies as shown in the chart above between the number of registered
voters in the ward's result, Exhibit 133 (6) and 88, and the number of voters in the voters' register for the
Unit (12) Exhibit 86 (1) - (6). In the former the number of registered voters is 86 and in the later it is 316.
        Furthermore, while 86 voters were recorded in the voters' register for the said Unit 12 the ward
result Exhibits 133 (6) and 88, show that 316 valid votes were cast in the unit.
        Unused voters' cards for 9 units of this ward were tendered as evidence that their holders were not
allowed to vote. They are as follows:
UNIT     EXHIBIT NUMBER OF UNIT'S VOTERS' CARDS                         NUMBER OF VOTERS' CARDS
1        1098 (1)                                                       287
2        “                                                              103
4        “                                                              12
7        “                                                              48
8        “                                                              25
9        “                                                              163
10       “                                                              159
11       “                                                              52
12       “                                                              103


         The Petitioner tendered Exhibits 1098 (1) unused voters' cards belonging to voters who claimed they
 were evidence that they were not afforded the opportunity to vote at their respective wards. The voters' cards
 related to Units 001, 002, 003, 004, 007, 008, 009, 010, 011 and 012 of this ward. It is apparent that none of the voters'
 card tendered has been marked to show that it was used to vote. The voters cards tendered are 287, 103, 12, 48, 25,
 163, 159, 52 and 103 for Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 respectively.
         A comparison of sample of the contents of the voters' registers for the said units with those of the
 voters' cards tendered to show that their holders were not allowed to vote are indicated below;
          1.    In respect of Unit 001 the names of 42 of the persons, whose voters' cards were tendered are not in the
                voters' register for the unit (Exhibit 75 (1) - (65))
          2.    That the names of 83 out of the holders of the said voters' cards for the said unit are not
                ticked at all in the voters' register.
          3.    Twenty five of the names of holders of the voters' cards were ticked once in the voters' register while

                                                               131
                  the rest of the names were ticked twice.
           4.     We also found that voter number 115 in the voters' register produced two voters' cards
                  with the same numbers.
          Similarly the voters' cards tendered for Units 002, 004, 007, 008, 009, 010, 011 and 012, like those for
Unit 001, marked as Exhibit 1098 (1) were not used, at any time to vote.
          The voters' registers for the said units are marked as Exhibits 76 (1) - (18), 78 (1) - (18), 81 (1) - (8), 82
(1) - (18), 83 (1) -(26), 84 (1) - (49) and 85 (1) - (20), 86 (1) - (6) respectively.
          All the said voters' cards are afflicted by similar problems as indicated in respect of the voters' registers and the voters'
cards for Unit 001 of this ward.
          It is clear that on none of the voters' cards tendered in respect of the units stated above was it indicated that the holder of
the said voter's card voted.
          We have compared the contents of the voters' registers for the said units with those of the voters' cards tendered
to show that their holders were not allowed to vote. Samples of the outcome of the comparison are shown below.
          In respect of Unit 001 the names of 42 of the persons whose voters' cards were tendered are not in
the voters' register for the unit, Exhibit 75(1)-(65).
          We also discovered that 83 out of the holders of voters' cards for the unit do not have their names
ticked in the said voters' register.
          Twenty five of the names of persons on the voters' cards were ticked once in the voters' register
while the rest of the names were ticked twice.
          We also note that voter number 115 in the voters' register tendered two voters' cards with the same
numbers.
          It is observed that none of the voters' cards tendered for Unit 002 of Ward 007 was marked to show
that the holder of the card voted in any election.
          The samples of voters' cards for Unit 002 of the same ward compared with the entries in the voters'
register, Exhibit 76 (1) - (18), indicate the following:
VOTERS' REGISTER NUMBER IN THE EXHIBIT NUMBER OF TIMES THE VOTERS' NAME
76 (1) - (18)                          IS TICKED IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER

14                                                                 TWICE
77                                                                 “”
78                                                                 “
101                                                                “
237                                                                “
274                                                                ‘’
283                                                                NOT TICKED


          It is noted that the names of some of the persons whose voters' cards were tendered are not in the

                                                                  132
voters' register.
         None of the voters' cards tendered for Unit 004 of this ward was marked to show that the holder
of the card voted at any election.
         The following observation are made with respect to the names of the voters whose voters’ cards were tendered in
the voters’ register Exhibit 78(1) –(18):
S/NO.                   VOTERS' NUMBER IN VOTERS'                 NUMBER OF TIMES VOTERS' NAME IS TICKED IN
                        REGISTER                                  THE VOTERS’ REGISTER
1.                      17                                        ONCE
2.                      55                                        “
3.                      65-68                                     NOT TICKED
4.                      74-79                                     ONCE
5.                      83-84                                     NOT TICKED
6.                      85-87                                     NOT TICKED
7.                      151                                       ONCE
8.                      154                                       NOT TICKED
9.                      76                                        ONCE
10.                     101                                       NOT TICKED


           It is noted that the name numbered 85 on the voters' register has 2 voters' cards tendered bearing his
 name and particulars.
           All the voters' cards tendered for Unit 007 of this ward to show that their holders could not vote
 do not have markings to show that they were ever used to vote.
           We have examined the said voters' cards alongside the voters' register for the unit, Exhibit 81 (1)
 - (8), and we discovered as follows:
S/NO      VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER                NUMBER OF TIMES VOTERS' NAME IS
                                                                TICKED IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER
1.        3                                                     ONCE
2.        9-16                                                  NOT TICKED
3.        23-25                                                 ONCE
4.        72 AND 73                                             ONCE
5.        74                                                    NOT TICKED
6.        81                                                    “
          86                                                    cc
8.        91                                                    ONCE
9.        93                                                    “
10        98-102                                                NOT TICKED

         In respect of Unit 008 none of the voters' cards tendered in
         Exhibit 1098 (1) was marked to show that the holder of the card ever voted.
         We have examined samples of the said voters' and their respective entries in the units' voters' register,
Exhibit 82 (1) - (18) and discovered the following:

                                                          133
S/NO.    VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' NUMBER OF TIMES VOTERS' NAME IS
         REGISTER                      TICKED IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER

1.       3-16                                      ONCE
2.       140
3.       141
4.       142                                       “
5.       143
6.       161                                       TWICE
7.       162                                       ONCE
8.       163                                       “
9.       262
10.      144                                       “


          All the voters' cards tendered as Exhibit 1098 (1) in respect of Unit 009 of this ward were not
  marked to indicate that their holders ever used them to vote at any election.
          A comparison of samples of Exhibits 1098 (1) with the contents of the voters' register for the
  unit, Exhibit 83 (1) - (26), shows as follows:
S/NO.           VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'               NUMBER OF TIMES VOTERS' NAME IS
                REGISTER                                    TICKED IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER

1.              275                                         TWICE
2.              400-411                                     NOT TICKED
3.              298                                         TICKED TWICE
4.              294
5.              295
6.              229
7.              252
8.              91                                          “
9.              90
10.             88


        The voters' cards tendered as Exhibit 1098 (1) with respect to Unit 010 of this ward were, without exception,
not marked to show that they were ever used to vote.
        We have examined samples of Exhibits 1098 (1) alongside the voters' register Exhibit 84 (1) - (49) for the
unit and made the following findings.
S/NO.                        VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' NUMBER OF TIMES VOTERS’ ID
                             REGISTER                      TICKED IN THE REGISTER

1.                           816-825                                  NOT TICKED
2.                           826-835
3.                           836                                      ONCE
4.                           281-294                                  NOT TICKED
5.                           741
6.                           743                                      ONCE

                                                           134
7.                             82                                           NOT TICKED
8.                             347                                          ONCE
9.                             348
10.                            382


         The voters' cards tendered as Exhibit 1098 (1) for Unit 011 of this ward do not bear markings to show that they
were ever used to vote.
         A comparison of contents of samples of Exhibit 1098 (1) and Exhibit 85 (1) - (20) for the said unit with the
contents of the voters' register for the unit reveals the following:
S/NO.               VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'                      NUMBER OF TIMES VOTERS' NAME IS
                    REGISTER                                           TICKED IN THE REGISTER
1.                  54                                                 TWICE
2.                  165
3.                   41
4.                   70
5.                   69
6.                   151
7.                   188
8.                   150
9.                   36
10.                  53


         Similarly, all the voters' cards tendered to show that their holders were not given the opportunity
to vote in respect of Unit 012 of this ward do not have markings as evidence that their holders ever used
them to vote.
         A sample of the said voters' cards put alongside the voters' register for the said Unit 12, Exhibit 86
(1) - (6), discloses the following:
S/NO.                VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' NUMBER OF TIME VOTERS' NAME IS
                     REGISTER                      TICKED IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER
1.                   48                                                   ONCE
2.                   34
3.                   53
4.                   49
5.                   28
6.                   85
                     64
8                    89
9.                   88                                                   “
10.                  86                                                   NOT TICKED


           It is observed that while 103 unused voters' card were tendered for this unit there are only 90


                                                              135
voters in the register of voters for this unit, Exhibit 86 (1) - (6).
            In all these units we have found that none of the voters' cards was marked and where the name and particulars
of their respective holders were marked in the voters' register we hold that there was no proper accreditation and
therefore the election for the unit concerned was flawed.
            We rely on NWEKE vs. EJIMS (1999) 11 NWLR (Part 625) 39 at 53 where it was held as follows:
                 "It is the stamping of the voter's card and the marking of the electoral register that proves that
                 accreditation did in fact take place....."
            It is also clear that a person cannot vote without proper accreditation.
            We have gone to the length we have gone to show that the polling units and wards results, and the
voters' registers and the voter's card are so conflicting that they are heading towards mutually absurd
annihilation.
            Clearly, the number of voters in the voters' register was not used as basis for determining the number of
voters who allegedly voted at the election; the result of which was then transferred to Forms EC8A and EC8B
and subsequent other results.
            It is also obvious that proper accreditation not conducted in all of Units 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12
which are 9 out of the 14 units of this ward.
            Bearing in mind the requirements for a valid election as enunciated in AONDOAKAA vs. AJO
(supra) and the decision in OLAFEMI vs. AYO AND 2 OTHERS in CA/A/281/07 which condemns
election documents on whose face can be gleaned obvious irregularities, we are left with no choice than to
believe that elections were not duly conducted in Arogbo II Ward 007 of Ese-Odo Local Government Area.
            This is so because the processes which would ensure free, fair and credible election were grossly
violated.
            From the evaluation of evidence of PW27 and PW28 on the one hand and RW32 and RW34 on the
other it is obvious that the resolutions we have arrived at apply to Arogbo III Ward 008.
            We have also looked at other evidence in respect of Ward 008. These include, among others, forms
EC8A for Units 1-13 marked as Exhibit 103 (1) - (13) respectively, Form EC8B marked as Exhibits 133 (7) and 104
and unused voter's cards to show that their holders were not allowed to vote at the 14th April, 2007
election. They were marked as Exhibit 1098 (4) and they were for Units 3, 4, 5, 9 and 14 of Arogbo III Ward 008.
            It is observed that in respect of Exhibit 103 (5) 200 ballot papers were issued to the unit while the total of
rejected, spoilt and used ballot papers and valid votes amounted to 212, 12 ballot papers more than issued.
            For Exhibit 103 (13) two ballot papers were issued but total ballot papers used was 400.
            In Form EC8B, Exhibits 133 (7) and 104 the entries for Units 7, 8 and 14 in respect of PDF are mutilated and
are not legible. And, in the same exhibit the total votes cast for Units 2, 7, 8, 12 and 14 are also mutilated and cannot be
read.
                                                              136
           There are differences between the number of thumb-printed ballot papers and the number of votes cast as
reflected in the units' and ward's result for Arogbo III Ward 008. They are illustrated hereunder:
UNIT UNITS' RESULTS        NUMBER OF            NUMBER OF BALLOT PAPERS          NUMBER OF VOTES CAST IN
     EXHIBIT               VOTES IN             EXHIBIT 1076 (7)                 FORM EC8B: EXHIBIT 133 (7)
     NUMBER                UNITS' RESULT
1      1181(1)             347                  202                              347
2                                               298                              200
3      "     (2)           400                  399                              400
4      "     (3)           267                  227                              267
5                                               199                              194
6                                               159                              100
7      "      (4)          387                  221                              287
8      "      (5)          254                  256                              184
10     "      (6)          300                  297                              300
11                                              288                              387
12                                                                               397
13                                              (520) (319) TWO SETS OF          200
                                                BALLOT PAPERS FOR
                                                UNIT 01 3
14     "     (18)          204                  318                              200


           The number of used or thumb-printed ballot papers for each unit are expected to be the same as the
 number of votes cast for the units and wards in Forms EC8A and EC8B. In the instant case as shown in the chart
 above they are completely different except for Unit 009.
           The number of votes cast in Forms EC8A and EC8B are supposed to correspond with the
 number of votes cast in Forms EC8A and EC8B because the entries for the results in the 2 forms are supposed
 to be derived from the number of used ballot papers at the election.
           In the light of these discrepancies we hold that the number of votes in Forms EC8A and B could not have
 been the outcome of the election; they were concocted.
           Unused voter's cards were tendered to show that their holders were not allowed to vote at their
 respective units. They are illustrated as follows:
UNIT       EXHIBIT NUMBER OF VOTERS' CARDS               NUMBER        OF     VOTERS' CARDS

3          1098 (4)                                      48
4                                                        71
5                                                        40
9                                                        21
14                                                       64


           All the voters' cards tendered for Units 3, 4, 5, 9 and 14 of this ward as Exhibit 1098 (4) have no markings
to show that their holders voted in any election.

                                                          137
         Samples of the voters' cards for the said units have been compared with the contents of the
 voters' registers for their respective units and the outcome illustrated hereunder:


UNIT 3 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER AS EXHIBIT 91 (1) - (2)
S/NO VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER NUMBER OF TIMES VOTERS' NAME IS TICKED

1.      75                                                      ONCE
2.      302
3.      193
4.      203
5.      21
6.      249
7.      300
8.      43
9.      298
10.     305

 Note:        All the voters are ticked once except 212, 213, 214 and 354 not shown to have been ticked at all.
                       UNIT 4 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER AS EXHIBIT 92 (1) - (16)
S/NO.    VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISER                    NUMBER OF TIMES VOTERS' NAME IS
                                                                  TICKED IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER

1.       9                                                        TWICE
2.       161
3.       37
4.       82
5.       141
6.       192
7.       143
8.       160
         36
         42


UNIT 5 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER AS EXHIBIT 93 (1) - (12)
S/NO.    VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISER                    NUMBER OF TIMES VOTERS' NAME IS
                                                                  TICKED IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER
1.       107                                                      TWICE
2.       63
3.       89
4.       83
5.       163
6.       26
7.       100
8.       49
9.       72
10.      74

                                                            138
UNIT 009 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER AS EXHIBIT 97 (1) - (19)
S/NO.    VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'                               NUMBER OF TIMES VOTERS' NAME IS
         REGISTER                                                    TICKED IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER

1.       291                                                         TWICE
2.       260
3.       176
4.       6
5.       42
6.       175
7.       174
8.       293
9.       108
10.      21


UNIT 014 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER AS EXHIBIT 102 (1) - (16)

S/NO.    VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISER                  NUMBER OF TIMES VOTERS' NAME IS TICKED
                                                                IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER
1.       101                                                    TWICE
2.       29
3.       193
4.       196                                                    ONCE
5.       192                                                    TWICE
6.       66
7.       23                                                     “
8.       93                                                     “
9.       141                                                    “
10.      61                                                     ONCE




          It is to be noted that two voters' cards were tendered for under number 23 on the voters' register.
         We therefore hold that for these units where the voters' cards were not marked and the name of their
holders were ticked in the voters' registers, there was no proper accreditation. See the case NWEKE vs.
EJIMS (supra) which also means a vital link in the electoral process, as enunciated in AONDOAKAA vs.
AJO (supra) is missing rendering the election in this ward void.
         We note that with respect to AROGBO I WARD 006 only the voters' registers were tendered. None
of the parties tendered either the polling unit's results or the ward result.
         The Petitioner contended that there was no election in any of the polling units of this ward but the 1st
Respondent countered that elections duly took place and results were appropriately collated and announced and
entered in the respective result forms.
         In the circumstances, the Petitioner could not be expected to produce the results of an election he said
                                                            139
never took place. The 1st Respondent had the burden of procuring and producing the results for the units he claimed
elections were duly conducted. In any event, the Petitioner has reproduced the transcript of the announcement of
the result of the Governorship election of 14th April, 2007 as broadcast by the Resident Electoral Commissioner on
page 6 of the petition wherein it is clearly stated that the election for Arogbo II Code 06 was cancelled
because of massive rigging.
            The Respondents never denied these facts in their replies to the petition.
            We, therefore, hold that no issue was joined by the parties in respect of Arogbo I Ward 006 which should
require the resolution of this Tribunal. We refer to NGIGE vs. OBI (2006) 14 NWLR (Part 999) 1 at 122.
            We, accordingly, accept that the election in the ward was cancelled as a result of massive rigging.


            UKPARAMAI WARD 009 AND UKPARAMAII WARD 010
            The Petitioner's allegations on these two wards are contained in paragraph 21.8 (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) which
was countered by the 1st Respondents' averments in paragraphs 218, 219, 220 and 221 of his reply to the
petition.
            PW29 testified in respect of the two wards. His evidence was to the effect that he was appointed
Supervisory Agent by Labour Party to supervise the conduct of the election in Ukparama I and II of Ese-Odo Local
Government Area for the Governorship and House of Assembly elections, that he knew that voting
materials and INEC's staff did not go to any of the units in the two wards, that he visited all the units in the two
wards where party agents and Labour Party supporters complained bitterly to him that voting materials and INEC's
ad hoc staff did not arrive at the units, that they consequently submitted their voters' cards to him to show that
voting did not take place, that PDP thugs and armed militants came and carted away the electoral materials and
took them to the militants' hideout in Ese-Odo Local Government Area. PW29 identified Exhibit 1098 (5) as
the voters' cards he collected from prospective voters for Ukparama I Ward 009.
            PW29 testified further under cross-examination that people told him what they had gone through
and that he saw what happened, that at the time he collected the voters' cards their holders were
alive, that at the time he deposed to his witness's statement on oath those whom he knew personally
among them were alive, that the voters' cards he tendered were not the ones he hid when he acted as
registration officer, that he knew the militants' base in Ese-Odo Local Government Area which someone
has to pass by to visit other communities and to bury the dead but he never entered the base, that when the
thugs carted away the electoral materials he followed and he told his party leaders so, that he waited in his
speedboat watching the militants committing electoral malpractices till 5.00 p.m. and that while waiting there he could tell
what was happening at the units.
            We believe that the evidence of this witness is in line with the pleadings
            RW17's evidence was that he was a registered voter at Pa Manus/Open Space Mannumi Polling Unit, Ukpe,
                                                              140
Ukparama I on 14th April, 2007, that although he lost his voters' card he was allowed to vote there after confirmation
of his identity, that he and others who voted were duly accredited and they voted, that the election took place in a
peaceful atmosphere devoid of irregularities or electoral malpractices, that the electoral materials were under the
custody and control of the Presiding Officer and Poll Clerk and under the watchful eyes of the law enforcement
agents, that nobody took away the electoral materials and that he knew that elections took place peacefully in all
the units in Ukparama I. RW17 added that his voters' card was not with him because it was not given to him at the
time of registration but that at the election the Presiding Officer checked his name and photograph and
accredited him and allowed him to vote. RW17 identified serial number 80 on Exhibit 112 as his particulars and the
marking there as indication that he voted. He added that he voted at between 10.00 and 11.00 a.m., that he was not
the first to vote, that while there, he did not see hijacking of ballot box or violence, that there are eleven units in
Ukparama 1 and they are allon the river banks, that movement from unit to unit can only be done by boat, that it is
not possible to go round all the eleven units even with the fastest boat, that there was election at the unit where he
registered, that there was a policeman at the unit who maintained law and order, that the electoral materials
were brought to the unit between 9.00 and 10.00 a.m. in double 75 horsepower speedboat, that his unit was one of
the few units served with election materials on that day, that he could not speak of any other units except his own,
that they have rivers and not the Atlantic Ocean, that he did not know the distance between his unit and the farthest unit
and that he did not know how many days it would take a 75 horsepower boat to cover his ward but that it could take some
hours.
         RW8's testimony was that he registered at FAC Polling Unit, Ukparama II where he voted, that he and
others were duly accredited, that after voting his voter's card was punched/marked, that all eligible voters voted at the unit
without intimidation, threat or any form of violence, that the election was conducted by INEC's officials in a
peaceful atmosphere devoid of irregularities or electoral malpractices that nobody hijacked, snatched or carted away
electoral materials which were in the custody and control of the Presiding Officer and Poll Clerk for the unit
and under the watchful eyes of law enforcement agents and eligible voters and that the election took place
peacefully in all the units of Ukparama II and particularly FAC Unit where he voted.
         RW18 testified further that the voter's card he used to vote was the temporary voters' card which
was taken away but he had the permanent one which he tendered and was admitted and marked as
Exhibit 1234.
         RW18 testified further that electoral materials got to every unit in Ukparama I and II, that his
temporary voter's card was ticked before he voted and so was the voters' register. RW18 identified his
name and particulars as serial number 209 on page 13 of Exhibit 127 (1) - (29). He added that he was neither the
first nor the last in his unit to vote on that day, that there was a policeman at the unit who concerned
himself with maintenance of law and order, that the problem he noticed on his particulars in the voters' register was
that they wrote that he is a civil servant while he is a businessman. RW18 identified Item 201 on the voters'
                                                             141
register as the photograph of his father's youngest wife but that she is not on Item 202 in the register. RW18 spelt
the name on Item 201 but said he could not spell the name on Item 202 in the voters' register.
           Three signatures of RW18 were admitted and marked as Exhibit 1235. RW18 added that he did not
know if any boat capsized during the election.
           RW20's evidence was that he was PDP's agent for Tominiwei Polling Unit 002 Ukparama II on the 14th
April, 2007 Governorship and Legislative Houses election, that the INEC's officials came to the unit with the
electoral materials, that voters were duly accredited and the election conducted in a peaceful atmosphere,
that all eligible voters voted, that the votes were duly counted and the results announced and entered into the
appropriate INEC's result sheet, that nobody hijacked or snatched or carted away electoral materials, that
party agents refused to sign the results because the result was not favourable to their parties, that the
electoral materials were later taken to the ward collation centre by the INEC's officials and that the election was
conducted in a peaceful atmosphere in all the units of Ukparama II particularly Tominiwei Polling Unit 002.
           RW20 testified further that the picture and details in Item 112 of Exhibit 119 belong to him, that there
were party agents at the place he voted and that he was one of the 2 agents for PDP, that after the election his
other colleague signed the result sheet, that he voted but that his voter's card got lost, that after he voted
the INEC's officials marked his voter's card and that was why the voters' register was ticked, that electoral
materials were brought to the unit on that day, that he did not see thugs or people carrying guns on that day,
that nobody disturbed them at the unit, that there was a policeman at the unit who maintained law and order, that
he was at all material time an accredited PDP's agent at the unit, that he witnessed everything there, that of the
agents at the unit, only him self belonged to that unit, that he did not know the name of other person who
acted as PDP's agent. RW20 then read page 6 of Exhibit I and said other parties also sent two agents to the polling
unit. RW20 added that he has never seen any militant in his life, that he was not aware that the boat
conveying ballot boxes to Ukparama I capsized.
           From his evidence RW17 emphasized that his testimony was restricted to Polling Unit 008 of Ukparama I
Ward 009. He said he voted even though he did not have a voter's card.
           In chapter 3 on page 17 of the "Manual for Election Officials 2007" (Exhibit (3)) it is mandatory that a
prospective voter presents himself/herself with his/her temporary voters' card before such a voter can be allowed
to vote.
           Similarly, Section 50 (1) of the Electoral Act 2006 provides thus:
           "Every person intending to vote shall present himself to a Presiding Officer at the polling unit in the
constituency in which his name is registered with his voters’ card”.
           Furthermore, the evidence shows that RW17's polling unit is number 008 of Ukparama I Ward 009. Form
EC8A for that unit, Exhibit 116 (8), shows that there are 448 voters in the unit while in the voters' register for the
same unit, the number of voters is 454. This clearly violates the mandatory requirement as contained in item 4.3
                                                            142
step 2 of the "Manual for Election Officials 2007" which stipulates that the number of registered voters in the
result form shall be as contained in the voters' register.
         In view of these findings it is impossible to accept the evidence of RW17 that election duly took
place in his unit and in the whole of the ward and that he too voted at the election.
         We have also noticed some serious discrepancies between the polling unit's results and ward's result
for this ward. These affected Units 1, 3, 5, 7,9 and 10.
         Here are examples of such discrepancies:
                  1.             The result for Unit 001 shows 325 valid votes while the ward's result (Exhibits 133 (8)
                                 and 117, show 412 valid votes for the unit.
                  2.             The result for Unit 009, Exhibit 116 (9) shows 112 valid votes for the unit
                                 while the said ward's result shows 212 votes for the unit. It is also in evidence that
                                 voter's cards for voters claimed to have been disenfranchised were tendered for
                                 Units 2, 3, 9 and 10 (Exhibits 1098 (5) consisting of 2, 27, 43 and 61 voters'
                                 cards respectively.
                  3.             None of the said voter's card is marked to show that it was ever used to vote.
         We examined the contents of the voters' register for each of the said units vis-a-vis samples of the
voters' cards in Exhibits 1098 (5) and we present the following as examples of our findings:
                  1.             For Unit 3 of Ukparama Ward with voters' register marked as Exhibit 107
                                 (1) - (29) we found that voters' numbered 409, 224, 257, 294, 398, 403 and 404
                                 were not ticked at all while voters numbered 408 and 67 were ticked once
                                 each in the register.
         The discrepancies in the documents highlighted above, are the clear evidence that due election could
not have taken place in Unit 008 of this ward and the fact that by his own testimony the evidence of RW17 was
restricted to his unit only within the ward and the fact that there was no evidence that has fundamentally
upset the evidence of PW29 lead us to the inevitable conclusion that there was no election in the said unit and
also in the ward since there was no evidence from any witness on any other unit in that ward apart from the
evidence of RW17.




                                                             143
            The said discrepancies are illustrated below:
UNIT        RESULT EXHIBIT NUMBER          NUMBER OF VALID VOTES IN                NUMBER OF VOTES CAST IN
                                           UNIT’S RESULT                           WARD'S RESULT FOR UNITS:
                                                                                   EXHIBIT 133 (8) AND 117

1           116(1)                         325                                     412
3           " (3)                          333                                     384
4           " (4)                          520                                     520
5           " (5)                          396                                     400
6           " (6)                          381                                     381
7           " (7)                          400                                     398
8           " (8                           346                                     346
9           " (9)                          112                                     212
10          " (10)                         215                                     217


            Note:       On Exhibit 116 (4), total valid votes is actually 520 and not 600 as written there; and for Exhibit
116 (5) they are recorded as 396 and not 397 and on Exhibit 116 (6) as 381 and not 3 84.
            This is a clear manifestation that the results for the units were not collated at the ward level and the collation
exercise being an essential ingredient of the election then the whole electoral process was flawed. Voters' cards were
tendered in respect of 4 units in the ward to show that their holders were not able to vote at the election.
They are as follows:
UNIT        EXHIBIT NUMBER OF VOTERS' CARDS                  NUMBER OF VOTERS' CARDS

2           1098 (5)                                         2
3           “                                                27
9           “                                                43
10          “                                                61


            It is obvious that none of the voters' cards tendered and marked Exhibit 1098 (5) to show that their
holders were not afforded the opportunity to vote has been marked to indicate that the voters' cards were
ever used to vote in the 4 units i.e. Units 2, 3, 9 and 10.
            We have examined the contents of the voters' registers for each of the units vis-a-vis samples of the
voters' cards in Exhibit 1098 (5) for Units 2, 3, 9 and 10 of Ukparama I Ward 009 and we made the following
findings:
S/NO.       VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER                    NUMBER OF TIMES VOTERS' NAME IS
                                                                      TICKED IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER
1.          225                                                       ONCE
2.          400

 Note:            All the voters ticked were ticked once in the voters' register.



                                                              144
UNIT 003 OF UKPARAMAI WARD 09 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT
107 (1) - (29)

S/NO.   VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER             NUMBER OF TIME VOTERS' NAME IS
                                                           TICKED IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER

1.      409                                                NOT TICKED
2.      224
3.      257
4.      294
5.      397
6.      398
7.      403
8.      408                                                ONCE
9.      404                                                NOT TICKED
10.     67                                                 ONCE


        Note: Many other voters including serial number 379 - 402, 405, 406, 409 - 413 and 434 - 451 not
also ticked. Many others too including 72 - 79 were ticked once.


UNIT 009 OF UKPARAMA I WARD 009 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT
113 (1) - (12)

S/NO.                VOTERS' NUMBER IN THAT VOTERS'           NUMBER OF TIMES NAME ISTICKED
                     REGISTER                                 VOTERS' REGISTER VOTERS' IN THE
1.                   63                                       TWICE
2.                   60                                       TWICE
3.                   136                                      ONCE
4.                   143                                      TWICE


        Note: Several others including 1 - 8 and 20 - 25 were also ticked twice and many others including
125-133 were ticked once.
        It is noted that voter number 63 on the voters' register is a female but is identified as male.
        And, that 42 unused voters' cards were tendered but we could only locate 4 of them in the voters' register.




                                                        145
     UNIT 010 OF UKPARAMA I WARD 009 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 114
     (1) - (14)
S/NO.     VOTERS'NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER                     NUMBER OF TIME NAME IS TICKED
                                                                    IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER TWICE
1.        151
2.        15
3.        207
4.        135
5         55
6.        69
7.        205
8.        88
9.        56


              We note that some of the voters' names whose cards were tendered cannot be found in the voters' register.
              These are evidence that proper accreditation was not conducted in these units.
              We have observed discrepancies between the number of voters in the voters' registers and the units'
     and wards' results for this ward and they are illustrated hereunder:
     UNIT       UNIT'S      NUMBER OF             EXHIBIT                NUMBER OF      NUMBER OF VOTERS
                RESULTS     REGISTERED            NUMBER OF              VOTERS IN      IN    THE    WARD'S
                EXHIBIT     VOTERS IN             VOTERS'                THE REGISTER   RESULT IN FORM
                NUMBER      UNIT'S RESULTS        REGISTER                              EC8B: EXHIBIT 133 (8)

     1          116(1)      587                   105(1) -(34)           587            604
     2          " (2)       486                   106(1) -(28)           486            604
     3          " (3)       594                   107(1) -(29)           594            604
     4          " (4)       663                   108(1) -(38)           663            604
     5          " (5)       414                   109(1) -(25)           414            443
     6          " (6)       384                   110(1) -(23)           384            403
     7          " (7)       429                   111(1) -(24)           429            461
     8          " (8)       448                   112(1) -(26)           454            455
     9          " (9)       175                   113 (12) -(12)         210            433
     10         " (10)      215                   114(1) -(14)           215            412
     11         " (11       448                   115(1) -(29)           468            500


                  These show that the number of voters in the voters' register is not the origin of the number of
      voters in the result sheets as required by "Manual for Election Officials 2007" at page 30.
                  This therefore proves the Petitioner's allegations that the results in Forms EC8A and EC8B for
      this ward were manufactured.
                  We have also discovered that there are differences between the number of thumb-printed ballot
      papers for units of this ward and the results for the units and the ward. They are shown hereunder:

                                                                   146
UNIT     EXHIBIT NUMBER NUMBER OF                     NUMBER OF BALLOT NUMBER OF VOTES CAST IN
         OF UNIT'S RESULT VOTES CAST IN               PAPERS FOR THE        FORM EC8B: EXHIBIT 133 (8)
                          THE UNIT                    UNIT: EXHIBIT 1076(3)
1        116(1)                 325                   398                          412
2        " (2)                  484                   546                          484
4        " (4)                  520                   606                          520
5        " (5)                  496                   90                           396
6        " (6)                  381                   473                          381
9        " (9)                  112                   600                          212
10       " (10)                 215                   215                          217


         It is noted that the votes cast for Exhibit 116 (4) is actually 520 and not 600 as written there and for
Exhibit 116 (5) is 396 and not 397 and for Exhibit 116 (6) 381 not 384.
         From the chart it is evidence that the results for the units concerned were not obtained from the
thumb-printed ballot papers. This, in effect, means the results were fabricated.


         UKPARAMA II WARD 10
         The pleadings on this ward are the same as in Ukparama I Ward 9.
         Differences have also been noticed between the number of voters in the voters' register and the same in
the forms EC8A and EC8B in respect of same units. They are stated hereunder:
UNIT     EXHIBIT NUMBER NUMBER OF                     EXHIBIT   NUMBER OF                NUMBER OF REGISTERED
         OF UNIT'S RESULT REGISTER VOTERS             NUMBER OF VOTERS IN                VOTERS IN FORM EC8B:
                          IN UNIT'S                   VOTERS'   THE REGISTER             EXHIBIT 133 (9)
                          RESULT                      REGISTER

1        131(1)                403                    118(1)-(12)     404                403
6        " (4)                 353                    122(l)-(28)     67                 353
7        " (5)                 446                    123(l)-(25)     466                446
9                                                     125(l)-(27)     494                493
10       " (7)                 466                    126(l)-(29)     467                466
12       " (9)                 453                    128(l)-(38)     50                 453
13       " (10)                444                    129(l)-(26)     444                430


         These show that the results for Units 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 cannot be relied upon as having been
regularly made because the failure to procure the number of voters from their mandatory requirement of
the "Manual for Election Officials 2007" as stated on page 30.
         In respect of Ukparama II Ward 10 the evidence of PW29 was that there was no election in all the units
of the ward which he claimed he visited, that PDP thugs and armed militants carted away the materials to their
hideout where he saw them committing electoral malpractices.
         RW18's evidence was however that he voted at FAC Polling Unit of Ukparama II where he said


                                                             147
election was conducted peacefully devoid of electoral malpractices, that the voter's card he used to vote was the
temporary voter's card which was taken away from him when he was given a permanent one which he tendered
and was marked as Exhibit 1234. He also identified his particulars in the voters' register which was ticked to show that
he voted. The voters' register is Exhibit 127 (1) - (29).
         RW20's evidence was that he was PDP's agent for Tomimerei Polling Unit 002 of Ukparama II at the 14th
April, 2007 Governorship and House of Assembly election which he said was conducted peacefully devoid of
malpractices in the unit and in the whole of the ward, that he voted along with all other eligible voters, that
the result was announced and was taken to the ward collation centre, that he was one of 2 agents of the PDP
and that the other agent signed the result sheet, that after he voted his voter's card got lost. RW20
identified his particulars on Exhibit 119, the voters' register which was ticked to show that he voted.
         It is clear that while PW29 said he visited all the units in Ukparama I and 12 and witnessed the
malpractices being perpetrated by the thugs the evidence of RW18 and RW20 was restricted to their
respective units.
         A lot of exhibits were tendered in this respect and include but not limited to result sheets in Forms
EC8A and EC8B and it is fundamental for a person who said he voted to present the voter's card he used to
vote to be checked against the contents of the voters' register for the unit in which he claimed he voted.
RW18 and RW20 said they lost the voters' cards they used in voting.
         In this case the Tribunal is not given the opportunity to ascertain the claims of these witnesses and
we cannot speculate on the authenticity of their claims.
         In any case, in the face of the documentary evidence which we have evaluated on these two wards we
have no grounds on which to believe that the two witnesses actually voted at the election of 14th April,
2007.
         It should be noted that the evidence of these two witnesses was severely restricted to only 2 units, 002 and
013, out of 14 in the ward.
         The number of thumb-printed ballot papers are different from the number of votes cast as contained in Form
EC8A and EC8B for the ward. They are illustrated as follows:




                                                            148
UNIT     EXHIBIT NUMBER          NUMBER OF VOTES NUMBER OF USED             NUMBER OF VOTES
         OF UNIT'S RESULTS       CAST IN THE     BALLOT PAPERS FOR          CAST IN WARD'S
                                 UNIT'S RESULTS  THE UNIT: EXHIBIT 1076 (4) RESULT: EXHIBIT 133 (9)

3        131 (3)                 330                    608                            300
4                                                       398                            400
5                                                       395                            400
6        "   (4)                 298                    300                            298
11       "   (8)                 404                    399                            396
12       "   (9)                 370                    398                            382
14       "   (H)                 380                    378                            380


         The discrepancies in the number of used or thumb-printed ballot papers and the number of valid votes
in the ward's result above - illustrated are clear manifestation that the results are not the outcome of the
elections in Units 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 14 of this ward.
         The irregularities we have highlighted affect 12 out of the 14 polling units in this ward. They, in effect show
that the results in Forms EC8A and EC8B in respect of this ward were not the products of any form of
election and that they were arbitrarily manufactured and cannot be relied upon.
         It is only fair and just that we set aside the election and its result for this ward.
         We observe that the Form EC8C for Ese-Odo Local Government Area was not tendered.
         In paragraph 222 of the 1st Respondent's reply to the petition reliance has been placed on the form EC8C and
a table, apparently made from information derived from the said form, was drawn on page 59. This reliance extends
to paragraph 224 on page 59 of the said reply.
         The table and other information relating to that form cannot therefore be relied upon to arrive at a
decision. Generally on ESE-ODO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA we have already decided that there was no
pleading on Apoi I Ward 001 and we cannot decide on that ward at this stage.
         The Petitioner alleged violence in respect of all the wards in this Local Government Area.
         Exhibit 1106 (5) which emanated from INEC clearly shows that there was violence in Arogbo I as a result
of which 13 ballot boxes were smashed.
         In Exhibit 1089 tagged "Comprehensive Report on Governorship and House of Assembly elections held on
14th April, 2007" it has been shown that elections did not hold in Arogbo II because of thuggery and violence.
         In the said exhibit it is also reported that the environment in which the election was held was hostile and
prone to crisis.
         These prove the Petitioner's assertions that in the whole of the wards of the Local Government
electoral materials were being carted away by force of arms.
         We therefore, do not see the feasibility of holding a free and fair election in an atmosphere soaked in

                                                             149
intimidation and violence.
         This and all the other irregularities we have pointed out in all the wards except Apoi I Ward 001 lead us to
accept that there was no valid election in 9 out of the 10 wards. We, accordingly, nullify the election in all the units
and wards except for Apoi I Ward 001 of which we have become functus officio.


         ILAJE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA
         The Petitioner stated on this Local Government Area that the electoral materials for its 12 wards
were to be distributed at Igbokoda and included ballot boxes, ballot papers, electoral forms etc. The Petitioner
alleged that on the day of the election no electoral materials were brought to the said distribution centre
located at GRA Igbokoda where all political party leaders and agents were present between 8.00 a.m. and
2.00 p.m. and that among those present there were armed soldiers, naval officers, policemen (including the
DPO of Ibgokoda Police Station) and thugs acting for the 1st and 2nd Respondents in uniform and armed with
sophisticated guns and other dangerous weapons and who wore the same uniform with Chief Olusola Oke, a
PDP chieftain and agent of 1st and 2nd Respondents. The Petitioner added that Igbokoda and Ilumeje are the 2
areas which are relatively accessible by road in the Local Government Area and that the other 300
towns and villages in the Local Government Area are located deep within the riverine terrain and cannot be
reached except by use of speed boats from Igbokoda, that by the guidelines issued by the 3rd Respondent the
Governorship election was to hold between 8.00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m. on 14th April 2007, that it was at about 2.45 p.m.
on 14th April, 2007 that leaders of the 2nd Respondent directed the electoral officers, the armed soldiers,
armed naval officers and armed policemen to bring out the electoral materials for distribution and at which
point agents of the Petitioner protested the taking over of the conduct of the election by agents of the 1st and 2nd
Respondents, that as a result of the protests the armed soldiers, armed naval officers and armed policemen
started shooting sporadically into the air around the 3rd Respondent's premises at Igbokoda wounding several persons in
the process and that this lasted for over one hour and threw the entire town into confusion and pandemonium
with everybody running for safety, that the armed soldiers, naval officers and policemen prevented agents and
supporters of all political parties apart from those of the PDP from leaving the GRA distribution centre and
proceeding to the beach in Igbokoda to witness what was going on and that apart from Igbokoda and Ilumeje
areas which can be linked by road it takes a minimum of 2 hours and 30 minutes to reach other towns and villages
within the Local Government Area in the riverine areas from Igbokoda.
         The 1st Respondent denied that electoral materials including ballot boxes, ballot papers were not available
between 8.00 a.m. 2.00 p.m. and said that the representatives of the political parties and eligible voters were
enthusiastic to receive the Presiding Officers when they arrived with the electoral materials at just before
10.00 a.m, that distribution of the materials commenced thereafter to all the wards in the Local
Government Area, that elections were duly conducted and results collated in appropriate INEC forms by
                                                          150
appropriate INEC's officials in all the units and wards with the exception of a few units such as Ikwomola Street
Unit 003, Igbokoda Zion II Unit 020 and Okunnuwa Lebile compound Unit 006, Iloro Unit 020 in
Mahin III Ward 05. He denied engaging the services of armed soldiers, naval officers, policemen and thugs,
over whom he had no control at the GRA distribution centre or anywhere else, and that Chief Olusola Oke or any
agent of the 1st and 2nd Respondents did not wear uniform and was never an army officer. The 1st Respondent further
denied the allegation that leaders of the 2nd Respondent at anytime material directed electoral officers, armed
soldiers, armed naval officers and armed policemen to bring out the electoral materials for distribution, and added
that there was no protest by agents of the Petitioner or of any other person for the purported taking over of
the conduct of the election by the agents of the Respondent, and that the INEC's officials were in total
control of the electoral process.
        PW11 testified for the Petitioner on the whole of Ilaje Local Government Area.
        His evidence was that he was appointed by INEC as one of the Domestic Observers to monitor the
governorship and House of Assembly elections of 14th April, 2007 at Ilaje Local Government Area.
        PW11 testified further that as at 8.30 a.m. on 14th April, 2007 INEC ad hoc staff besieged INEC's office
complaining that their names had been substituted with those of members of a particular political party who did
not attend the training with them and demanded the release of names of INEC's trained ad hoc staff, that the
non-release of the names caused commotion there and led to the intervention of the Navy, the Police and SSS at
Igbokoda, that the electoral materials did not get to the riverine areas until 4.25 p.m. when elections were
supposed to have ended, that consequently he did not cover the whole of Ilaje Local Government Area but
decided to observe the election at Ugbo Wards I, II and III, that at Ugbo Ward III militant youths were
organized into killer squad armed with dangerous weapons like guns, cutlasses and axes to terrorize electorates
and prevent them from exercising their rights to vote, that many of the electorates were beaten and
wounded in the event, and that he was also wounded in the course of his duty as an observer, that
the supervisor of the squad, Chief Adewale Omojuwa ordered his elimination but for the intervention of
some people, that he was rushed to the hospital at Ilawo and continued the treatment at Obafemi
Awolowo Teaching Hospital, that the elections in parts of Ilaje Local Government Area were characterized by
invasion of polling units by the killer squad armed with dangerous weapons, that this was also done in many parts
of the riverine areas of Ilaje Local Government Areas, that no credible election was held in Ilaje Local
Government Area in an atmosphere of insecurity and that he wrote his reports dated 19th and 26th April, 2007
regarding his observations on the election and the said reports were admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits
1108 (1) - (3) and 1109 (1) -(3) respectively. The following documents from Obafemi Awolowo University
Teaching Hospital and Lautech were also admitted in evidence, namely:
        1.   Clinical notes dated 26/4/2007.
        2.   Treatment Card.
                                                        151
        3.   Outpatient Receipt dated 18/4/2007.
        4. Radiology Request Form dated 26/4/2007.
        5. Receipt dated 3 0/4/2007, and
        6.   And Outpatient Receipt dated 26/04/2007.
and were marked as Exhibits 1110(1)-(6) respectively.
        PW11 testified further that the distance between Okitipupa and Igbokoda is about ten minutes drive, that he
was neither agent of INEC nor a party to the training of INEC's ad hoc staff, that he had no access to INEC's record
pertaining to their ad hoc staff, that he did not know the number of units in Ugbo Wards 1, 2 and 3, that he was at
INEC's office at Igbokoda between 8.30 a.m. and 2.20 p.m. on the day of the election, that at about 5.00 p.m. he was at
Ugbo Ward 003 in Uroto Community on that day, that Exhibit 1109 was addressed to the Chairman of Nigeria Labour
Congress but was copied to INEC, that he was not aware that in many States including Oyo and Ondo the Nigerian
Labour Congress declared for Labour Party, that he reported the incidence to the police, that he did not attempt to
snatch a ballot paper at Ilawo as a result of which he was beaten up, that he was attacked at Ilawo and attended 3
hospitals, the General Hospital Ilawo, OAU Teaching Hospital Ile-Ife and Ladoke Akintola Teaching Hospital Osogbo,
that he believed that it was PDP youths who attacked him, that as at 4.00 p.m. he was monitoring elections in the riverine
areas, that he was appointed by INEC to observe the election under the umbrella of the NLC, that he had his letter of
appointment by INEC, that INEC did not prepare adequately for the election, that election did not start at 8.30 a.m.
and end at 3.00 p.m. and that as at 2.00 p.m. on that day they were still expecting the materials, that on the day of
the election there were no policemen in the area he covered, that his role was a result of partnership between
INEC and NLC to ensure peaceful elections and that he was not part of the killer squad.
        The evidence of PW44 also affected the whole Local Government Area.
        He testified to the effect that he was the main party collation agent/leader for the Labour Party for
Igbokoda in the 14th April, 2007 election in Ilaje Local Government Area, that on the day of the election he was
at INEC's office in FRA, Igbokoda where the distribution of materials was to take place at 8.00 a.m. along with
agents of AC, DPA and some PDP leaders and armed soldiers, Naval Officers, Policemen and an SSS Officer
and some thugs armed with guns and dangerous weapons wearing red uniforms and red scalves around their
heads, that at about 1.00 p.m. the party agents except those for the PDP demanded for pasting of the list of Presiding
Officers for the election and the EO refused to do so and this delayed the distribution of electoral materials, that
at about 2.45 p.m. Chief Olusola Oke a PDP leader directed the Electoral Officer, the DPO and other security
agents to forcefully load the electoral materials into two buses and they did so while the armed soldiers pointed
their guns at the protesters who had amassed outside the INEC's gate, that the armed soldiers used force
and brutalized the protesters by horsewhipping and chasing them with guns before the buses could convey the
materials to the waterside at about 3.00 p.m., that the PDP thugs traumatized their people while going to their
respective wards in their boats and embarked and carted away ballot papers and destroying election materials
                                                           152
and that due election did not take place in any of the 12 wards of Ilaje Local Government Area and that the
votes were merely allocated.
         PW44 testified further that he was in AD in 2003 and he contested the Senatorial primaries and lost
and he moved to PDP, that he wanted to be a member of NDDC and OSOPADEC but lost out, that he joined the
Labour Party in December 2006, that he was not aware that the names of polling agents were to be pasted 7 days
before the election, but that they were to be pasted 48 hours before the election, that list was not pasted in
Igbokoda in INEC's Notice Board as required by the guidelines, that as a good Christian he bore no grudge
against Agagu and the 2nd Respondent for not appointing him to the Board of NNDC or OSOPADEC, that he wrote
to the INEC and the SSS about the incidence of 14th April, 2007 after the election but not to the police, that by
5.00 p.m. in Ugbo Ward 006 no polling unit received anything and no result was announced, that out of 17 units in
his ward only Ubale Kekere Unit received any election materials that was not up to 10%, that he also visited
Ugbo Ward 005 where out of 16 polling units only 2 got electoral materials, that his party had agents in the various polling
units of the Local Government Area, and that to the best of his knowledge none of the agents is reported to have died,
that he wrote a letter to INEC on 7th April 2007, that voting materials did not leave Igbokoda on time as
schedule on the day of the election, that the reason for the delay was not that Labour Party agents laid siege in search of
election materials but that INEC failed to paste the list of ad hoc staff who would preside over the election, that the
materials were forcefully moved into the Marine Police Station at about 2.00 p.m. where they could not gain access to,
that he was surprised that Chief Olusola Oke was controlling INEC on that day, that he was also commanding the
military and the police.
         The Respondents led witnesses who gave evidence generally on the whole of the Local Government Area. We
shall touch on the relevant evidence when we treat the respective wards.


         AHERI WARD 001
         On Aheri Ward 001 the opinion of PW47 is that during inspection Forms EC8A and the voters'
registers for the whole of the 27 units of the ward were found to be non-existent, that results were allocated for 8
units on Form EC8B, that the thumb-printed ballot papers for all the units were also not found during the
inspection, that Form EC8B was not one of those distributed by INEC and that it was signed on 15th April,
2007 whereas the election was conducted on 14th April, 2007.
         The Petitioner averred that there was no valid election in any of the units of the wards of Ilaje Local
Government Area.
         The Respondents, however, insisted that election was duly conducted in all the units of all the wards of the
Local Government Area.
         The Respondents are, therefore, legally required to produce the polling unit results of the election which
they claim was duly conducted. See:
                                                            153
         -INEC v. RAY (2004) 14 NWLR (Part 892) 92.
         -REMI v. SUNDAY (1999) 8 NWLR (Part 613) 92.
         We observe that the Form EC8B for this ward, Exhibit 308 (1) and (2) has entries for only 8 out of the 27
units of this ward, that it is not indicated on the face of the result from which units the entries emanated and the
number of registered voters for each of the units. Furthermore, the said result was signed on 15th instead of 14th
April, 2007.
         Furthermore, the said Form EC8B with serial number 0004525 was not among the ward result forms
distributed by INEC for Ilaje Local Government Area as can be seen from the distribution of Form EC8
document, Exhibit 1125 (4), which shows that the wards result issued by INEC are numbered 0004617 - 0004628
and Exhibit 308 (1) - (27) and the Form EC8B for this ward does not fall within that range.
         The Petitioner who claimed that election was not conducted in the units of Aheri ward cannot be
expected produce the results for the units but the 1st Respondent who maintained that election was duly
conducted in all the units of this ward are bound to show evidence of the conduct of the said election. The primary
evidence they require are Forms EC8A which they failed, refused or neglected to tender or give evidence
on why they could not tender them. See AWUSE vs. ODILI (supra).
         The non-production of Forms EC8A and the fact that Form EC8B in the ward has no code to indicate
the units to which the results thereto relate, no number of registered voters and has entries for only 8
out of 27 units all show that there was truly no election in the units of this ward and the ward's result, Exhibit 308
(1) and (2), is a very poor and disingenuous fabrication by whoever was responsible for creating it.
         Accordingly, we have no problem in agreeing with the Petitioner that the result for this unit is bad
and we nullify same.


         ETIKAN WARD 002
         PW 47 attacked the results for the unit and the ward for, in his opinion, various irregularities.
         We have evaluated the various evidence in this petition on this ward and we have arrived at these
conclusions.
         We have noted differences between the number of thumb-printed ballot papers for the units and the
number of votes cast in the units' and ward' results for the units of this ward. They are illustrated as follows:




                                                            154
UNIT     EXHIBIT       NUMBER OF             NUMBER OF VOTES        EXHIBIT NUMBER        NUMBER OF
         NUMBER OF VOTES CAST IN             CAST IN WARD'S         OF USED BALLOT        USED BALLOT
         UNIT'S RESULT UNIT'S                RESULT FORM EC8B:      PAPERS FOR THE        PAPERS FOR THE
                       RESULT                EXHIBIT 321 (1)        UNIT                  UNIT
                                             AND (2)

1        320 (1)           110               110                    1078 (12)             115
2        " (2)             98                98                     "    (3)              99
3        " (3)             104               104                    "    (3)              110
5        " (5)             178               178                    "    (12)             199

6        "    (6)          988               988                    "     (3)             443
7        "    (7)          2                 2                      "     (12)            3
9        "   (9)           950               950                    "     (12)            737
11       "   (11)          110               110                    "     (3)             112


         Clearly then the results as reflected in Forms EC8B and EC8A for this ward with respect to Units
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 11 could not have been derived from the votes cast in these units in view of the
differences highlighted in the chart we have made above.
         The Petitioner tendered voters' cards for 4 units in this ward to show that voters were not allowed to
vote in the units. They are as follows:
UNIT     VOTERS' CARDS EXHIBIT NUMBER FOR THE UNIT            NUMBER OF UNUSED VOTERS' CARD

6        1098 (19)                                            25
8                                                             59
9                                                             363
10                                                            34


          A comparison of the tickings in the voters' registers for the above stated units and the markings on
 samples of the voters' cards for the said units maintained above (Exhibit 1098 (19) shows the following:
S/NO     VOTERS'      NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER            NUMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE
                                                                VOTERS' CARDS

1.       679                                                    TWICE
2.       672
3.       733
4        636
5.       864
6.       454
7.       58
8.       294
9.       810
10.      862


                                                        155
UNIT 008 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 316 (1) - (29)
S/NO. VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER NUMBER OF TICKING ON THE VOTERS'
                                             CARDS

1.       380                                                 TWICE
2.       158
3.       89
4.       338
5.       5
6.       163
7.       476
8.       26
9.       369
10       457


UNIT 009 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 317 (1) (37)
S/NO. VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'   NUMBER OF TICKING ON THE VOTERS'
      REGISTER                        CARDS
1.       338                                                TWICE
2.       715
3.       832
4.       859
5.       355
6.       19
7.       259
8.       717
9.       515
10       344


UNIT 010 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 318 (1) - (58)
S/NO.    VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER             NUMBER OF TICKING ON THE VOTERS'
                                                            CARDS
1.        634                                            3
2.        701                                            2
3.        595                                            “
4.        393                                            “
5.        972                                            “
6.        599                                            “
7.        303                                            “
8.        319                                            “
9.        165                                            “
10        50                                             “
        From the charts above we are of the view that from the samples of the voters' cards we have analysed for
Units 6, 8, 9 and 10 proper accreditation was not conducted for the voters in the units. And the failure to
accredit voters breaches one of the fundamental requirements of a valid election as enunciated in

                                                      156
AONDOAKAA vs. AJO (1999) 5 NWLR (Part 602) 206 holdings number 1 and 2.
        The discrepancies in terms of the number of used ballot papers and the number of voters in the result
forms which affect 8 units and the failure to accredit voters which affect 4 units in all affect 10 out of the 11 units of
this ward which we hold, by all standards to be substantial. Consequently, we hold that no valid election was
conducted in this ward.


        ON MAHIN I WARD 003
        The Petitioner apart from the general pleadings which relate to all the wards in the Local
Government Area as contained in paragraphs 21.7 (i) - (x) which we have summarized earlier, the Petitioner
also made specific pleading in respect of Mahin Ward III in paragraph 21.7 (xi) of the petition. In that paragraph he
complained of the non-distribution of materials and that where they were so distributed the elections were
marred by massive rigging and intimidation of voters by thugs assisted by the police and military personnel, that
there were no elections in Units 019 and 020 but that results and the snatched ballot materials resurfaced at
Igbokoda.
        All the allegations were denied by the 1st Respondent. His reply to the Petitioner's allegations are
contained in paragraphs 208 - 213 of the reply wherein he averred that election in all the units of the ward
was freely conducted devoid of any form of malpractices. He also particularly refuted the allegations of the
Petitioner on Mahin Ward III.
        The 1st Respondent has argued in his address that the evidence of PW36 is not covered by pleadings
of the Petitioner.
        Paragraph 21.7 (xi) of the petition states in part that electoral materials were snatched by thugs and the said
materials resurfaced at Igbokoda with results for the purported election.
        We believe that the evidence is clearly covered by the pleadings since it is to the effect that
PDP thugs snatched and carted away election materials and that votes were allotted and results were
recorded in a place other than the place designated by INEC.
        PW36 identified the unused voters' cards he received from voters who could not vote which were
admitted and marked as Exhibits 1098 (16), 1098 (19), 1098 920), 1098 (21) and 1098 (42) and Exhibits 407 (1) and
(2) and 408 (1) and (2) which are Forms EC8B for the ward.
        PW36 stated further that he was a member of UNCP, then he joined Alliance for Democracy and then
Labour Party, that he was Labour Party's candidate for the House of Assembly election and that he never
attempted to contest under PDP, that there are 31 units in Mahin Ward III, that he visited all the 31 units
which include Ilara and Ikuomola because he was a candidate in one of the elections for that day, that election
materials were taken to only 7 out of the 31 units in the ward so there were no policemen and agents in most of
the units, that 7 units were units are Larada 1 and 2 to where materials were taken at about 5.00 p.m. and were carted
                                                           157
away 30 minutes later, Orerearea Polling Units 1 and 2 where he saw election materials at 5.00 p.m., Dorah camp
polling unit where there was semblance of an election at about 7.00 p.m, at the Ilu Church Polling Unit and that
he could not recollect the 7th unit. He added that Mahin Ward 3 also has Zion Igbokoda Polling Units 1 and 2, that his
testimony was a summary of what he saw at Mahin Ward 003. That Mahin Ward 003 also has Abodoru, Iloro
and Kurugbene Polling Units 1 and 2, that he monitored the thugs to the house of Ikudehimbu Olambo's
house where materials for more than half of the units were taken, that materials for all the units including
part of the 7 units he mentioned earlier were taken to that house, that Ugbaha, Ubero and Adoto 1 and 2, Holy
Trinity, College Road 1 and 2, Broad Street, Okunnuwa, Okoga and Ominira are also polling units in the
ward, that at the time he left INEC's office at 2.45 p.m. there was no distribution of materials, that he did not
know if all the people who gave him Exhibit 1098 were still alive, that he was supposed to vote at Secretariat Polling
Unit but that there was no election there, that he was not one of the PDP thugs, that he was not inside Olambo's
house on that day, that Olambo's house has no fence and has plain louvers. PW47 who testified as an expert
condemned the results of the election in Volume II eleven of the Petitioner's bundle of documents. Idiogbe
Aarinda testified for the 1st Respondent as RW 29. His evidence was that he registered and voted at Unit 010 of Mahin
Ward III, that he queued and was duly accredited to vote, that electoral materials were supplied to the unit,
that although he misplaced his voter's card he was allowed to vote when his name and identity were confirmed from
the voters' register.
         RW29, identified himself in the unit's voters' register Exhibit 1251 (1) - (23), which had been ticked. He said that
some people voted before and after him at the unit, that there were INEC's officials and policemen at the unit
on that day, that no voter was intimidated at the time he was there and that he knew that anybody who presented
himself for voting would not be allowed to vote without his voter's card.
         RW40 also testified to the effect that he was a registered voted and he voted at Unit 007 of Mahin Ward
003, that there were uniformed law enforcement agents there performing their duties, that voters were duly accredited
before they voted, that voters who did not come to the polling station with their voters' card were also allowed to vote
after their names and identities were located in the voters' register, that the election was peacefully conducted devoid of
violence or any electoral malpractices, that he was informed by the electoral officials that the slight delay in the
commencement of the election was due to difficulty of the riverine area and the terrain and the time the electoral
materials were released at Igbokoda, that to access the most distant part of Ilaje Local Government Area may
take about one and a half hours, that voters cast their votes freely, that results were duly announced and recorded
in Form EC8A, that the election in his unit was duly conducted without any incidence of electoral malpractice and
he would be surprised to hear otherwise, because it would be concocted information.
         RW40 stated further that he voted with his voter's card and he identified his name in the voters'
register which was ticked once. He added that the voter's card he used to vote was lost as a result of the
accident he had on his way to the court, that his voter's card was ticked once because he was sick
                                                            158
during the Presidential Election so he could not vote, that the peaceful conduct of the election was not
disrupted, that the INEC officials came to his unit at about 11.30 a.m. to 12.00 noon and he voted between
12.30 and 1.00 p.m., that elections took place in his unit and community, that he registered as a voter with S.E.
Ekudehinbu, that the same S.E. Ekudehinbu appeared on his voter's card which got lost, that the Presiding Officer
compared his name with what was in the voters' register before he allowed him to vote.
         It is noteworthy that while the evidence of PW36 covers all the 31 units of the ward the evidence of
RW29 and RW40 are confined to the respective polling units where they said they voted.
         RW29 said he voted at Unit 010 while RW40 said he voted at Unit 007 of the ward.
         RW29 said he lost his voter's card but was allowed to vote when his name and identity were
confirmed from the voters' register.
         By the provisions of Sections 50 and 19 of the Electoral Act 2006 it is mandatory for one to present his
voter's card before he can be allowed to vote and where it is lost one has to be issued with another one
before he can vote.
         We therefore do not accept the story of RW29 that he voted.
         We also do not accept that voting took place at the said Unit 010 of Mahin I ward 003. This is because the
1st Respondent, who insisted that election was duly conducted in the unit and the whole of the other units in the
ward has failed to tender the election result in Form EC8A for that unit. RW40 also said he voted at Unit 007 of the
said Mahin I Ward 003 and that voters who did not come with their voters' cards were also allowed to vote at
the unit.
         As we stated earlier by the operations of Sections 50 and 19 of the Electoral Act 2006 it is
prohibited for anyone to vote without a voter's card.
         It simply means proper accreditation of voters did not take place in the unit.
         The Petitioner's position has been that there was no election in the unit.
         It is the Respondents who contend that there was election in the unit who are supposed to provide
evidence of that by tendering Form EC8A for the unit and they have failed to do.
         In the circumstances we disagree with the evidence of RW40 that election was ever conducted in Unit 007 of
Mahin Ward 003 in the Governorship election of 14th April, 2007.
         In sum, there is no evidence from the 1st Respondent with respect to conduct or non-conduct of the
election in Mahin I Ward 003.
         We have analysed the documentary evidence tendered towards resolving the issues in contention in
this petition.
         In the result for Unit 020, Exhibit 358 (3) the number of votes cast exceeds the number of registered
voters and the number of ballot papers issued at the unit. 48 voters were registered in the unit and 47 ballot
papers were issued to the unit. However, 47 valid votes, spoilt ballots and 3 rejected ballot papers were
                                                          159
recorded giving a total of 51 votes cast.
         The result for Unit 11 does not contain entries on number of registered voters in the unit and the number
of ballot papers issued to the unit and yet 80 valid votes were recorded.


         MAHIN I
         There are differences between the number of thumb-printed ballot papers and the number of votes cast in
Form EC8B for units in this ward as shown below.
UNIT      EXHIBIT NUMBER OF BALLOT                NUMBER OF USED BALLOT          NUMBER OF VOTES CAST
5         1078 (24)                               22                             23
9                                                 30                             137
10        “              “                        57                             NOT RECORDED
13        “              “                        193                            200
14        “              “                        348                            349
18        1078 (24)                               798                            501
20        “              “                        495                            48
21        “              “                        495                            501
22        " (15)                                  446                            450
23        " (24)                                  148                            150
25        " (15)                                  297                            300
26        " (24)                                  398                            400
27        " (15)                                  449                            450
28        " (24)                                  19                             14
29        “              “                        126                            NOT RECORDED
30        “              “                        100                            101
31                                                100                            342
32        “              “
33
34        “              “                        442                            443
35        “              “                        434                            450
36        " (15)                                  445                            450


         The above illustration shows that the number of thumb-printed or used ballot papers for 20 out of the 31
units of this ward do not correspondent with the number of votes cast in the said units in the ward's result sheet,
Exhibit EC8B (Exhibits 359 (1) and (2) and 360(1) and (2)).
         This lends credence to the pleadings of the Petitioner that the results in the Form EC8B are not the outcome
of election at the unit but were arbitrarily allocated.
         The Petitioner tendered some unused voters' cards for voters who were not able to cast their votes in 8 units
in the ward. They are:




                                                           160
UNIT    EXHIBIT NUMBER OF UNUSED VOTERS' CARDS              NUMBER OF UNUSED VOTERS' CARDS

3       1098 (42)                                           22
8       “                                                   78
19      “                                                   13
24      “                                                   54
25      “                                                   20
26      “                                                   32
27      “                                                   108
34      “


        A comparison of the contents of the voters' registers and the voters' cards tendered for the said units,
 Exhibit 1098 (42), reveals the follows:
S/NO.    VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER             NUMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE
                                                            VOTERS' CARDS
1.       36                                                 TWO
2.       276                                                “
3.       266                                                “
4.       43                                                 “
5.       143                                                “
6.       60                                                 “
7.       231                                                “
8.       206                                                “
9.       59                                                 “
10.      253                                                “


          UNIT 008 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 329 (1) - (29)
S/NO.    VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER              NUMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE
                                                             VOTERS' CARDS

1.       141                                                 TWO
2.       4                                                   “
3.       160                                                 “
4.       137                                                 “
5.       411                                                 “
6.       171                                                 “
7.       487                                                 “
8.       487                                                 “
9.       468                                                 “
10.      391                                                 “




                                                      161
          UNIT 019 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 340 (1) - (27)
S/NO.     VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER NUMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE
                                                 VOTERS' CARDS
1.        45                                                       TWO
2.        28                                                       “
3.        17                                                       “
4.        21                                                       “
5.        19                                                       “
6.        64                                                       “
7.        51                                                       “
8.        16                                                       “
9.        6                                                        “
10.       20                                                       “


         Note that voter number 21 in the register has two voters' cards with the same picture and number.

          UNIT 025 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 346 (1) - (18)
S/NO.              VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'                NUMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE
                   REGISTER                                     VOTERS' CARDS

1.                 256                                          ONE
2.                 50                                           TWO
3.                 64                                           ONE
4.                 1                                            TWO
5.                 154                                          “
6.                 239                                          “
7.                 249                                          “
8.                 271                                          “
9.                 25                                           “
10.                55                                           “

          UNIT 026 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 347 (1) - (24)
S/NO.    VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER                 NUMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE
                                                                VOTERS' CARDS

 1.       366                                             ONE
 2.       148                                             TWO
 3.       399                                             ONE
 4.       311                                             TWO
 5.       160                                             “
 6.       249                                             “
 7.       280                                             “
 8.       150                                             “
 9.       176                                             “
 10.      383                                             “
It is noted that voter number 399 on the voters' register has a picture on the voter's card different from the
picture in the voters' register but the numbers are the same.

                                                         162
           UNIT 027 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 348 (1) - (29)
S/NO.              VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'               NUMBER OF TICKINGS THE VOTERS'
                   REGISTER                                    CARDS
                                                               ON
1.                 116                                         ONE
2.                 113                                         TWO
3.                 484                                         ONE
4.                 471                                         TWO
5.                 474                                         “
6.                 360                                         “
7.                 351                                         “
8.                 89                                          “
9.                 343                                         ONE
10.                345                                         TWO


           UNIT 034 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 355 (1) - (27)
S/NO.     VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER               NUMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE
                                                               VOTERS' CARDS

1.        178                                                  TWO
2.        214                                                  “
3.        209                                                  “
4.        212                                                  “
5.        227                                                  “
6.        194                                                  “
7.        211                                                  “
8.        215                                                  “
9.        217                                                  “
10.       213                                                  “


          These charts point to the fact that in all of Units 3, 8, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 34, proper
accreditation, which is an essential ingredient of a valid election, was not conducted on at least some of the
voters.
          We have already pointed out the fact that result for Units 19 and 020 were discredited, that the results for
21 out of 31 units were concocted and that there was evidence of improper accreditation in 6 units of this
ward. In all the results of 25 out of the 31 polling units are afflicted by one irregularity or another as shown above
which render them worthless.
          We, accordingly hold that the results for the ward are substantially discredited to the extent that
they do not deserve any credit.




                                                         163
           WARD 004
           In Mahin II Ward 004 the Petitioner in his further pleadings in paragraph 21.7 (xii) of the petition stated
that election materials did not get to substantial parts of the ward and in the few units where the materials
were taken to, they were either snatched by PDP thugs or the whole election was characterized by massive
election malpractices, intimidation of voters by policemen, soldiers and naval officers who acted for the sole interest of
the 1st and 2ndRespondents.
           The other aspect of the pleadings are contained in paragraphs 21.7 (1) - (x) which have been highlighted
earlier.
           The 1st Respondent has argued that the evidence of PW43 is at variance with the pleadings of the Petitioner.
           The evidence of PW43 as contained in his written statement on oath and testimony was to the effect that
he acted as voter/party agent/collation officer in the Gubernatorial election for Mahin II in Ilaje Local Government
Area, that thugs commissioned by the 1st Respondent disrupted the election and carted away electoral
materials to the house of one Prince Gbenga Edema where ballot papers were thumb-printed by thugs and
votes were allotted and recorded in forms EC8A and EC8B. PW43 identified the result he said was signed by
Prince Gbenga Edema as Exhibit 324A (1) and 374A (2). He added that he was supposed to be an agent of Labour
Party at the election, that he was not there when the 1st Respondent commissioned the thugs, that he was there when
some of the thugs were thumb-printing the ballot papers, that he did not report the incidence to the police
because the policemen colluded with the thugs, that he was not one of the thugs and that he reported he
incidence verbally to the Electoral Officer.
           We cannot see how the evidence which alleged snatching of electoral materials and carting them to
somebody's residence where ballot papers were thumb-printed by thugs and votes were allotted and recorded
in Forms EC8A and EC8B can be said to be at variance with a pleading which alleged that electoral materials or
substantial parts of the ward were either snatched by PDP thugs or the whole electoral process was characterized
by massive electoral malpractices and intimidation of voters.
           The evidence, we hold, is in line with the pleadings.
           PW47 in Volume 11 of the Petitioner's bundle of documents attacked and condemned the results of the election
for irregularities
           RW35 testified for the 1st Respondent. He said he was an eligible voter and he voted at the election at Unit
030 of Mahin II where the electoral materials arrived at 1.35 p.m. and voters were duly accredited and voting was
performed. RW35 voter's card was admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit 1259.
           RW35 stated that he was not the only voter who voted in that unit on that day, that the election was peaceful,
that the policeman at the unit maintained order and there was no other policeman accompanying any group for the
purpose of disrupting the election, that his name in voter's card is written as "Ehuwa compound" but his name is Ehuwa.
           RW35's signatures were admitted and marked as Exhibit 1260. He identified the name under serial
                                                               164
 number 437 in the voters' register, Exhibit 368 (6), which was ticked once as his own RW33 however said he voted both
 on 14th and 21st April, 2007.
           Form EC8A for Abereke Unit 030 of Mahin II Ward 004 was admitted and marked as Exhibit 1261
           RW35 testified further that the voting materials arrived at the unit at about 1.30 p.m. or 1.35 p.m. and
 that the photograph on Exhibit 1259, his voter's card, is his.
           PW43"s evidence spans the whole of Mahin II Ward 004 while the evidence of RW35 is clearly
 limited to the unit in which he voted which is Abereke Unit 030.
           In Unit 030 of Mahin II Ward 004 where RW35 said he voted, we discovered that from the
 samples of voters' cards collected from persons who claimed could not vote at the unit because they
 were not afforded the opportunity and the tickings in the voter's register that the accreditation was not
 properly conducted at the unit. The voters' cards of the persons concerned have not been marked to show that
 they ever used the cards to vote but their names, from the samples, have all been ticked in the voters'
 register Exhibit 361 (1) - (86).
           Furthermore, the thumb-printed ballot papers for the unit found in 2 batches, Exhibit 1078 (1) have
 851 and 628 used ballot papers respectively and have collectively 1479 ballot papers while the result in Form EC8B
 for the ward, Exhibit 374 (1) - (2), shows that 1500 votes were cast in the ward.
           This shows that the result as shown in Exhibit 374 (1) and (2) was not derived from actual voting at the
 polling unit where the thumb-printed ballot papers were to be counted and entered into a result sheet. It is
 noteworthy that the same 1500 votes cast is reflected in the units' result in Form EC8A, Exhibit 1261
           We, therefore do not accept that voting took place at the said Unit 030 of Mahin II Ward 004.
           We have examined the documentary evidence and we have resolved as stated herein
           On the face of result for Unit 012 of this ward, Form EC8A (Exhibit 374 (1)), it is boldly written
 "ANOMNALY EXISTS". The result has a lot of erasures and cancellations to the extent that it is impossible
 to calculate the number of votes cast. In the light of this we do not accord any weight to it.
           The result for Unit 34 of the Ward, Exhibit 374 (3) indicates that 394 voters were registered but 443
 valid votes were recorded. This is over voting.
           The result for unit 30 of this Ward, Exhibit 1261 shows, by a simple calculation, that 480 votes were
 cast yet 1500 valid votes were recorded.
           The said 1500 valid votes recorded in Exhibit 1261 were recorded in the ward's result 030 which
 is 1500 (Exhibit 374A2).
          In the same vein the results for Units 12 and 34 as in Exhibits 374 (1) and 374 (3) respectively are
reflected in Exhibits A 374A1 and A2 for Unit 007 of this ward, Exhibit 1 142 (1) it is shown that "three and ten"
voters were registered which we take to mean 30 but 300 ballot papers were issued and 300 votes were recorded.
          We also note that the result for this ward, Form EC8B (Exhibits 374 A1 and A2) were signed
                                                          165
by one Mr. Christopher Olayede who, on the face of the documents describes himself as "(ASP) Police Officer",
prove that policemen were unduly used.
         That ward's result was signed by the Presiding Officer and Party Agents on 15th April, 2007.
         The Petitioner tendered voters' cards of voters whom he claimed were denied the opportunity to
vote. They are as follows:
UNIT     EXHIBIT NUMBER OF UNUSED VOTERS' CARDS                       NUMBER OF UNUSED VOTERS' CARDS

10       1098 (21)                                                    7
11       “                                                            213
12       “                                                            40
20       “                                                            51
25       “                                                            15
27       “                                                            5
30       “                                                            20
34       “                                                            9
35       “                                                            3


         Voters' registers for Units 10, 11, 12 and 20 of this ward have not been tendered.
         We have examined samples of the voters' cards tendered in respect of Units 25, 27,30, 34 and 36 (Exhibits
1098 (21)) vis-a-vis the ticking in the voters' registers for the units and have arrived at the following conclusions:

          UNIT 025 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 363 (1) - (30)
S/NO     VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISER                NUMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE
                                                              VOTER'S CARD

1.       296                                                  TWO
2.       405                                                  “
3.       422                                                  “
4.       407                                                  “
5.       437                                                  “
6.       457                                                  “
7.       462                                                  “
8.       431                                                  “
9.       432                                                  “
10       114                                                  “




                                                           166
         UNIT 027 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 365 (1) - (25)
S/NO   VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISER             NUMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE
                                                         VOTER'S CARD
1.     427                                               TWO
2.     428                                               “
3.     429                                               “
4.     430                                               “
5.     434                                               “


       It is noted that voter number 427 appears twice in the voters' register for this unit (as number 427
and 431) with numbers 90402701213 and 90402701223 respectively.Voter number 430 with serial number
90402701198 also appears as voter with serial number 433 with number 90402701197.

             UNIT 030 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 368 (1) - (86)
S/NO   VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISER          NUMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE
                                                      VOTER'S CARD
1.     27                                             ONE
2.     216                                            “
3.     301                                            “
4.     1211                                           “
5.     1220                                           “
6.     1224                                           “
7.     1366                                           “
8.     1294                                           “
9.     1239                                           “
10.    325                                            “

         UNIT 034 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 372 (1) - (24)
S/NO             VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'           NUMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE
                 REGISER                                 VOTER'S CARD

1.               30                                      4
2.               40                                      2
3.               130                                     4
4.               132                                     4
5.               37                                      2
6.               131                                     4
7.               109                                     4
8.               128                                     4


         UNIT 035 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 373 (1) - (16)
S/NO   VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISER             NUMBER OF TICKINGS THE VOTER'S
1.     85                                                2
2.     242                                               1
3.     243                                               1

                                                   167
         The above stated charts show clearly that in Units 10, 11, 12, 20, 25, 27, 30, 34 and 35 of this ward proper
accreditation, which is an essential feature of a valid election, was not conducted on a lot of the voters.
         There are differences between the number of used ballot papers and the number of votes cast as
reflected on the ward's result (Exhibit 374 (1) and (27)) for same units. They are illustrated hereunder:
UNIT        EXHIBIT NUMBER OF BALLOT                 NUMBER OF BALLOT              VOTES CAST IN FORM EC8B
7           1078 (13)                                299                           300
8           “              “                         301                           300
9           “ (11)                                   190                           192
10          “ (1)                                    445                           446
12          “           “                            499                           493
13          " (13)                                   96                            94
14          " (1)                                    394                           400
15          " (13)                                   445                           NIL
18          "       (1)                              88                            085
19          "         "                              75                            68
21          “                “                       28                            22
22          " (13)                                   150                           67
25          " (1)                                    495                           500
27          " (11)                                   397                           446
28          " (13)                                   16                            01
29          " (11)                                   248                           249
30          “            “                           851                           1,500
30          “           (1)                          628
31          " (13)                                   401                           400
32          1078 (13)                                45                            480
34          " (11)                                   446                           443


         We note that there are 2 sets of thumb-printed ballot papers for unit 030 of this ward.
         The differences in the number of used or thumb-printed ballot papers for the units with the
number of votes cast as reflected in Form EC8B show that the results in the said form, Exhibit 374 (1) and
(2), are clearly not derived from the actual voting process in the units of the ward.
         The irregularities we have highlighted affect the results for 23 out of the 35 units of this ward and we
accept same to be substantial enough to vitiate the results for the ward because no valid election was conducted in
the ward.
         On Mahin III Ward 005 the Petitioner's pleadings are as stated and summarized earlier in this judgment.
         The Petitioner led in evidence PW47 whose expert opinion, as contained in Volume 11 of the
Petitioner's bundle of documents, has attacked and condemned the results for this ward.
         The documents tendered in respect of this ward have been assessed and evaluated.
         The Petitioner tendered unused voter's card to show that their holders were denied the opportunity to
vote. The 63 cards for Unit 19 (Exhibit 1098 (2)) and 49 cards for Unit 20 (Exhibit 1098 (2)).


                                                           168
         We compared the contents of samples of Exhibits 1098 (20) for Units 19 and 20 with those of the
voters' register for the unit and we have arrived at the following conclusion:


         UNIT 019 WITH VOTER' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 393 (1) - (10)
S/NO     VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISER                  NUMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE
                                                                VOTER'S CARD

1.       22                                                     2
2.       129                                                    “
3.       93                                                     “
4.       51                                                     “


          It is noted that out of the 63 voters' cards tendered for this unit only the names of 4 holders of the
 cards can be located in the voters' register as analysed above.


        UNIT 020 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 394 (1) - (18)
S/NO     VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISER                NUMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE
1.       229                                                  1
2.       231                                                  “
3.       233                                                  2
4.       98                                                   1
5.       101                                                  “
6.       116                                                  2
7.       210                                                  1
8.       36                                                   Cc
9.       204                                                  2
10.      118                                                  “


         The charts show that proper accreditation has not been undertaken in units of this ward.
         We also compared the number of thumb-printed ballot papers for units in the ward with the number of votes
cast as reflected in the ward's results as shown below:




                                                          169
MAHIN III WARD CODE 05
UNITS       USED BALLOT PAPERS FOR             EXHIBIT NUMBER OF USED BALLOT PAPERS
            UNIT
001         122                                1078(18)
002         152                                “ “
003         158                                ” (14)
004         77                                 “          (18)
005         115                                “         (14)
006          1
            18                                 “         (18)
009         131                                “ “
010         171                                “ “
011         94                                 “ “
012         69                                 “           “
013         107                                “ “
014         79                                 “ (18)
015         121                                “ “
016         140                                “ “
018         38                                 “ “
019         148                                “ “
020         283                                “ “
022         453                                “         “
024         400                                “ (14)
025         400                                “ “
026         299                                “      (18)
027         295                                “ (14)
30          56                                 “ (18)



         There are differences between the number of thumb-printed ballot papers and the number of votes cast in
the units of Mahin III Ward 005 as reflected in Form EC8B for the ward. They are illustrated hereunder.
         These show that the results for 25 units of these wards did not emanate from the thumb-printed
ballot papers of their respective units. We all, therefore, made to agree with Petitioner that the results, not
being products of the election, were concocted and fabricated.
         The said irregularity affects 25 out of the 31 units which makes it substantial enough to persuade us
to nullify the result for the ward.
         ON MAHIN IV WARD 006 the pleadings are in paragraph 21.7 (i) - (x) of the petition herein stated earlier
and paragraphs 28, 29 and 30 of the other pleadings of the Petitioner and paragraphs 208 - 213 and 283 - 285
of the 1st Respondent's reply to the petition.
         PW47, the Petitioner's expert witness, has shown by his opinion in volume 11 of the Petitioner's
bundle of documents that the results of the election are irregular.
         We have carefully examined the documents tendered and have arrived at the following conclusions
         Two different versions of result for Unit 017 of this ward were tendered as Exhibits 434 (2) and 434

                                                          170
(3). In Exhibit 434 (2) the number of valid votes cast was 91 and the votes cast for PDP was 41. In Exhibit 434 (4)
the number of valid votes cast was 291 and the votes credited to PDP were241.
        We have noted that the scores for all other parties on the two Exhibits remain the same. We also note
that there are cancellations in the entry of PDP's results in words.
        In this case we cannot pick and chose which result to accept for Unit 017 of the ward.
        With regards to the result for Unit 019 in Form EC8A, Exhibit 434 (4) the total valid votes at
the foot of the document shows 291 but at the top right hand corner it is shown to be 288. Furthermore from
the document 306 voters were registered while 288 valid votes, 12 rejected and 12 spoilt ballot papers
were recorded giving a total of 312 votes cast from a total of 300 ballot papers issued to the unit.
        For Unit 20, the result, Exhibit 1144 (8) indicated that 2 ballot papers were issued while 171 valid
votes and 26 spoilt and 26 rejected ballot papers were recorded. In fact, an addition of the valid votes cast shows
that it is 213 and not 171 while only 174 voters were registered in the unit.
        The result for Unit 021, Exhibit 1144 (9), indicated that 300 ballot papers were issued, 289 valid votes, 11
rejected votes and 11 spoilt ballots were recorded making the number of votes cast as 311.
        We note that in the results for Units 7, 8, 9, 12, 14,15, 16 and 24 that is Exhibits 1144 (1), (2), (3), (4),
(5), (6), (7) and (11) respectively only PDP, to the exclusion of any party, has been credited with any votes.
        The ward result in Form EC8B, Exhibit 435 (1) and (2) shows that there was no election in the
4 units at Igboegunrin which are units 001, 002, 003 and 004 (refer to pleading).
        The Petitioner tendered unused voters' cards for 13 units in this ward to show that eligible voters were
disenfranchised. They are as follows:
UNIT     EXHIBIT NUMBER OF UNUSED VOTERS' CARDS NUMBER OF UNUSED VOTERS' CARDS

6        1098 (16)                                              52
7        “                                                      71
8        “                                                      47
9        “                                                      82
12       “                                                      69
14       “                                                      40
15       “                                                      15
18       “                                                      48
19       “                                                      124
20       “                                                      30
21       “                                                      96
22       “                                                      54
24       “                                                      27




                                                          171
               UNIT 6 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 414 (1) - (25)
S/NO.   VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER    NUMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE VOTER'S
                                                  CARD

1.      378                                       2
2.      326                                       “
3.      407                                       NONE
4.      160                                       TWO
5.      79                                        “
6.      42                                        “
7.      385                                       “
8.      83                                        “
9.      373                                       “
10.     190                                       “

UNIT 7 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 415 (1) - (25)
S/NO.   VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER    NUMBER   OF   TICKINGS   ON THE VOTER'S
                                                  CARD

1.      17                                        TWO
2.      12                                        44
3.      23                                        “
4.      13                                        “
5.      28                                        “
6.      5                                         “
7.      27                                        “
8.      25                                        “
9.      3                                         “
10.     64                                        “


  UNIT 08 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 416 (1) - (21)
S/NO. VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' N”UMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE VOTER'S
      REGISTER                      CARD

1.       6                                         TWO
2.       29                                        “
3.       27                                        “
4.       9                                         “
5.       21                                        “
6.       35                                        “
7.       28                                        “
8.       3                                         “
9.       41                                        “
10.      2                                         “




                                                 172
           UNIT 09 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 417 (1) - (17)
S/NO.     VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE NUMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE VOTER'S
          VOTERS' REGISTER         CARD

1.        175                                          TWO
2.        129                                          “
3.        61                                           “
4.        211                                          “
5.        9                                            “
6.        3                                            “
7.        168                                          “
8.        85                                           “
9.        82                                           “
10.       77                                           “


UNIT 12 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 420 (1) -(16)

S/NO.     VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER              NUMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE VOTER'S
                                                              CARD

1.        25                                                  TWO
2.        168                                                 “
3.        56                                                  cc
4.        16                                                  “
5.        119                                                 cc
6.        34                                                  cc
7.        172                                                 “
8.        36                                                  cc
9.        15                                                  cc
10.       230                                                 “


            UNIT 14 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 422 (1) - (3)
S/NO.               VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'             NUMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE
                    REGISTER                                  VOTER'S CARD

1.                  26                                        TWO
2.                  18                                        “


         NOTE that out of the 40 voters' cards tendered only the names and particulars of 24 registered
voters correspond with them in the voters' register.




                                                        173
         UNIT 15 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 423 (1) - (28)
S/NO.     VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER        NUMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE
                                                        VOTER'S CARD

1.        80                                            TWO
2.        93                                            “
3.        35                                            “
4.        1                                             “
5.        78                                            “
6.        13                                            “
7.        65                                            “
8.        66                                            “
9.        19                                            “
10        63                                            “


 UNIT 18 WITH VOTERS' REGISER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 426 (1) - (24)
S/NO.      VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'                 NUMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE
           REGISTER                                      VOTER'S CARD

1.         58                                            TWO
2.         22                                            “
3.         17                                            “
4.         39                                            “
5.         21                                            “
6.         12                                            “
7.         13                                            “
8.         37                                            NONE
9.         26                                            TWO
10         15                                            ONE


UNIT 19 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 427 (1) - (19)
S/NO.     VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER         NUMBER OF          TICKINGS     ON THE
                                                         VOTER'S CARD

1.        144                                            ONE
2.        105                                            TWO

         NOTE that the names of only 2 out of the holders of 124 voters' cards which were tendered have
their names in the voters' register.




                                                  174
UNIT 22 WITH VOTERS' RGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 430 (1) - (15)
S/NO.               VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'              NUMBER OF TICKINGS ON THE
                    REGISTER                                   VOTERS' REGISTER

1.                  73                                         TWICE
2.                  172                                        “
3.                  197                                        “
4.                  21                                         “
5.                  72                                         “
6.                  121                                        cc
7.                  38                                         “


          NOTE that only 7 out of 54 voters' cards holders' names and particulars are traced in the
 voters' register which has 249 registered voters.

UNIT 024 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 432 (1) - (10)
S/NO.                  VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' NUMBER OF                       TICKINGS     ON THE
                       REGISTER                      VOTER'S CARD
1.                     34                                     TWO
2.                     78                                     “
3.                     8                                      “
4.                     143                                    “
5.                     142                                    “
6.                     51                                     “
7.                     20                                     “
8.                     7                                      “
9.                     153                                    “
10.                    43                                     “

NOTE that of the 27 voters' cards tendered for this unit only the names of 16 holders of the cards
were located in the voters’ register.
        From the charts above it can be deduced that there was no proper accreditation in all the 11 units
we have analysed.
        We have observed differences in the number of thumb-printed ballot papers and the votes
cast for the units as reflected in Form EC8B for this ward. They are as follows:
UNIT     EXHIBIT NUMBER OF USED                NUMBER OF USED BALLOT               VOTES CAST IN FORM
         BALLOT PAPER FOR THE UNIT             PAPERS FOR THE UNIT                 EC8B EXHIBIT 435 (1) AND (2)

6        1098 (23)                             99                                  398
7        “         “                           287                                 280
8        “         “                           283                                 290
9        " (9)                                 273                                 250
10       " (23)                                199                                 201
11       “         “                           29                                  294
12       " (9)                                 250                                 250

                                                       175
13       “      “                               378                                 400
14       “      “                               389                                 350
15       " (23)                                 379                                 377
16       “      “                               399                                 400
18       " (9)                                  345                                 350
19       " (9)                                  299                                 288
20       " (23)                                 200                                 171
22       " (9)                                  200                                 200
23       " (23)                                 100                                 100
24       " (9)                                  101                                 158
25       " (23)                                 199                                 197


        The above chart shows that results as contained in Form EC8B, Exhibit 435 (1) and (2), of
this ward for all the 18 units analysed were derived from sources other than valid elections
conducted in the units.
        From what we have analysed so far the unit's results for each of Units 017, 019, 020 and 021 is
afflicted by one irregularity or another, from Form EC8B (Exhibit 435 (1) and (2)) there are no results
for Units 001, 002, 003 and 004, there was no proper accreditation in Units 006, 007, 009, 012, 014,
015, 018, 019, 020 and 024 and the number of thumb-printed ballot papers are different from the
number of votes cast for Units 006, 007, 008, 009, 010, 011, 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 018, 019, 020, 022,
023, 024 and 025 as contained in Form EC8B for this ward.
        In other words, the irregularities affect 24 out of the 25 units of this ward and we deem same to be
substantial enough to upset the result of this ward.


        UGBO I WARD 007, UGBO II WARD 008 AND UGBO II WARD OO9
        The Petitioner's pleading on these wards are in paragraphs 21.7 (i)-(xii), (xvi), (xvi) and 28 30 of
the petition.
        The first Respondent's reply to the Petitioner's allegations are contained in paragraphs 208 - 214,
216 - 217 and 283 - 285 of his reply to the petition.
        The 15th and 16th Respondents also replied to the allegations in paragraphs 6. 1 - 6.4 of their reply.
        The allegations and the replies have already been summarized above.
        We add that the Petitioner also alleged in paragraph 21.7 (xiii) that electoral materials did not
reach up to 95% of the units in Ugbo I, Ugbo II and Ugbo III and that in the few units where the electoral
materials reached the units, they were snatched by thugs who acted as agents of the 1st and 2nd Respondents
and were taken to unknown destinations and that there was no election at all at Ugbonle and Aiyetoro
communities.
        The 1st Respondent's reply to these allegations as contained in paragraph 215 of his reply is that

                                                        176
electoral materials were distributed to all the units of Ugbo I, Ugbo II and Ugbo III, that no ballot materials
were snatched by anybody or taken to an unknown destination, that elections were held in Ugbonla, that the
results of the election are reflected in Forms EC8A, EC8B and EC8C.
        PW11 testified for the Petitioner to the effect that he was appointed by INEC as one of the
Domestic Observers to monitor the 14th April, 2007 Governorship and House of Assembly
elections, that as at 8.00 a.m. on that day, INEC's ad hoc staff besieged the INEC's office in
Igbokoda complaining that their names were substituted with those of a particular political party who
did not attend the training with them and this led to the intervention of the Navy, the Police and the
SSS at Igbokoda, that the electoral materials did not get to the riverine areas until 4.15 p.m. when
elections were supposed to have ended, that as a result of that he was only able to observe the elections at
Ugbo I, Ugbo II and Ugbo III, that at Ugbo III militant youths were organized into a killer squad armed with
dangerous weapons like guns, cutlasses and axes to terrorise electorates and prevent them from exercising
their franchise, that in the process many electorate were beaten and wounded, that he was also beaten and
wounded in the head, that the leader of the killer squad ordered his elimination, that he was then rushed
to the hospital, that he knew that elections in parts of Ilaje Local Government Area were characterized by the
invasion of the booths by the killer squad and that no credible elections from his observation, were held in
Ilaje Local Government Area under the atmosphere of insecurity.
        PW l l tendered appraisal for election observers dated 19th April, 2007 and a report dated
14th April, 2007 which were admitted and marked as Exhibits 1108 (1)-(3) and 1109 (1) - (3)
respectively. He also tendered –
        1.   Clinical notes.
        2.   Treatment card.
        3. Out patient receipt dated 1 8/4/2007.
        4.   Radiology request form dated 26/4/2007.
        5.   Receipt dated 30/4/2007.
        6. And out patient receipt dated 26/04/2007 which were marked as Exhibit 1110(1)- (6) respectively.
        PW1 1 added that he was neither a staff of INEC nor a party to the training of INEC's ad hoc
staff, that he was given accreditation letter by INEC which he produced and that it was the same that was
given to all INEC's Observers, that he did not know the number of units in Ugbo I, Ugbo II and Ugbo III, that
on the day of the election he was at INEC's office at Igbokoda, between 8.00 a.m. and 2.20 p.m. that at
5.00 p.m. he was in the riverine areas at Ugbo III in Urolo community, that his report, Exhibit 1109,
was written to Nigerian Labour Congress and was copied to INEC, that he monitored the election on behalf of
Nigerian Labour Congress, that he was not aware that in Ondo State the Nigerian Labour Congress
declared for Labour party, that he was not beaten because he attempted to snatch ballot papers, that he
                                                     177
attended 3 hospitals for treatment, that he believed it was PDP youths who attacked him, that he was
duly appointed by INEC to observe the election, under the umbrella of the NLC and his letter of
appointment was with him, that the election did not start at 8.00 a.m. and end at 3.00p.m. and that on
that day even at 2.00 p.m. they were expecting the electoral materials, that there were no policemen
on duty in the area of his assignment, that he reported the attack on him at Igbokoda Police Station,
that the Nigerian Labour Congress and INEC were in partnership to ensure peaceful conduct of the election
and that he was not a member of the killer squad.
         PW 47 in Volume 11 of the Petitioner's bundle of documents has attacked and condemned all the
results for the election in these wards for irregularities.
         It is noted that the Respondents did not lead any witness to testify on these wards.
         In respect of Ugbo I Ward 007 only polling units' results in Form EC8A for Units 010, 01l, 014
and 015 were tendered and one other from which the unit cannot be identified.
         It is observed that the total votes cast for Unit 001 is not reflected in form EC8B. In the
unit's result, Exhibit 1145 (1) it is 400 while in the ward's result, Exhibit 452 (1) and (2) it is 131.
         There is no entry for the results for Unit 014, Exhibit 1145 (2), in the ward's result, Exhibit 452 (1)
and (2). The number of registered voters for Unit 014 is 494 in the voters' register, Exhibit 449 (1) - (29)
while in the Form EC8A, Exhibit 1145 (2) it is 483.
         Similarly, the number of registered voters in the voters' register for Unit 015, Exhibit 450
(1) - (40) is 734 while in the unit's result it is shown to be 770.
         These simply mean that the two results were made without regard being had to the source
from which the number of registered voters was to be obtained as required by the "Manual for Election
Officials 2007" at page 30 wherein it is stated that the number of voters in the result forms shall be
obtained from the voters' registers.
         These make us believe that the forms for Units 04 and 010 were, as alleged by the Petitioner, not
the outcome of the election.
         It is not possible to determine, on the face of it, the result of which unit Exhibit 45 1 (2) is.
         Only 5 out of 15 Forms EC8A were tendered and no explanation was offered on the non-
tendering of the remaining results.
         Clearly, the Respondents who assert that election was duly conducted, and not the Petitioner who
averred otherwise, have the burden of proving the holding of the elections by producing the primary
evidence for the conduct of such elections in all the units and the Respondents have failed so to do. See
Malumfashi vs. Yaba (1999) 4 NWLR (Part 598) 230 at 237 where it was held as follows:
         "It must be noted that the only way one can question the lawfulness or otherwise of some of
the votes is to tender in evidence all the forms used".
                                                          178
         We have examined the documents tendered on which we have arrived at conclusions.
         The number of thumb-printed ballot papers and their reflections in Forms EC8B and EC8A for
some units are different. They are illustrated as follows:
UNIT     NUMBER       OF          EXHIBIT NUMBER             NUMBER OF VOTES         NUMBER OF VOTES CAST IN
         USED BALLOT              OF UNIT'S                  CAST IN UNIT'S          WARD'S RESULT: EXHIBIT
         PAPERS: EXHIBIT          RESULT: FORM               RESULT                  452 (1)AND (2)
         1078 (7)                 EC8A
3        58                                                                          81
6        486                                                                         488
9        24
10       38                                                  4511(1)                 24
11       130                      500                        1145(1)                 131
15       68                       515                        1145(3)                 515


         These discrepancies are to the effect that the results for Units 003, 006, 009, 010, 01l and 015 as
contained in Forms EC8A and EC8B were not obtained through electoral process. We, therefore, attach no
weight to all of them.
         Voters' cards for disenfranchised voters were tendered as evidence that they were not allowed
to vote, they are as follows:
UNIT     EXHIBIT NUMBER OF UNUSED VOTERS' CARDS                            NUMBER OF UNUSED VOTERS' CARDS

2        1098 (39)                                                         46
6        “                                                                 206
11       “                                                                 32
12       “                                                                 93
14       “                                                                 28


           UNIT 006 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 441 (1) - (29)
S/NO.    VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER                        NUMBER OF        MARKINGS     ON THE
                                                                       VOTER'S CARD

1.       170                                                           TWO
2.       166                                                           “
3.       411                                                           “
4.       441                                                           “
5.       179                                                           “
6.       25                                                            “
7.       116                                                           “
8.       242
9.       380                                                           “
10.      82




                                                         179
            UNIT 01l WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 446 (1) - (24)
S/NO.     VOTER'S      NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER      NUMBER OF MARKINGS ON THE
                                                           VOTER'S CARD

1.        62                                               TWO
2.        177                                              “
3.        269                                              “
4.        323                                              “
5.        39                                               “
6.        162                                              “
7.        149                                              “
8.        234                                              “
9.        403                                              “
10.       345                                              “


             UNIT 12 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 447 (1) - (29)
S/No.      VOTER’S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER          NUMBER OF MARKINGS ON THE
                                                           VOTER'S CARD

1.         85                                              NOT TICKED
2.         12                                              ,,
3.         91                                              ,,
4.         2                                               ,,
5.         52                                              ,,
6.         87                                              ,,
7.         67                                              ,,
8.         22                                              ,,
9.         278                                             ,,
10.        260                                             ,,


        NOTE that none of the registered voters' names is ticked in the voters' register which has 499
        voters' (No voting at the units?).


                 UNIT014WITHVOTERS'REGISTERMARKEDAS EXHIBIT 449 (1) - (29)
S/NO.     VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER            NUMBER OF MARKINGS ON THE
                                                            VOTER'S CARD

1.        170                                               TWO
2.        108                                               ,,
3.        8                                                 ,,
4.        11                                                ,,
5.        109                                               ,,
6.        9                                                 ,,
7.        167                                               ,,
8.        171                                               ,,
9.        3                                                 ,,
10.       44                                                ,,

                                                  180
         Forty six voters' cards were tendered in respect of Unit 002 (Exhibit 1098 (39)) but we could not
locate the name of any of the holders of the voters' cards in the voters' register (Exhibit 437 (1) (11)).
         We are by the above charts, convinced that no proper accreditation, which is sine qua non
for a valid election, took place in units 6, 11,12 and 14 of this Ugbo I Ward 007.
         It is also noted that the Form EC8B, the result sheet for the ward, Exhibit 308(1) and (2) which
has serial number 0004525 is not among the ward result forms distributed for the Local
Government Area as can be clearly seen from the distribution of Forms EC8 issued by INEC Exhibit 1125
(4). From that document the ward's result sheets issued by INEC are numbered 0004617 -0004628 and
Exhibit 308 (1) and (2) does not fall within that range.
         On the whole, in view of the unreliability of the Forms EC8A and EC8B tendered and the
discrepancies and irregularities highlighted on the results for this ward it is safer, on the
preponderance of evidence, to prefer the evidence of the Petitioner over and above those of the
Respondents on this ward. This is more so when the uncontroverted evidence is taken into consideration.
         In respect of Ugbo II Ward 008 we found that votes cast for Unit 8 Exhibit 475 (4), are higher than
the number of ballot papers and registered voters in the unit. The number of registered voters and ballot
papers issued to the unit are 326 each. However, 325 valid votes, one rejected vote, and one spoilt ballot
are recorded in the result. This is one ballot in excess of the number of voters' registered and the
number of ballots issued to the unit.
         Indeed, a close look at the result Exhibit 475 (4), shows that 325 votes are recorded for PDF and 25
for LP giving a total of 350 and not 325 valid votes.
         Our scrutiny of the document tendered reveals the following outcomes:
UNIT     EXHIBIT NUMBER NUMBER OF REGISTERED EXHIBIT NUMBER OF                          NUMBER OF
         OF UNIT'S RESULT VOTERS IN UNIT'S   VOTERS' REGISTER                           VOTERS IN THE
                          RESULT                                                        REGISTER
2        1146(1)                 40                            454(1) -(5)              17
4        ‘’ (2)                  122                           456(1) -(13)             199
4        1146 (3)                199                           456(1) -(13)             199
5        ‘’ (4)                  100                           457(1) -(9)              14
6        475 (2)                 266                           458(1) -(14)             73
7        ‘’ (3)                  396                           459 (1) - (23)           7
8.       ‘’(4)                   326                           460(1) -(18)             326
8        1146(5)                 396                           ‘’         ‘’    ‘’      326
9        1146(1)                 326                           461(1) -(8)              124
9        " (7)                   100                           ‘’             ‘’        124


         We note that, there are two distinctly different polling unit's results for Units 004,008 and 009 of this
ward.
         In the circumstances we do not have the latitude to pick and choose which of the two results to regard as

                                                        181
genuine.
           It is noted that there are discrepancies in the number of registered voters in the voters' registers
and Form EC8B for same units. They are as follows.-
UNIT       EXHIBIT NUMBER OF                     NUMBER OF VOTERS IN                NUMBE OF REGISTERED
           VOTERS' REGISTER                      THE REGISTER                       VOTERS IN WARD'S RESULT:
                                                                                    EXHIBIT 476 (1) AND (2)

5          475(1) -(9)                           136                                100
6          458(1) -(14)                          222                                266
9          461(1) –(8)                           124                                100
10         462(1) -(14)                          232                                236
14         466(1) -(19)                          304                                305
16         468(1) -(9)                           112                                114
22         474 91) -(12)                         212                                167


           These show that the number of registered voters in the Forms EC8A for these 7 units were not
obtained from the respective voters' registers for the units.
           In effect, this is a manifestation that the said results were actually arbitrary
           This offends the provisions of the "Manual for Election Officials 2007" at page 30.
           The Petitioner tendered unused voters' cards for 6 units in the ward as evidence that their holders were
not given the opportunity to vote. They are as follows:


UNIT       EXHIBIT NUMBER OF UNUSED VOTERS'                        NUMBER OF VOTERS' FOR THE UNIT
           CARDS FOR THE UNIT                                      CARDS

5          1098 (17)                                               18
7          ‘’                                                      16
8          ‘’                                                      1
9          ‘’                                                      46
15         ‘’                                                      6
16         ‘’                                                      40


            A comparison of the contents of the above stated voters' cards with those of the voters'
 registers for the said units reveals that while none of the voters' cards is marked to show that its
 holder voted in any election the voters' registers are ticked to show that the holders voted. Samples are
 provided hereunder.




                                                          182
          UNIT 005 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 457 (1) - (9)
S/NO                VOTERS' NUMBER               IN THE NUMBER OF             MARKS       IN     THE
                    VOTERS' REGISTER                    VOTER'S CARD

1.                  51                                    TWO
2.                  16                                    ‘’
3,                  27                                    ‘’
4.                  11                                    ‘’
5.                  1                                     ‘’
6                   2                                     ‘’

       It is noted that 18 voters' cards were tendered but only the names of 6 out of the 18 holders' names

have been located in the voter register:
          UNIT 007 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 459 (1) - (23)
S/NO     VOTERS'         NUMBER            IN THE VOTERS' NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE VOTER'S
         REGISTER                                         CARD
1.       46                                               TWO
2.       42                                               ‘’
3.       40                                               ‘’
4.       15                                               ‘’
5.       36                                               ‘’
6.       6                                                ‘’
7.       18                                               ‘’
8.       12                                               ‘’
9.       60                                               ‘’
10       95                                               ‘’


           UNIT 010 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 461 (1) - (8)
S/NO     VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE VOTER'S CARD


1.       6                                                TWO
2.       11                                               ‘’
3.       114                                              ‘’
4.       66                                               ‘’
5.       13                                               ‘’
6.       61                                               ‘’
7.       117                                              ‘’
8.       22                                               ‘’
9        81                                               ‘’




                                                    183
           UNIT 015 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 467 (1) - (10)
S/NO      VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER                  NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE VOTER'S
                                                                  CARD

1.        34                                                      ONE
2.        36                                                      ‘’
3.        130                                                     TWO
4.        127                                                     ‘’
5.        72                                                      ‘’
6.        112                                                     ‘’

          We note that only 6 voters' cards were tendered in respect of this unit.

             UNIT 016 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 468 (1) - (9)

S/NO                VOTERS' NUMBER IN                         NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE VOTER'S
                    THE VOTERS' REGISTER                      CARD

1.                  6                                         TWO
2.                  10                                        ‘’
3.                  51                                        ‘’
4.                  13                                        THREE
5.                  12                                        TWO
6.                  42                                        THREE
7.                  7                                         ‘’
8.                  40                                        ‘’
9.                  16                                        ‘’
10.                 3                                         TWO


         These charts indicate that there was no proper accreditation in Units 005, 007, 010, 015 and 016 of
this ward and it deprived the electoral process in this ward from attaining the objective of credibility.
         We have noticed differences between the number of used ballot papers and the polling unit results
as represented in Forms EC8A and EC8B as shown below:
UNIT     EXHIBIT NUMBER          NUMBER OF           EXHIBIT            NUMBER OF   NUMBER OF VOTES
         OF UNIT'S RESULTS       VOTES CAST          NUMBER OF          USED BALLOT CAST IN FORM
                                 IN UNIT'S           BALLOT             PAPERS      EC8B: EXHIBIT 534 (1)
                                 RESULT              PAPERS

1.                                                   1078(26)           161               164
2.       533 (1)                 500                 ‘’                 45                389
3.                                                   ‘’                 79                89
4.                                                   ‘’                 198               43
5.       " (2)                   493                 ‘’                 100               495
6.       1148(1)                 482                 ‘’                 202               482
7.                                                   ‘’                 394               352
8.                                                   1098 (2)           322               0

                                                        184
9                                                       1078 (26)          100                0
10.                                                     1098 (26)          200                441
11.                                                     ‘’                 195                400
12.                                                     ‘’                 70                 415
15.                                                     ‘’                 39                 485
16.                                                     ‘’                 104                500
22                                                      ‘’                 195


The discrepancies between the number of thumb-printed ballot papers and their reflections in the Forms
EC8A and EC8B show that the results were not obtained from valid election. This gives credence to the
Petitioner's accusations that they were not produced at the designated polling stations and collation centres.
         On Ugbo III Ward 009 the Forms EC8A tendered were for only 7 out of the 15 polling units in this
ward. No explanation has been offered for the failure to tender the rest of the forms by the Respondent who
ought to do so to support the assertion that election was duly conducted in each of the units of the ward.
         The unit's results tendered are for Units 001, 002, 005, 006, 014 (Exhibits 492 (1) - (5) and 1147 (1) -
(6) respectively), 089 and 010 (Exhibits 1281 and 1282 respectively). We are, as it is, entitled to accept the
Petitioner's assertion that there was no valid election in Units 3, 4, 7, 8, 11,12,13 and 15 of this ward.
         On Ugbo III ward 009 we observed differences in the entries for number of votes cast for Units
001 and 014 and their representation in the result for the ward, Exhibit 493 (1) and (2).
         In the result for Unit 1, Exhibit 1147 (1) or 492 (1), the number of votes cast is 399 valid and
one rejected making 400 while in the ward result it is shown to be 392.
         This is show in more details in the chart which follows.
         There are differences between the number of used ballot papers and the number of votes cast in
the units of this ward as reflected in Form EC8B. They are as follows:
UNIT     EXHIBIT NUMBER OF      NUMBER OF USED                             NUMBER OF VOTES CAST IN FORM
         USED BALLOT PAPERS FOR BALLOT PAPERS                              EC8B EXHIBIT 493 (1) AND (2)
         THE UNIT

1        1078 (22)                          399                            392
2        ‘’ (2)                             350
3        “ (3)                              147                            125
4        " (2)                              381                            385
5        " (22)                             216                            210
6        " (11)                             378                            378
7        " (21)                             888                            900
8        " (22)                             1025                           1,100
9        " (2)                              91                             70
10       ‘’      ‘’                         369                            NOT RECORDED
12       " (22)                             348                            341
13       (22)                               79                             80
14       " (2)                              332                            558

                                                           185
15      (22)                              398                            296


          These differences are significant in the sense that they point to the fact that the results as contained in
 the Form EC8B were not the outcome of valid election; they were arbitrarily and whimsically
 manufactured without regard to the process of generating such results. We, accordingly, do not
 accord any weight to the said results for 14 out of 15 units of the ward.
          Unused voters cards were tendered as evidence that some voters in the ward were
 deprived from exercising their rights to vote. They are as follows:
UNIT                UNUSED VOTERS’ CARDS EXHIBIT                         NUMBER OF VOTER’S CARDS
                    NUMBER
2                   1098 (41)                                            36
3                   ‘’                                                   28
4                   ‘’                                                   78
6                   ‘’                                                   28
12                  ‘’                                                   45
13                  ‘’                                                   371


        A comparison of the contents of the said voters' cards with the voters' registers for the
respective units reveals that although none of the voters' cards was marked as evidence that its holder
voted most of the names of the holders were ticked in the voters' registers for their units to show that they
voted. Here are samples:

           UNIT 003 WTH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 479 (1) - (20)
S/NO               VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTER'S                NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE VOTER'S CARD
                   REGISTER

1.                 48                                           TWO
2.                 68                                           ‘’
3.                 4                                            ‘’
4.                 27                                           ‘’
5.                 16                                           ‘’
6.                 29                                           ‘’
7.                 81                                           ONE
8
9.                  1 O N PAGE 17                               ONE
10.                 1 ON PAGE 13                                ‘’


          NOTE that out of 28 voters' cards tendered only the names of 10 of their respective holders
 were found in the voters' register.
          And, that voter number 27 on page 3 of the voters' register is the same person as voter number 27
 on page 18 of the voters' register:


                                                         186
          UNIT 004 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 480 (1) - (23)
S/NO.    VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'               NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE VOTER'S CARD
         REGISTER

1.       44                                          TWO
2.       117                                         ‘’
3.       82                                          ‘’
4.       6                                           ‘’
5.       52                                          ‘’
6.       112                                         ‘’
7.       38                                          ‘’
8.       83                                          ‘’
9        74                                          ‘’
10       38                                          ‘’


        It is noted that voter number 38 on page 7 of the voters' register with number
30700201092 has two voters' cards which were tendered bearing his name and particulars.



S/NO.               VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE VOTER'S
                    REGISTER                      CARD

1.                  85                                       TWO
2.                  116                                      ‘’
3.                  118                                      ‘’
4.                  99                                       ‘’
5.                  113                                      ‘’
6.                  103                                      ‘’
7.                  121                                      ‘’
8.                  108                                      ‘’
9.                  114                                      ‘’
10.                 8                                        ‘’


UNIT 012 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 488 (1) - (21)

S/NO.            VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'             NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE VOTER'S
                 REGISTER                                  CARD

1.               281                                       TWO
2                297                                       ‘’


          Only the names of two out of 45 persons whose unused voters' cards were tendered have
 been found in the voters' register for this unit.
          IT SHOULD BE NOTED that of 36 voters' cards tendered for Unit 002 and 371 for Unit 013 of
 this ward none of the names of their respective holders were found in their respective voters' registers.
                                                     187
         These are evidence that an essential ingredient in a duly conducted election, accreditation,
was not properly conducted in Units 003, 004, 005 and 0012.
         From the above analyses it is evident that the Petitioner has been able to prove that there was
no valid election in all the 15 Units of this ward.
         We, therefore, hold that the elections or the purported elections said to have been held in
all the units of this ward were a sham and we nullify them.
         None of the parties testified on the happenings at Ugbo IV Ward 010.
         The Petitioner led PW47 who condemned the results of the election for, in his opinion, irregularities.
         Only one polling unit's result on Forms EC8A, Exhibit 515, was tendered for Unit 002 which, as will be
seen in due course, has been discredited because the number of used ballot papers for the unit (Exhibit 1078 (5))
is different from the entry for number of votes cast in Exhibit 515. The number of used ballot papers for the unit
is 280 while the Form EC8A shows 50 valid votes and 09 spoilt ballots.
         No reason has been offered by the Respondents on whom it is incumbent to produce the rest of the polling
unit results since they have maintained that elections were duly conducted at the units. It must be said that the
Petitioner does not have that responsibility because his position has been that no election was conducted in
any of the units of the ward.
         The Respondents have, therefore, failed to produce the rest of the Forms EC8A at their detriment.
         There are differences between the number of thumb-printed voters' cards and the number of votes
cast in units of this ward as reflected in Form EC8B for the ward. They are as follows:
UNIT    EXHIBIT NUMBER OF USED                   NUMBER OF USED BALLOT              NUMBER OF VOTES CAST IN
        BALLOT PAPERS FOR THE UNITS              PAPERS FOR THE UNITS               FORM EC8B: EXHIBIT 534 (1)
                                                                                    AND(1L

1       1078 (5)                                 400                                164
2       ‘’ (4)                                   180                                389
3       " (5)                                    280                                89
4       ‘’ ‘’                                    421                                43
5       ‘’ ‘’                                    397                                495
6       ‘’ (4)                                   162                                482
7       ‘’ (5)                                   51                                 352
8       ‘’ ‘’                                    485                                0
9       ‘’ (4)                                   868                                441
15      ‘’ ‘’                                    492                                485
16      ‘’ (5)                                   488                                500
20      ‘’ (4)                                   397                                400


       These establish the fact that there was no election in the 12 units shown in the illustration because if
election had been duly conducted the number of thumb-printed ballot papers will be equal to the number of
votes cast for their respective units. Unused voters' cards for persons who claimed were deprived of the

                                                        188
 rights to vote at the following units were tendered:
UNIT                  EXHIBIT    NUMBER             OF UNUSED      NUMBER      OF CARDS
                      VOTERS' CARDS                                VOTERS'

1                      1098(18)                                    267
2                     ‘’                                           252
3                     ‘’                                           191
17                    ‘’                                           179


        From the samples we have taken of the voter's card which we matched against the voters' register we found
that while the names of the holders of the cards are ticked in the register the voters' cards are not ticked to
show that the cards were ever used to vote. They are illustrated hereunder:

UNIT 001 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 494 (1) - (24)
S/NO.                 VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'                NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE
                      REGISTER                                     VOTERS' REGISTER

1                     220                                          TWO
2                     350                                          ‘’
3                     79                                           ‘’
4                     254                                          ‘’
5                     351                                          ‘’
6                     86                                           ‘’
7                     226                                          ‘’
8                     319                                          ‘’
9                     304                                          ‘’
10                    78                                           ‘’


UNIT 002 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 495 (1) - (12)
S/NO.            VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'                NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE VOTERS'
                 REGISTER                                     REGISTER

1                13                                           TWO
2                82                                           ‘’

          NOTE that 252 voters' cards were tendered while only 189 voters are in the voters' register

 out of which the names of only two have been located in the voters' register.


           UNIT 003 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 496 (1) - (18)
S/NO.               VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'               NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE VOTERS'
                    REGISTER                                    REGISTER

1                   261                                         TWO
2                   201                                         ‘’
3                   149                                         ‘’
4                   31                                          ‘’
                                                        189
5                     260                                       ‘’
6                     116                                       ‘’
7                     22                                        TWO
8                     130                                       ‘’
9                     279                                       ‘’
10                    3                                         ‘’


UNIT 017 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 510 (1) - (23)
S/NO.                   VOTERS NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'              NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE VOTERS'
                        REGISTER                                  REGISTER
1                       274                                       TWO
2                       138                                       ‘’
3                       382                                       ‘’
4                       259                                       ‘’
5                       186                                       ‘’
6                       265                                       ‘’
7                       359                                       ‘’
8                       384                                       ‘’
9                       324                                       ‘’
10                      28                                        ‘’


         The implication of these irregularities is that there was no proper and valid accreditation of voters in
Units 1, 2, 3 and 17 of this ward and this, by the authority of AONDOAKAA vs. AJO (supra) defeats the whole
essence of the electoral process.
         There could not be said to have been a free and fair election in Ugbo IV Ward 010 in view of the
evidence to the effect that no election took place in all the units of the ward because of the failure of the
Respondents to provide the primary evidence of the holding of such election and the fact that differences have
been established between the number of thumb-printed ballot papers for 12 out of the 21 units of the
ward
         In all, we are satisfied that the Petitioner has proved that no election was conducted in any of the 21
units of this ward.
         On this ward PW44 gave evidence to the effect that there was no election in any of the units of this
ward.
         RW33, however, said it was impossible for PW44 to be at Ugbo V and Ugbo VI on the same day
because of the difficulty of the terrain which is riverine.
         RW36, however, also said on the day of the election he traveled with the electoral
materials from Igbokoda to Ugbo V where he witnessed the distribution of materials to the Presiding
Officers and then proceeded to Ugbo VI where after he distributed the materials he went round all the units to
monitor the election.

                                                          190
        PW47, an expert witness led by the Petitioner, offered the opinion in Volume XI of the
Petitioner's bundle of documents that the results of the election were products of irregularities.
        In respect of Unit 014 two distinctly different results were tendered for the unit one in
counterpart original and the other in CTC. The one in counterpart original, Exhibit 533 (4) shows that no
vote was recorded for any of the parties while the one in CTC shows that 1367 voters were registered in
the unit and all the 1367 voters voted for PDP. In this case we cannot pick and choose which of the two
results for Unit 014 to accord credit to. They are, accordingly discountenanced.
        We have analyzed the documents which are in evidence in this matter and we have arrived at
conclusions as stated herein.
        We have discovered that there are differences between the number of voters in the voters'
registers and the ward's results for Units 002, 005, 010 and 012. They are illustrated as follows:
UNIT     EXHIBIT NUMBER OF VOTERS' NUMBER OF VOTERS IN THE NUMBER OF VOTERS IN THE
         REGISTER FOR THE UNIT     VOTERS' REGISTER        WARD'S RESULT: EXHIBIT 534
                                                           (1) AND (2)
2        518(1) -(2)                         4                                 479
5        521(1) -(28)                        486                               500
10       526(1) -(7)                         100                               500
12       528(1) -(19)                        339                               489


          This is a clear indication that the results for Units 2, 5,10 and 12 were not properly obtained
 since by the provision of the "Manual for Election Officials 2007" the number of voters in the result
 forms must be obtained from the voters' registers. This gives credence to the Petitioners allegation,
 which we are given cause to believe, that the results for the said 4 units were not obtained from a duly
 conducted election.
          There are differences between the number of thumb-printed ballot paper for the polling units and
 the results for the units as represented in the ward's result in Form EC8B. They are as follows:
UNIT     EXHIBIT NUMBER             NUMBER OF USED BALLOT              NUMBER OF VOTES CAST IN FORM
         OF BALLOT PAPERS           PAPERS FOR THE UNIT                EC8B: EXHIBIT 534 (1) AND (2)

1        1078 (21)                  204                                164
2        ‘’        ‘’               396                                389
3        ‘’        ‘’               114                                89
4        ‘’   (6)                   50                                 43
5        ‘’ (6)                     498                                495
7        ‘’ (6)                     347                                352
8        ‘’ (31)                    63                                 0
9        ‘’ (21)                    450                                441
10       ‘’ (6)                     488                                400
12       ‘’ (21)                    335                                328
15       ‘’ (31)                    478                                485

                                                       191
16        ‘’      ‘’                736                                500)
16        "     (21)                225                                )


         We note that there are 2 sets of used ballot papers for Unit 016 of this ward.
         The differences are evidence that the number of votes cast at 12 units as represented in Form EC8B,
Exhibit 534 (1) and (2), was not derived from the number of thumb-printed ballot papers.
         This is a clear manifestation that the number of votes cast in the units was not the basis of the collated
result in Form EC8B.
         We are therefore given cause to accept the Petitioner's allegations that the results were
fabricated.
         The Petitioner tendered unused voters cards in respect of 7 units to show that eligible voters in the
units were not allowed to vote. None of the voters' cards is marked to show that it has been used to vote.
         They are as follows:



UNIT                   EXHIBIT NUMBER           OF VOTERS' NUMBER OF VOTERS' CARDS
                       CARDS
5                      1098 (40)                                 29
6                      ‘’                                        13
10                     ‘’                                        198
11                     ‘’                                        64
13                     ‘’                                        49
15                     ‘’                                        16
16                     ‘’                                        21


          We have analysed samples of the voters' cards against the markings which are indicators that
holders of the voters' cards voted in the voters' register and these are our findings.
          In respect of Units 005 and 006 of this ward none of the names of the holders of the voters'
cards tendered is found in the voters' registers, Exhibits 521 (1) - (28) and 522 (1) - (29)
respectively.
          The same applies to Unit 010 with voters' register marked Exhibit 526 (1) - (7), in addition to
voter number 30700200588 with the same photograph and information.


         UNIT 011 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 527 (1) - (25)
S/NO                   VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'             NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE VOTERS'
1                      8                                         TWO
2                      28                                        ‘’
3                      99                                        ‘’
4                      102                                       ‘’

                                                       192
5                    100                                          ‘’
6                    101                                          ‘’
7                    58                                           ‘’
8                    59                                           ‘’
9                    56                                           ‘’
10                   394                                          ‘’


         We noted that voters with vin. Number 20156401077, 20156401095 and 20156401083
presented two ballot papers each containing the same photograph and information.
         According to the voters' register for Unit 013, Exhibit 529 (1) - (2), there is only one voter in
the unit. Forty nine voters' cards were tendered but the name of none of them could be found in the
register and the only name in the register is not ticked.

         UNIT 015 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 531 (1) - (29)
S/NO.                    VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'                  NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE
                         REGISTER                                       VOTERS' REGISTER

1                        68                                             TWO
2                        425                                            ‘’
3                        428                                            ‘’
4                        109                                            ‘’
5                        110                                            ‘’
6                        121                                            ‘’
7                        197                                            ‘’
8                        163                                            ‘’
9                        180                                            ‘’
10                       161                                            ‘’


             UNIT 016 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 532(1)-(30)
S/NO.              VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE       NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE
                   VOTERS' REGISTER            VOTER'S CARD

1                      26                                              TWO
2                      163                                             ‘’
3                      318                                             ‘’
4                      138                                             ‘’
5                      137                                             ‘’
6                      138                                             ‘’
7                      141                                             ‘’
8                      140                                             ‘’
9                      136                                             ‘’
10                     132                                             ‘’




                                                            193
           Bearing in mind the muddled nature of the state of the voters' registers for Units 005, 006, 010 and 013
and the indication that there was no proper accreditation in Units 11, 15 and 16 of this ward we are of the
view that in the state of affairs the voters' cards in relation to the voters' registers there cannot be said to have
been any election which conformed with the basic requirements as enunciated in AONDOAKAA vs. AJO
(supra).
           The Petitioner tendered polling unit results for only Units 002, 005, 006, 010 and 014 out of
the results for the units in the ward.
           Out of these, results for Unit 014 represented by Exhibits 533 (3) and 533 (4) have been
discountenanced because they represent two different versions of the same thing from which we
cannot pick and choose which to confer credit to.
           The results for Units 002, 005 and 010 have been shown to be unreliable because they do not
correspond with the number of thumb-printed voters' cards for their respective units.
           In view of the irregularities associated with the results for all the units of this ward we have no
alternative than to conclude that there was no election which can be said to have been duly
conducted in Ugbo V Ward XI.
           The result for this ward is accordingly nullified.


           UGBO VI WARD 12
           The pleadings on this ward are contained in paragraph 21.7 (i) - (x) and 28 to 30 of the petition.
           The 1st Respondent's reply is paragraph 208 to 213 refutes the Petitioner's allegations.
           The evidence of PW44 was that on the day of the election the distribution of electoral materials was
delayed due to the refusal of the Electoral Officer for the Local Government Area to paste the names of
Presiding Officers at the INEC's office at Igbokoda, that at about 2.45 p.m. the materials were forcefully loaded
into two buses, that in the process the armed soldiers applied force and brutalized protesters, that
the PDF thugs also traumatized the people who were going to their various wards in their boats and that
true election did not take place in the 12 wards of Ilaje Local Government. PW44 added that he wrote to
INEC and the SSS about the incidence but he could not remember writing to the police, that as at
about 5.00 p.m. not a single unit had received electoral materials in Ugbo VI, that only one unit called
Ubale Kekere out of 17 Units received materials in Ugbo VI, that his party had agents at the various units
of Ilaje Local Government Area and they are all alive, that he was surprised that Chief Olusola Oke
a PDP leader was controlling the INEC, the Military, Navy and the Police on that day.
           RW33 testified as Party Agent for the PDP for polling unit 013 of Ugbo VT in Ilaje Local
Government Area, that electoral materials were brought to the unit at about 2.10 p.m, that elections duly took
place and voting was concluded at 6.30 p.m, that the result was recorded in Form EC8A which was
                                                           194
signed by the Presiding Officer and Party Agents including RW33, that the results were announced and
were taken to the collation centre.
         RW33 said he voted at Unit 012 which is in the same place with Unit 013. He then identified his
name at page 22 of Exhibit 547 (1) - (28), the voters register for the units where RW33 said he voted,
which has the 2 indications that RW33 voted on 14th April, 2007 and in another election. RW33 added that
PW44 could not have moved from Ugbo VI to Ugbo V on that day because it was not practicable
because of the terrain and that he did not see any group wearing red apparels or uniforms
disrupting election in Units 012 and 013 on that day, and that the election in both units was peaceful.
RW33 then said the signature of PDP's agent on Exhibit 1149 (8) the result for Unit 013 is that of Fred; he
then said he signed the result for Unit 012 and not 013, that he acted as agent
at Unit 012 and voted at Unit 013.


         UGBO VI WARD 12
         RW36 said he worked as supervisor for Ugbo VI in Ilaje Local Government Area for INEC,
that his job included collection of election materials from INEC and distribution of same to all Presiding
Officers, collection of unused materials from Presiding Officers and remitting same to INEC after the
election. RW36 stated further that he moved to all units under his supervision and distributed electoral
materials to the Presiding Officers, that elections were held in all the polling units under his
supervision, that the election was peacefully and successfully conducted in all the units that he moved
round and collected the unused materials for all the units after the election that the election was
not characterized by violence or snatching of ballot boxes .
         RW36 added that he got the electoral materials from Igbokoda INEC's office and
brought to Ugbo VI by boat along with 3 other supervisors: one other for Ugbo VI and the other 2 for
Ugbo V, that the supervisors for Ugbo V were dropped from the boat first, that he was there when they
distributed materials to the Presiding Officers at Ugbo V, that he distributed materials for all units under
him except for Odun-Oyingbo Unit 009, whose materials were mistakenly taken to another unit at
Igbokoda, that elections took place in all the 9 units except Unit 005, that he finished distribution of
materials at 2.00 p.m, that in the course of his work he met PW44 3 times at his unit Odun Oyibo on that
day, that policemen maintained law and order at the election.
         RW36 confirmed that Exhibit 1106 (1) - (9) was made by the Electoral Officer for the Local
Government Area. He checked and said his name was not in any of Exhibits 436 (1) (32), 437 (1) -(11)
and 438 (1) - (2) the voters' registers for Unit 001, 002 and 003 of Ugbo I where he said he voted. He
said he did not watch the filling of results in Forms EC8A tendered, that he did not distribute
Forms EC8S with same serial numbers to the Presiding Officers and that every Presiding Officer was
                                                        195
restricted to his unit and could not go to any other unit for the performance of his job. He added that his unit
was not in the voters' registers for Units 001, 002 and 003 of Ugbo I.
        RW39 said he was appointed PDF agent for Unit 007 of this ward where electoral materials were
brought at 1.45 p.m, that voting was concluded at about 6.45 p.m, that sorting and counting of ballots and
recording and announcement of the results were also done, that the Presiding Officer then took the
results to the collation centre accompanied by the available party agents including RW39.
        RW39 identified the result for the unit where he said he voted and was admitted and marked as Exhibit
1269.
        He added that there was election in the unit close to where he acted as agent which was not
disrupted, that the election was concluded around 6.55 p.m. at the other unit, that he saw other Presiding
Officers at the collation centre, that he was the only party agent who signed the result, that the police provided
security at the unit, that he served as party agent in only Unit 002, that the Presiding Officer for the
place where he signed as written in Exhibit 552 (2) was Esemojumi Adenike and in Exhibit 552 (1) the Presiding
Officers name was also written as Esomojumi Adenike and that he was expected to vote at Awoye 2 Local
Authority School but he could not trace his name in Exhibit 536 (1) - (14), the voters' register for the
Unit.
        We are of the view that the evidence led by the Petitioner on this ward is covered by the pleadings.


        UGBO VI WARD 12
        We note that the results for Unit 001 and 002 of this ward have the same entries except for
the units' numbers and were, from the handwriting and the name, clearly made by one and the same
Somejumi Adenike. In both results the number of registered voters, total number of ballot papers
issued to the units and the total valid votes cast are 221 for each. The results are Forms EC8A for
Unitl, Exhibits 1149 (1) and 552 (1) and for Unit 002 Exhibits 1149 (2) and 552 92).
        Two distinctly different ward's results in Form EC8B were tendered for this ward; one in
counterpart original and the other in CTC. The counterpart original, Exhibit 553 (1) has the total votes cast
as 5510 and has no entry for the total number of registered voters for the ward. On the other hand the
CTC of the ward result, Exhibit 553 (2) shows that 5862 total votes were cast and the total number of
registered voters is shown to be 5861.
        We are unable to accept that in the whole of the ward only one voter was unable to vote for
whatever reason: death, migration, sickness, apathy etc.
        Furthermore, in respect of result for Unit 001, Exhibit 1149 (1) and 552 (1), 221 voters
registered and 211 were recorded as valid votes. However, the number of registered-voters for the same
unit was shown as 416 while the number of votes shown to have been cast was 355 in the ward results
                                                      196
(Exhibits 553 (1) and 553 (2) clarify).
           On the face of the Form EC8A for Unit 013, Exhibit 1149 (8), it is obvious that the number of
voters at the unit recorded as 499 is at variance with the number of voters in the voters' register for the
unit which is 496. This shows that the entry of the number of voters was arbitrarily inserted in the
result sheet. This is because by the provision of the "Manual for Election Officials 2007" (page 30)
the number of voters on the result form must be obtained form the voters' register for the unit.
           This irregularity puts a stain on the result for the unit to the extent that it renders it unworthy of
any credit.
           This is even more so when the contents of Exhibit 1091 (1) -(5) wherein the Electoral Officer for
the Local Government Area reported that there was no elections in Units 005, 008 and 009 are considered.
           It is also observed that the polling units' results for Units 003 and 006, Exhibits 552 (3) and 552 (4)
respectively bear the same serial number. The number is 038415. The serial numbers of the result sheets
are their individual identities. In this case we are of the view that this amounts to an anomaly which cannot be
excused.
           We, accordingly, discountenance the two results for being irregular.
           This position has been given support by RW36 who testified to the fact that none of the Forms EC8As he
distributed on the day of the election bore same serial number with any other.
           From the Forms EC8B tendered for the ward, Exhibits 553 (1) and 553 (2), it is apparent that no
election was conducted in the 3 units and from the scrutiny we subjected the documents to we conclude that
Units 005, 008 and 009 results are unacceptable.
           RW33's evidence was so full of contradiction and inconsistencies that it cannot be believed.
           In his written statement on oath RW33 said he was assigned to Polling Unit 013 as an agent of PDP
during the election. But when he was shown Exhibit 1149 (8) the result for the unit 013 which he said he
signed he changed his mind and said he actually signed the result for Unit 012 where he acted as an agent.
           The result for Unit 012 was not tendered and it deprived the Tribunal of the benefit of confirming if
RW33's claim that election actually took place at the unit was true.
           RW33 also said he voted at Unit 013 and as held earlier, the result for that unit was declared worthless by
this Tribunal.
           We are of the firm view that the Respondents who claimed the holding of a valid election had the
responsibility of presenting the primary evidence of such election to the Tribunal and they failed to do so
at their own peril.
           In the absence of Form EC8A for Unit 012 we find it impossible to accept the story of
RW33 that due election was conducted in the unit.
           We hold that no election was conducted in the unit.
                                                         197
          The only polling unit's results for units tendered were for Units 001, 002, 003, 004, 006, 007,
 011, 013 and 016 out of the 17 units in the ward.
          The results for the other 8 units were not tendered. As we have shown earlier on it is the
 responsibility of the Respondents whose case is that elections were duly conducted in these units to
 produce the Forms EC8A as evidence of holding of such elections. The Petitioner whose stand is that no
 election was conducted in the units of the ward does not have to produce such results.
          We, as it is, conclude that elections did not take place in Units 005, 008, 009, 010, 012, 014,
 015 and 017 of this ward.
          The Petitioner tendered unused voters' cards for 10 units to show that some eligible voters were
 disenfranchised. They are as follows:


UNIT                    EXHIBIT       NUMBER         OF VOTERS'       NUMBER       OF     VOTERS' CARD
                        CARDS
1                       1098 (15)                                     49
2                       ‘’                                            31
5                       ‘’                                            99
6                       ‘’                                            203
7                       ‘’                                            98
8                       ‘’                                            434
9                       ‘’                                            184
13                      ‘’                                            108
14                      ‘’                                            503
16                      44                                            386


         We have checked samples of the voters' cards none of which was marked or punched to show that its
holder voted against the entries in the voters' registers for the respective units and found as shown hereunder.


                 UNIT 001 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 535 (1) - (26)
S/NO.                 VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'                    NUMBER OF THE VOTERS'
                      REGGISTER                                        MARKS ON REGISTER

1                     375                                             TWO
2                     377                                             ‘’
3                     386                                             ‘’
4                     399                                             ‘’
5                     385                                             ‘’
6                     383                                             ‘’
7                     54                                              ‘’
8                     55                                              ‘’
9                     230                                             ‘’
10                    242                                             ‘’

                                                        198
         It should be noted that out of the 49 voters' cards tendered for this unit only the names of the ten
holders listed above could be traced in the voters' register.


         UNIT 002 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 536 (1) - (14)
S/NO.                VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'               NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE VOTERS'
                     REGISTER                                    REGISTER

1                    28                                          TWO
2                    34                                          ‘’
3                    29                                          ‘’
4                    30                                          ‘’
5                    33                                          ‘’
6                    18                                          ‘’
7                    35                                          ‘’
8                    51                                          ‘’
9                    62                                          ‘’
 10                  65                                          ‘’


AS EXHIBIT 539 (1) - (23)
S/NO.         VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' NUMBER OF MARKS                                   ON THE
              REGISTER                      VOTER'S REGISTER

1                      298                                        TWO
2                      124                                        ‘’
3                      104                                        ‘’
4                      206                                        ‘’
5                      167                                        ‘’
6                      170                                        ‘’
7                      294                                        ‘’
8                      182                                        ‘’
9                      379                                        ONE
10                     344                                        ‘’


             UNIT 006 WITH VOTES' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 540 (1) - (36)
S/NO.              VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE
                   VOTERS' REGISTER          VOTERS' REGISTER
1                      14                                         TWO
2                      84                                         ‘’
3                      309                                        ‘’
4                      243                                        ‘’
5                      191                                        ‘’
7                      294                                        ‘’
8                      477                                        ‘’
9                      215                                        ONE
10                     221                                        ‘’


                                                           199
        UNIT 007 WITH VOTERS REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 541 (1) - (29)
S/NO.          VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE
               VOTERS' REGISTER             VOTERS' REGISTER
1             9                            TWO
2             117                          ‘’
3             432                          ‘’
4             20                           ‘’
5             10                           ‘’
6             56                           ‘’
7             70                           ‘’
8             171                          ‘’
9             328                          ‘’
10            321                          ‘’


      UNIT 008 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 542 (1) - (31)
S/NO.         VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE
              VOTERS' REGISTER         VOTERS' REGISTER

1.            172                         ONE
2.            45                          ‘’
3.            48                          ‘’
4.            325                         ‘’
5.            129                         ‘’
6.            343                         ‘’
7.            85                          ‘’
8.            479                         ‘’
9.            348                         ‘’
10.           275                         NOT TICKED


      UNIT 009 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 543 (1) - (24)
S/NO.        VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE
             VOTERS' REGISTER         VOTERS' REGISTER

1.           342                         NONE
2.           373                         ‘’
3.           378                         ‘’
4.           231                         ‘’
5.           353                         ‘’
6.           315                         ‘’
7.           203                         ‘’
8.           372                         ‘’
9.           356                         ‘’
10.          374                         ‘’




                                   200
                    UNIT 013 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 547 (1) - (28)
S/NO.             VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE
                  VOTERS' REGISTER             VOTERS' REGISTER

1.               209                                    TWO
2.               129                                    ‘’
3.               179                                    ‘’
4.               475                                    ‘’
5.               178                                    ‘’
6.               287                                    ‘’
7.               58                                     ‘’
8.               395                                    ‘’
9.               172                                    ‘’
10.              436                                    ‘’


UNIT 014 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 548 (1) - (32)
S/NO.             VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'          NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE VOTERS'
                  REGISTER                               REGISTER

1.                8                                      TWICE
2.                40                                     ‘’
3.                41                                     ‘’
4.                47                                     ‘’
5.                28                                     ‘’
6.                39                                     ‘’
7.                44                                     ‘’
8.                45                                     ‘’
9.                12                                     ‘’
10                5                                      ‘’


        UNIT 016 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 550 (1) - (25)
S/NO.             VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE
                  REGISTER                      VOTERS' REGISTER
1.                24                                     TWO
2.                89                                     ‘’
3.                100                                    ‘’
4.                386                                    ‘’
5.                201                                    ‘’
6.                290                                    ‘’
7.                299                                    ‘’
8.                275                                    ‘’
9.                337                                    ‘’
10.               55                                     ‘’


        These show that even if elections were held in these units they were fraught with grave
irregularities which vitiated the elections. This is for the fact that accreditation, being an essential


                                                  201
ingredient for due election said to have been held, has not been shown to have been conducted in
Units 001, 002, 005, 006, 007, 008, 013, 014 and 016 of this ward.
            Although the 1st Respondent's witness, RW33, testified to the effect that it was impossible for PW44
to move from Ugbo VI to Ugbo V as PW44 claimed but RW36 another witness of the 1st Respondent
testified to the effect that on the day of the election he moved from Igbokoda to Ugbo V where he watched
distribution of materials to all the Presiding Officers in all the units before he proceeded to Ugbo VI
where he also performed the distribution of the said electoral materials to the Presiding Officers except
for Units 009 and 005 and was able to go round all the units to monitor the elections on the same day after
that.
            In this situation we are more inclined to believe the evidence of PW44 and RW36 who said they
undertook the journeys between Ugbo V and Ugbo VI more than the evidence of RW33 who never laid any claims to
undertaking such a journey and whose evidence we have already declared as unreliable.
            The evidence of PW44 was that as at about 2.45 p.m. the electoral materials were not
distributed to the supervisors who would then deliver them to the various wards.
            RW33 said materials were brought to his Unit 013 at about 2.00 p.m. and voting was concluded at 6.00
p.m.
            RW39 also said the materials were brought to Unit 007 at 1.45 p.m. and voting was concluded at about
6.45 p.m.
            RW36 said he finished the distribution of materials at 2.00 p.m. for the units in the ward.
            In paragraph 21.7 (ii) of the petition the Petitioner alleged that no electoral materials were
distributed at INEC's office at Igbokoda GRA on that day between 8.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. In paragraph 209
of his reply to the petition the 1st Respondent countered and said that the Presiding Officers arrived
with the electoral materials just before 10.00 a.m. and distribution commenced thereafter.
            This averment of the 1st Respondent represents gross misunderstanding of the electoral
process.
            At the stage the Petitioner was complaining the Presiding Officers did not feature. It was the
Supervisory Presiding Officers who would collect the materials at Igbokoda GRA and take them to their assigned
wards to distribute to the Presiding Officers. The Presiding Officers could not therefore, be said to have brought
the electoral materials there at a time when they were supposed to have set up the polling stations at their
respective units. We refer to Item 1.2 on "Duties of Election Officials" on page 2 of the "Manual for
Election Officials 2007" and chapter 2 on page 15 of the said "Manual for Election Officials 2007" which provide
that the polls are supposed to open at 8.00 a.m. in all polling units throughout the country and the Presiding
Officers are supposed to be at their respective units at least one hour before the time for opening the polls.
            The 1st Respondent's reply to the Petitioner's claim cannot therefore be said to have amounted to a
                                                           202
defence as required by the law because it did not tackle the issue of time adequately with some degree of
comprehension of the issue in contention.
          The evidence of PW11 who worked as a Domestic Observer in his report Exhibit 1109 (1) - (3) was that
the electoral materials were still at Igbokoda as at 2.00 p.m. on that day and that the materials left Igbokoda
for the riverine areas at 2.20 p.m.
          The evidence of this witness and PW44 are in consonance with the Petitioner's pleadings.
          The evidence of RW33, RW36 and RW39 with respect to this issue have no pleadings on which to
hang and even if there were, the evidence of the respondents on the issue are replete with facts which contradict
the 1st Respondent's pleadings on the issue. This is so because while the evidence of RW33, and RW39 are to the
effect that the materials were brought to the units which means, by the rules, to the Presiding Officers and
RW39 said he distributed the materials to the said Presiding Officers after collecting same from
Igbokoda, the reply to the petition is to the effect that the electoral materials were brought to Igbokoda before
10.00 a.m. by the Presiding Officers after which the distribution commenced.
          It should be noted that the results for the election for the ward in Form EC8B has two versions with
different entries; Exhibit 553 (1) and 553(2). They have both been certified by INEC.
          Exhibit 553 (1) shows that the total votes cast for the ward was 5, 310 and has no entry for the total
number of voters in the whole of the ward.
          Exhibit 554 (3) on the hand has 5,862 as the number of votes cast and 4861 registered voters in the ward
which indicates there was over voting in the ward.
          We are then faced with a situation in which we cannot prefer one or the other of two results.
          We, accordingly, cannot rely on them as the products of fair collation properly conducted at the collation
centre.
          On the whole we believe that no fair election could be said to have been conducted in any of the polling
units of this ward in the light of the irregularities highlighted and the fact that the election in which materials
were not distributed to the Supervisory Presiding Officers at 2.00 p.m. and which by the rules
was expected to commence at 8.00 a.m. and finish at 3.00 p.m. cannot be said to have even been held at all.
This is so considering the facts that evidence from the parties are that the terrain is difficult.
          We, accordingly, nullify the election in this ward.
          GENERALLY, it is, as earlier on stated, apparent that the 1st Respondent did not reply to the issue
of the time at which distribution of materials started at Igbokoda for the wards in the Local Government
Area as averred by the Petitioner. This makes us to believe that as at 2.00 p.m. on that day the distribution of the
electoral materials did not commence at Igbokoda and that bearing in mind the difficult nature of the terrain as
testified to by both parties and all the irregularities we have pointed out with respect to the exhibits tendered we
hold that no free and fair election could be said to have been held in all the units of this Local Government
                                                                203
AreaWe have also considered the fact that the voting by the rules as stated earlier, was supposed to commence at
8.00 a.m. and close at 3.00 p.m. which is a period of 7 hours.
         In the instant situation where distribution did not commence at 2.00 p.m. it will take some time
after the collection of the materials for the Supervisory Presiding Officers (SPO) to traverse the terrain to
reach their individual wards and to take the materials to each unit where the Presiding Officers were
expected to be waiting for them.
         The Presiding Officers would then comply with the procedure laid down in Item 2.2 of the
"Manual for election Officials 2007" at page 13 before accreditation and voting would then commence. The
voting may extend until the night in such a situation in any part of Nigeria.
         We do not see how a free and fair election can be said to have taken place in the night in a crisis
prone atmosphere as shown in the "Comprehensive Report on Governorship and House of Assembly
election of 14th April, 2007" signed by the Electoral Officer of the Local Government Area: Exhibits 1091
(1) - (5). This can also be seen in Exhibits 1108 (1) - (3) and 1109 (1) - (3).
         Furthermore, an atmosphere in which armed soldiers and naval men were drafted to the
scene and not policemen could not be said to be conducive for peaceful, free and fair exercise of the right
to choose leaders.
         We, accordingly, nullify the election in Ilaje Local Government Area.


         IRELE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA
         The Petitioner alleged that in this Local Government Area the 1st and 2nd Respondents with the active
support, connivance and collusion from the 3rd Respondent, the Nigeria Police and the Nigerian Army
embarked on mass arrests, abduction and detention of agents, members of the Petitioner's political party
and their supporters throughout the Local Government area and in particular Honourable Aderemi
Olatubora, a Legal Practitioner and Ondo State Publicity Secretary of the Labour Party who was abducted by
heavily armed soldiers in the early hours of 14th April, 2007 and taken to 19th Mechanised Battalion of the
Nigerian Army (24th Respondent) at Okitipupa where he was detained, humiliated and horsewhipped to
the point of coma. That he was later paraded manacled on his feet and handcuffed while being
stripped to underwear and broadcast on television and was not released until 24th April, 2007 despite a
court order directing the Nigerian Army to release him. The Petitioner alleged further that at the same time
the Labour Party Chairman for Irele Local Government Area and candidate for House of
Representatives election, the former majority leader of Ondo State House of Assembly and 62 others
were also kidnapped, abducted and detained at the said 19 Mechanised Battalion and were not
released until 24th April, 207 and that the said acts of kidnapping, brutalization and abduction were
calculated to intimidate the Petitioner and his supporters.
                                                           204
            The 1st Respondent denied the allegations adding that the Nigeria Police and Nigerian Army
are agents of the Federal Government over whom the 1st and 2nd Respondents have no control
or influence, that no law enforcement agents engaged, participated in or condoned any electoral
malpractices throughout the election. That he was aware that some people who were preparing to
foment trouble at the instance of the Petitioner were arrested with arms, that their plan to disrupt
the election was foiled, and that the 1st Respondent was aware that violent thugs were imported from
outside Ondo State armed with dangerous weapons led by known leaders of the Petitioner's Party who
were violating the electoral law and obstructing the election and they were arrested by the law
enforcement agents.
            The 15th and 16th Respondent countered the allegations by –stating that the "Respondents did not
participate in the mass arrest, detention or abduction of the political party members, agents or
supporters and that only those reasonably suspected to have committed offences known to law
were arrested before, during and after the election irrespective of political or social affiliation.
            PW31 testified for the Petitioner on Irele IV Ward 009. He said he served as the Supervisory
Agent in charge of the ward which has 14 polling units for the election of 14th April, 2007. He added that
the 1st Respondent commissioned and sent PDP thugs accompanied by armed soldiers who chanted
war songs to the effect that "No Agagu No Election" as a means of identifying themselves and scaring
away people, that each of the thugs wore a band on his wrist bearing PDP colours and "OK Agagu" meaning
"Olusegun Kokumu Agagu", that he visited all the polling units in the ward and that election did not take place in
any of them, that all the electoral materials were snatched by the said thugs and taken to the residence of Dr.
Francis Igbasan the chairman of Ondo State Scholarships Board where the ballot papers were thumb-
printed, votes allotted and recorded and that Form EC8B for this ward was signed by the said Dr. Francis
Igbasan as PDP's agent. After the purported election, PW31 added, voters who were denied the
opportunity to vote surrendered their voters' cards to him as evidence that they did not vote in that
election.
            PW 31 then identified Exhibit 1098 (13) as the voters’ cards given to him by the voters, Exhibits
1111 and 1119 as specie of what he said the thugs were wearing on that day and Exhibit 119 (1) and (2)
as the Form EC8B which was signed by Dr. Francis Igbasan.
            PW31 testified further under cross-examination that during and on the election day, he did not
hold any meeting with Agagu and PDP members, that Salvation Army in Irele and Akinbole camp may
be 25 kilometres away, that there was no election in Akungbo polling unit and all the voting materials were
carted away by PDP thugs, that by Exhibit 199 (2), the result for Unit 003, PDP has 45 votes and Labour
Party has 110 votes with the highest number of votes, that he was not arrested on that day for snatching
the ballot box for that unit, that Akingbeye village to Irele is 7 kilometres, Irele to Ijera about 8 hours,
                                                           205
that he is not part of the body which appoints and terminates the appointments of Members of Boards and
Parastatals, that the thugs neither came nor left with him and that they moved from one unit to another
and that he witnessed some of the snatchings, that thugs were armed with guns and cutlasses and charms, that
after the snatching he did not follow them to Francis Igbasan' s house, that he did not collect Exhibits 1111
and 1119 from anybody rather he picked them from the ground, that each of the wards has its Labour
Party leaders and –agents and that he is one of the Leaders in his Local Government Area, that he did not arrest
anyone on that day, that Exhibits 1111 and 1119 are not exactly the same, that his party made souvenirs which
were given to party members only and that Exhibit 199 (2), the Form EC8B, bears INEC's inscription.
         PW32's testimony was that he was Labour Party's Supervisory Agent for Irele V Ward 010 of
Irele Local Government Area with 14 polling units on the day of the election, that the 1st Respondent
commissioned and sent PDP thugs accompanied by soldiers who chanted war songs to the effect that "No
Agagu No Election" as a means of identifying themselves and scaring away people, that he visited all the polling
units in the ward and saw that voting did not take place at any of them, that the so-called election in the ward was
characterized by violence and massive rigging, that the electoral materials for the ward were snatched by
the said thugs and were taken to the residence of Col. Festus Meghoma (RTD) at 3JS Hotel Ode-Erinje where the
ballot papers were thumb-printed, votes allotted and recorded, that voters who were denied the chance to
vote especially members and supporters of Labour Party complained to him (PW32) and
surrendered their voters' cards to him as evidence that they did not vote on that day.
         PW32 then identified the voters' cards he claimed were surrendered to him i.e Exhibits 1098 (7),
1098 (8), 1098 (10) and 1098 (12) which were voters' cards for 4 wards of this Local Government Area.
         PW32 testified further under cross-examination that he collected the said Exhibits two days after
the election, that Labour Party had its agents at the polling units and he did not hear that any of them was dead, that
he did not attend any meeting held between the 1st Respondent and some thugs where they decided to snatch
ballot boxes, that he followed the thugs to 3JS Hotel at a distance so that he could see them but that he did not
go into the hotel, that he did not report to the police because they were also committing the act, that his
deposition was narration of the important things he experienced and not everything, that he could see through the
hotel because some of the walls were made of perforated blocks and the walls are not too high.
         PW33 testified that at the 14th April, 2007 election he served as Supervisory Agent for Labour Party for
Ajagba II Ward 002 of Irele Local Government which has 12 polling units, that on that day the 1st Respondent
commissioned and sent thugs accompanied by armed soldiers who chanted war songs to the effect that "No
Agagu No Election" as a means of identifying themselves and scaring away people, that each of the thugs
wore a wrist band bearing PDF colours with the inscription "OK Agagu" meaning “Olusegun Kokumo
Agagu", that on that_day_he visited all the polling units in the ward and found that there was no voting at any of
them, that the entire voting materials for all the 12 units of the ward were carted away from the
                                                         206
distribution centre at INEC's premises Ode Irele by Akintoye Albert the Local Government Council
Chairman and one of the commissioned agents of Dr. Agagu accompanied by heavily armed soldiers to his
office at the Local Government's Secretariat and figures were allotted and recorded and that voters who
were denied the opportunity to vote gave then* voters' cards to him (PW33) as evidence that they did not vote.
         PW33 stated further under cross-examination that all the voters who gave him their voters' card
are alive, that there were party agents in the units under his control, that he was not at a meeting where
the 1st Respondent purportedly commissioned thugs to snatch ballot boxes, that he did not follow those
who snatched ballot boxes to the Secretariat, that he did not report the incidence to the police because the
police, the soldiers and the thugs were perpetrating the act, that when the shooting started all the agents of
Labour Party ran away and got back later, that the snatching was at all the polling booths under his unit.
PW33 explained where Baale Unit and Units 2, 3, 4 and Ikwuewu and Ugburigho Units were located.
PW33 added that the distance
         Ikwuewu to Ajaga 11/2 kilometers and Ugburogbo to Ajagba not more than one kilometer and that all
the 12 polling units are not in the same spot, that as at 9.00 a.m. on that day he was between Ajadi and
Ugburogho, that he was not in the company of Albert Akintoye and the thugs, that the policemen were in
the midst of thugs going round and carting away ballot boxes from unit to unit.
         PW34's evidence was also that he was Labour Party's agent for Omi-Iyansam Ward 005 of Irele Local
Government Area which has 11 polling units that on the day of the election 1st Respondent commissioned thugs
and armed soldiers who chanted war songs to the effect that "No Agagu No Election" as a means of identifying
themselves and scaring away people, that each of the thugs wore a wrist band with the inscription "OK Agagu"
meaning "Olusegun Kokumo Agagu". That on that day he visited all the polling units in the ward and found that no
voting took place at any of them, that the entire voting materials for some of the units of the ward were carted
away from the distribution centre at INEC's premises in Ode Irele by Akintoye Albert the Local
Government Council Chairman accompanied by heavily armed soldiers to his office at the Local Government
Secretariat where the ballot papers were thumb-printed by thugs commissioned by the 1st Respondent, that
figures were allotted and recorded in form EC8B which was signed by one Yemi Tadema, PDP’s House of
Asembly-eandidate as PDP agent and that after the purported election, voters who were denied the right to
vote surrendered their voters' card to him (PW34) as evidence that they did not vote.
         PW34 identified Exhibit 169 (1) and (2) as the form EC8B he said was signed by Yemi Tadema and
Exhibit 1098 (1) as the voters' cards submitted to him by the disenfranchised voters.
         PW34 testified further under cross-examination that he never worked with Yemi Tadema and they do
not exchange correspondences, that at the time they brought their voters' cards to him the voters were alive and
he did not hear that any of them was dead, that his party had agents in all the polling units in Omi-lyasan
Ward 005, that no meeting was held between himself, Agagu and the thugs, that electoral materials were
                                                         207
not brought to the polling units, that on that day the door of the Local Government Council was open
and he saw them, that they did not recognize him because he is not from Irele, that he did not thumb-print ballot
papers on that day and that only soldiers, thugs and policemen were doing so while he stood by and
watched them because there was no place to sit, that the voters' cards were brought to him within 2
days, that he did not hold any meeting with Akintoye Albert on that day, that on that day he was at Ode Irele
between 9.00 a.m. and past 2.00 p.m. when he left, that he told the Tribunal the truth, that Ilaru Quarters
where he resides isin lyasan in Irele Local Government Area, that he knows Yemi Tadema who is in the
same Local Government with him, that although he is from Irele he lived in lyasan for 43 years, that he did not
masquerade his identity and join the thugs, that he did not report to INEC because they did not send him
on the assignment and to the police because there was no need since the police and soldiers were there
when the thumb-printing was going on, that there were policemen at the distribution centre where
distribution took place at INEC's office, that materials for 9 units were brought and they were carted away to the
Local Government Secretariat, that policemen and soldiers participated in the thumb-printing and that he did not
attend any meeting with the police, soldiers and 1st Respondent.
         RW5 said he acted as agent for Lurowo polling unit Ward 005 of Irele Local Government Area,
that at 7.30 a.m. he met INEC's officials at the ward's collation/distribution centre at L.A. Primary School
where the electoral materials were distributed to each of the Presiding Officers in the ward, that the election
process commenced at about 9.30 a.m. with the accreditation of the voters at his unit, that voting took place and
was concluded at about 3.00 p.m., that the result was duly announced and recorded in Form EC8A which
was duly signed by the Presiding Officers, the security agents attached to the unit as well as the available
party agents including himself and that the Presiding Officer then took the results to the collation centre
accompanied by available party agents including him.
         RW5 identified the result he signed for Unit 006 of Irele V Ward 010 and was admitted and
marked as Exhibit 1209. He tendered his permanent voter's card which was admitted as Exhibit 1210.
         RW5 said he used temporary voter's card to vote and he later exchanged it for the new one, that
the other agents were Daisi Egbuwalo and Solomon Egbuwolo for Labour Party and AC respectively while
he (RW5) was the agent for PDP, that he signed the 2 signatures on Exhibit 1209 and that the two
signatures are different because he signs any which occurs to him, that it was not true that thugs snatched
electoral materials. The voters' register for the unit was tendered across the bar and was admitted as
Exhibit 1211(1)-(22).
         He identified serial number 174 in the voters' register as his photograph and particulars and those
of Daisy Egbuwalo and Solomon Egbuwolo. He added that the election was free and fair and that on that
day he did not see PW32 in his unit.
         He stated further that INEC conducted itself well on that day, that the policemen at the unit only
                                                        208
performed the function of:
            The signatures of RW5 were admitted and marked as Exhibit 1212.
            He added that there are 14 units in the ward, that after he left the distribution centre he stayed
throughout at his polling unit.
            RW6's evidence was that he voted at Unit 001 of Ward 002 in Irele Local Government Area at the
Governorship election held on 14th April, 2007, that electoral materials were brought to the unit at about
9.40 a.m. and accreditation was duly conducted and he voted and left the unit, and that the voter's card he
used to vote was taken away by INEC and replaced with new one which was admitted and marked as Exhibit
1213.
            RW6 testified further that the conduct of the election was peaceful, that his voter's card was
marked to show that he voted, that there was no hijack of electoral materials, that there are 5 Ayo
Ifayefunmi's in his family, that the Ayo who officiated at the Local Government level in Governorship election
as PDP's agent was Ayorinde who is his son, that the signature on Exhibit 28 (1) and (2) is that of Ayorinde
his son who is not and has not been a Commissioner in Ondo State between 2003 and 2007.
            RW6 then tendered the birth certificates of his children Ayorinde and Ayomike which were
admitted and marked as Exhibit 1214(1) and (2).
            RW6 added that on that day some people voted before and after him, that he had his first child at the
age of 20, that his son registered as a voter in the same unit with him, that Ayorinde was born on 3rd May, 1986
and that his first daughter Agnes was born on 1979, that he is 51 years old, that Agnes is 27 years old.
            RW6 under cross-examination looked through the voters' register and said Ayorinde's name was not
in it.
            A CTC of Form EC8B for Irele IV was tendered and admitted and marked as Exhibit 1216 (1)
and (2).
            He testified further that from 2003 to date only one Ayo Ifayefunmi had been a Commissioner
and he is Ayodele Ifayefunmi who is a politician and a member of PDP and that he was at Irele during the
election.
            RW6 added that Exhibit 1216 (1) and (2) which is the same as Exhibit 5 was for House of Assembly
election result.
            RW31 testified-in-chief to the effect that he voted at Unit 009 Jima of Ward 001, that he did not go to the
polling unit with his voter's card but he was allowed to vote after he was identified and his name was confirmed in
the register, that after voting he left the polling unit and that accreditation and voting were duly conducted.
            RW31 then tendered his voter's card which was marked as Exhibit 1254.
            RW31 under cross-examination identified his photograph and Particulars on Exhibit 224 (1) - (25),
the voters' register for his unit as serial number 2 on page 22.
                                                            209
            He added that he met about 20 voters at the unit, that he got to the unit at a few minutes past 9.00
a.m. and voted at about 11.15 a.m, that he did not notice malpractice of any sort while he was at the unit,
that there was election in all the units of his ward, that there were two polling units in his village and
that there was no malpractice of any sort in the other unit, that nobody disturbed the INEC's officials in the
course of carrying out their duties, that the election was peaceful, that the policeman at the unit
maintained law and order that he went to the polling unit with his voter's card and that he could not tell if
paragraph 6 of his deposition which said he did not go to the polling unit with his voters' cards was
erroneous, that he voted and his voter's card Exhibit 1254 was ticked in blue ink on 14th April, 2007
and in red ink on 21st April, 2007.
            RW31 then looked at the voters' register for his unit, Exhibit 224 (2) and said it was ticked only once,
that everything contained in his statement on oath was the truth, that after voting he went back to his
house but that if anything happened at the other polling unit he would know and that he told the truth.
            RW31 clarified further mat he knows that one cannot be allowed to vote without one's voter's
card.
            We have considered the evidence adduced by the parties.
            The evidence of PW31, PW32, PW33 and PW34 was simply that the electoral materials for their respective
wards were snatched by thugs and armed soldiers who carted them to residences or offices where the
ballot papers were thumb-printed, votes allotted and recorded and that voting did not take place at any of the
units of these wards.
            The evidence of RW5, RW6 and RW31 was that in then-respective units elections were duly
conducted devoid of violence or any form of malpractices. There was the addition in RW5's evidence that
materials were distributed at the ward's collation/distribution centre to each of the Presiding Officers in
Ward 005 of Irele Local Government Area.
            The allegations of malpractices in these wards are contained in paragraphs 15, 21 (i) and (ii) of the petition
which constitute the grounds of the petition, paragraphs 21.6 (i) - (xi), 21 dealing with other averments, and also
paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the Petitioner. While paragraph 36 sets out the reliefs the Petitioner
is seeking.
            The 1st Respondent countered those allegations in paragraphs 28, 34, 183 to 207, 282, 283, 284 and
285 of his reply to the petition.
            The 15th and 16th Respondents also replied to the allegations in paragraph 5.1 and 5.2 of their reply to the
petition.
            The 1st Respondent in his address has urged the Tribunal to discountenance the evidence of PW31
because it is at variance with the pleadings in paragraph 21.6 (ix) of the Petition. His reasons are that while
the Petitioner in the said paragraph says the electoral materials were carted away by a political office holder the
                                                            210
evidence of PW31 says they were snatched and carted away by 1st Respondent's thugs.
         Our view is that the most important aspects of the allegations of the Petitioner were that the electoral
materials were carted away as a result of which election did not take place in the whole of the ward.
         In any event the name of a political office holder, in the person of a Local Government
chairman was prominently mentioned by PW31 in his evidence.
         Furthermore, the thugs and armed soldiers were said to have been commissioned to perpetrate the
acts by the 1st Respondent who, from the evidence before us, is a political office holder. In other words,
they committed the alleged acts for the 1st Respondent.
         The objection to the reception of the evidence of PW31 therefore has no basis.
         The wards in which the PW31, PW32, PW33 and PW34
         Alleged elections did not take place in the Irele Local Government Area are Irele IV Ward 009, Irele
V Ward 010, Ajagba II Ward 002 and Omi-Iyansan Ward 005 respectively.
         It is clear that even where not specifically stated, the pleadings on paragraph 21.6 (x) cover the
evidence led by PW31 -PW34 summarised above. This is apart from other pleadings in other paragraphs of
the petition. In subparagraph (i) of that paragraph one of the purported irregularities in the Form EC8B for that
unit was highlighted in the petition. We, therefore, disregard the observation of the 1st Respondent that there is
no pleading on Irele V Ward 010.
         We, accordingly, accept that the evidence of PW31 - PW34 is covered by the pleadings.
         The credibility of the evidence of these witnesses can therefore only be tested by weighing
them against the evidence of 1st Respondent and the documents tendered in accordance with the law.
         RW6 testified to the effect that he voted at Unit 001 of Ward n, Irele Local Government of Ondo State
where he said election was duly conducted without any malpractices.
         From the contents of the voter's card of RW6 it is clear that his unit is 001 of Irele Ward 007.
         The grouse of the Petitioner on this unit is that the electoral materials for the whole ward were carted
away and no election was conducted at any polling unit, the results were declared in ward collation centres
and the results were concocted, that all ballot boxes and ballot papers were hijacked by thugs who were agents
of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. These can be seen in paragraph 21.6 (x) of the petition.
         This was clearly refuted by the 1st Respondent in paragraph 190 of his reply where he stated that the
votes for that ward are lawful products of a free and fair election.
         The Petitioner tendered some of the documents used for the election.
         He also led PW47 in evidence. His evidence-in-chief is in volume II of the Petitioner's bundle of
documents. He stated that the Form EC8B for the ward was signed by one Yemi Tadema who also signed two
similar forms. PW47 also highlighted discrepancies in the results for the ward, the units, the voters
register and the thumb-printed ballot papers.
                                                          211
           The evidence of RW6 was to the effect that election was duly conducted in his unit and that Form EC8C, the
result for the Local Government was signed by his son Ayo Ifayefunmi and not by the Ayo Ifayehunmi who is a
commissioner in the Government of Ondo State.
           It is clear that while the evidence of PW47 covers the whole ward the evidence of RW6 is limited to the
unit where he said he voted.
           It is noted that none of the parties tendered the result for any of the units of this ward.
           The Petitioner who insisted that there was no election has no obligation to tender the result of the
election. The respondents who averred that election was duly conducted are under obligation to produce the
result of the election in proof of such assertion.
           RW6 neither tendered the result for the unit where he said he voted nor identified the result which ought
to be tendered.
           In the case of AWUSE vs. ODILI (2005) 16 NWLR (Part 952) 416 at 488 Salami JCA stated inter alia as
follows:
           "It is trite law.............. that polling booth results, as adumbrated in Form EC8A, is the primary
evidence of the votes cast. It is the foundation on which the pyramid of an election process is built".
           In the light of these findings we are disagreeing with the evidence of RW6 that there was election
in his unit in which he voted.
           There is therefore no evidence from the Respondents that election was conducted in any of the units
of Irele II Ward 007.
           We have analysed the voters' registers, the Form EC8B and the thumb-printed ballot papers for the
units in this ward and we have discovered a lot of discrepancies in the course of evaluating the evidence.
           There are differences between the number of used or thumb-printed ballot papers and the number
of votes case for the units of this ward as contained in the ward result as stated below:
UNIT        NUMBER OF USED BALLOT PAPERS:                      NUMBER OF VOTES CAST FOR THE UNITS IN
            EXHIBIT 1077 (12) AND (13)                         FORM EC8B: EXHIBIT 169 (1) AND (2)
1           398                                                400
2           392                                                400
3           303                                                300
6           289                                                300
7           273                                                300
8           547                                                551
9           399                                                400
10          183                                                250
11          209                                                220
13          272                                                78
15          230                                                300
16          248                                                200
17          298                                                300

                                                            212
                 The effect of the above stated chart is that in the 13 units affected by the discrepancies the
results in Form EC8B, Exhibit 169 (1) and (2) were not derived from votes cast in the respective
pollingunits.
                 Indeed, we agree with the Petitioner that the results were allotted and recorded in the Form EC8B.
                 From the provision of Item 4.2 on page 29 of the "Manual for Election Officials 2007" the centrality of the
ballot papers can be appreciated.
                 The ballot papers are the raw data from which the results of the elections are generated.
                 In this case, the non-tendering of Forms EC8A for the units and the discrepancies between the
result in form EC8B and the used ballot papers show that the results were manufactured.
                 This position is reinforced by our finding that one Yemi Tadema signed the form EC8B for this
ward and the Form EC8B for Omi/Iyasan Ward 005 of this Local Government which we have treated here.
                 There are differences between the number of registered voters in the register and the ward's
result in Form EC8B for some of the units. They are illustrated as follows:
UNIT            EXHIBIT NUMBR       NUMBER OF VOTERS IN THE                         NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS
                OF VOTERS' REGISTER REGISTER                                        IN THE FORM EC8B EXHIBIT 169
                                                                                    (1) AND (2)
1               151 91) -(27)              444                                      492
2               152 (1) - (26)             436                                      429
4               154(1) -(44)               46                                       584
6               156(1) -(34)               202                                      313
7               157(1) -(52)               321                                      522
8               158(1) -(48)               489                                      592
11              161(1) -922)               348                                      351
12              162(1) -(20)               320                                      317
13              163 91) -924)              406
17              167(1) -(21)               385                                      BLANK


                These differences indicate that the information on the result in Form EC8B with respect to number of
registered voters must have been arbitrarily inserted. This is so because the only source of information available
to the collation officer in this case must have been derived from the voters' registers.
                This, naturally, raises doubt as to the authenticity of the information in the Form EC8B Exhibit 169
(1) and (2).
                We have examined the observation of PW47 to the effect that the same Yemi Tadema signed the ward's
results in Forms EC8B for this ward (Irele H Ward 007) and Omi-Iyasan Ward 005.
                We have critically examined the 2 ward results and we have concluded that the name, the handwriting and
the signatures on the two documents belong to one and the same person.
                We find therefore that the Form EC8B for Irele II Ward 007, Exhibit 169 (1) and (2), and the form

                                                               213
EC8B for Omi-Iyasan Ward 005 were signed by the said Yemi Tadema as PDP's agent for the wards.
         The two wards, according to paragraph 21.6 (e) of the petition are more than 30 kilometres
apart and this has not been controverted by the Respondents.
         By the provisions of the "Manual for Election Officials 2007" on page 24 (Exhibit I) polls were
expected to close at 3.00 p.m. after which the step by step procedure enumerated on pages 25 and 46 of the
said manual would commence. Then the procedure of packing on pages 31 and 32 of the "manual" shall
then be complied with. After that the collation shall then be done at the ward level (see page 35 of the
"Manual") which has its procedure spelt out and at the end of which the party agents for any particular unit can sign
the result sheet.
         We are unable to accept that the said Yemi Tadema, in view of the procedures enumerated, was able to
sign the result sheets for the two wards spanning a distance of more than 30 kilometres for the same election.
         The inevitable conclusion is that the results in Forms EC8B for the two wards, either both of them or
one of them were not or was not collated at the designated collation centres or were indeed concocted.
         In view of the provision of paragraph 5.2. 1 on page 35 of the "Manual for Election Officials 2007
         "The collation of results at the RA (ward) level shall be done by RA (Ward) Collation Officer at the RA
(ward) collation centre........".
         We are of the view that no weight whatsoever shall be attached to the Form EC8B (Exhibit 169 (1) and
(2)).
         On the whole we find that the Petitioner has proved his allegations in respect of Irele II Ward
007 by showing that there was no election in all units of this ward and that the documents tendered to
support the holding of the election do not deserve any credit.
         PW47, Petitioner's expert witness has, in his opinion in Volume II of the Petitioner's bundle of
documents attacked and condemned the results for this ward.
         The evidence of RW31 relates to Unit 009 Jima in Ajagba I Ward 001 of Irele Local Government. It
was that election was freely and fairly conducted in his unit and in the other unit in his village without any
malpractices.
         Paragraph 21.6 (x) of the petition clearly covers the averments which the evidence of
RW31 and the relevant paragraphs of the Respondents seek to counter.
         RW31 clarified that, unlike what is contained in paragraph 6 of his statement on oath, he used his voter's
card to vote.
         To lend support to his allegations the Petitioner led PW47 who, in volume II of the Petitioner’s
bundle of documents attempted to discredit the results of the election.
         For Unit 009 of this ward where RW31 said he voted PW47's evidence is that the number of valid
votes in the unit's result, Exhibit 229 (7), is higher than the thumb-printed ballot papers for the unit. We have
                                                          214
checked and found that this position exposed by PW47 is not correct. There are 300 valid votes and the number
of thumb-printed ballot papers Exhibit 1077 (4) and (5) for that unit is also 300.
         We have, however, noted that in the unit's result only 3 ballot papers were issued to the unit but 300 valid
votes were recorded. This is an irregularity that must vitiate the result of the election for that unit. It is also noted
that the number of voters in the voters' register for the unit, Exhibit 224 (1) - (25) is 8 while in the unit's
result it is 352. It is the requirement of "Manual for Election Officials 2007" on page 30 that the number of
voters in the result sheet must be copied from the voters' register.
         The implication of this is that the number of voters in the unit's result has been arbitrarily arrived at
which puts into question the whole electoral process in this unit.
         We therefore hold that the result for Unit 009 where RW31 said he voted is not reliable and indeed
there was no valid election in the unit..
         We are also aware that the evidence of this witness was limited to Unit 009 of Ajagba I Ward 001 and
to a lesser extent a unit which identity he was not able to provide evidence on.
         Since we have discredited the unit's result the whole of the evidence of RW31 has crumbled and is
therefore worthless.
         We have examined the voters' registers, the Forms EC8A and EC8B and the used or thumb-printed
ballot papers which led us to make some very important findings with regards to evaluation of the evidence
led in this petition.
         We have noted discrepancies between the number of ballot papers issued and the number of valid
votes recorded for same units in the ward. These are shown below:


UNIT            EXHIBIT NUMBER OF                 NUMBER OF BALLOT                   NUMBER OF VALID     VOTES
                UNIT'S RESULT                     PAPERS ISSUED TO UNIT              CAST IN UNIT
                                                  EXHIBIT 1077 (4) AND (5)
7               229 (5)                           5                                  474
8               " (6)                             4                                  400
9               " (7)                             3                                  300
13              " (11)                            500                                4999

         These discrepancies simply mean that the result of theelection for these 4 units was not
generated from the ballot papers but were concocted as alleged by the Petitioner.
         229 (12) is 270 and not three hundred as shown in the result.
         There are differences in the entries for number of registered voters in the voters' registers,
the unit's results and the ward's result in Form EC8B Exhibit 230 (1) and (2). They are as follows:




                                                            215
UNIT        EXHIBIT            NUMBER OF             EXHIBIT          NUMBER           NUMBER OF
            NUMBER             REGISTERED            NUMBER OF        OF VOTERS        VOTERS IN FORM
            OF UNIT'S          VOTERS                VOTERS'          IN THE           EC8B: EXHIBIT 230
            RESULT                                   REGISTER         REGISTER         (1) AND (2)
1           229 (1)            500                   216(1) -(34)     56               500
2           " (2)              244                   217(1) -(15)     244              300
4           " (4)              478                   219(1) -(18)     318              478
6           -                  -                     221(1) -(22)     391              390
7           " (5)              500                   222(1) -(30)     510              500
9           " (7)              352                   224 (1) - (25)   8                352
13          " (11)             500                   227(1) -(12)     187              500


         These differences put a stain on the units and wards results. The requirements of page 30 of the
"Manual for Election Petitions 2007" require that the number of voters in the Form EC8 A shall be copied from
the voters' registers for the units and in the case of Units 1, 2, 4, 7, 9 and 13 as shown in the chart
these were not adhered to. And, where there was no Forms EC8A it is clear, as in the case of Unit 006,
the number of voters in the register is different from that in Form EC8B. It is noted that the number
of registered voters for each unit in Form EC8A cannot be different from that of Form EC8B.
         From the above we conclude that these irregularities give credence to the accusation that the
results were actually fabricated. It is trite that where a law provides for a manner of performing an act there
should be no other way of doing that act. See GALAUDU vs. KAMBA (2004) 15 NWLR (Part 898)
31 at 53 -55.
         On the face of the register for Unit 004 "Unit I" was cancelled and substituted with
handwritten Unit "4". The number of registered voters in the register (Exhibit 219 (1) - (18) is 318 but
the unit's result, Exhibit 229 (4) and the said ward's result show 478 registered voters.
         We observe that the number used or thumb-printed ballot papers for same units and the
unit's results and the ward's result are different. The ballot papers are Exhibits.
         The differences are highlighted below.
UNIT                  NUMBR OF       EXHIBIT NUMBER NUMBER OF                         NUMBER OF VALID
                      USED BALLOT OF UNITS' RESULT VALID VOTES IN                     VOTES IN FORM
                      PAPERS: EXHBIT                UNITS' RESULT                     EC8B EXHIBIT 230
                      1077                                                            (1)AND(2)
2                     300                299 (2)               244                    244
3                     400                " (3)                 394                    394
4                     478                " (4)                 477                    477
5                     298                                                             300
6                     390                                                             392
7                     500                "   (5)               478                    494
8                     394                "   (6)               400                    384

                                                       216
10                     296               " (8)                283                 293
11                     398               " (9)                398                 400
12                     396               " (10)               400                 400
14                     297               " (12)               270                 300


         This simply means that the results in the 11 units which are at variance with number of used ballot
papers for the units must have been, as alleged by the Petitioner, concocted.
         We, accordingly, accord no credit to the said result for the said 11 out of the 14 units of the
ward.
         This, coupled with the fact that the result for Unit 009 has also been discredited on account of
variation between the number of registered voters for the unit in the Form EC8A and the register of voters
shows that 12 out of 14 results for this ward are found to be worthless and this, we hold is substantial
enough to upset the result of the election for this ward.
         Moreover, the only evidence to show that there was election in the ward has thoroughly been
discredited.
         The evidence of PW32 on Irele V Ward 010 was that the materials were carted away to
the residence of Col. Meghamo (Rtd) where unlawful thumb-printing of ballot papers and
allocations of electoral results were done.
         RW5's evidence was that election was duly conducted in Lurowo unit of Ward 005 of
Irele Local Government. He identified the result for the unit where he said he voted which is
Lurowo Unit 006 of Irele V Ward 010.
         First, we have concluded that the testimony of RW5 was restricted to what he said he
experienced at Unit 006 out of the 14 polling units of the ward.
         The result for the unit where RW5 said he voted and which he said he signed is Exhibit 1209
(Form EC8A).
         On the said Exhibit 1209, Form EC8A, we make the following observations:
        1.     The number of registered voters in the form EC8A Which is 356 is at variance with the
               number of voters in the register which is recorded as 349 + 5. The number of voters in the
               form EC8A is expected to be derived from the voters' register for the unit, Exhibit 205
               (1) -(22). This is offensive to the provisions of page 30 of the "Manual for Election Officials
               2007"
        2.     The number of used or thumb-printed ballot papers for the said unit, Exhibit 1077 (7), is
               149 which is lower than the valid votes cast as recorded in the Form EC8A for the unit
               which is 296. The valid votes for the unit are supposed to be equal to the number of used
               ballot papers because the unit's result is derived from the number of used ballot papers.
                                                     217
         These means that the number of voters in the unit was not obtained from the voters' register and
the number of votes cast was not derived from the number of ballot papers used to vote at the election.
         The Form EC8A for Unit 006 of Irele V Ward 010 where RW5 said he voted was a product
of illegal thumb-printing and concoction as alleged by the Petitioner.
         These give us cause to question the integrity of the election in Unit 006 of Irele V Ward 010 and the
evidence of RW5 shows that the assertion of the Petitioner that there was no election in any of the units of
the ward has not been controverted.
         We have also evaluated the evidence before us with respect to the result sheets in Forms EC8A and
EC8B, the voters' registers and the number of used or thumb-printed ballot papers and we have arrived
at the conclusions stated hereunder.
         We have noticed differences between the number of used or thumb-printed ballot paper for
same units in the ward and, the number of valid votes in the ward's result in Form EC8B. The
differences are highlighted hereunder:
UNIT      NUMBER OF USED BALLOT PAPERS FOR                     NUMEBR OF VOTES FOR CAST THE UNITS IN
          THE UNITS: EXHIBIT 1077 (7)                          FORM EC8B: EXHIBIT 215 (1) AND (2)
1         689                                                  700
2         451                                                  680
3         396                                                  200
4         88                                                   397
5         149                                                  88
6         149                                                  296
7         199
8         113                                                  283
9         299                                                  324
10        92                                                   197
12        324
13        298                                                  295
14        212


         We note that results for Units 007, 012 and 014 are not represented in the ward's result. These
show that since the results for 9 units out of 14 in the ward were clearly not based on the number of used
ballot papers for the units in the ward the result in the ward is substantially discredited. This is because it is
not possible for us to believe that such results were not fabricated. We accept the allegations of the Petitioner.
This is more so that the results for 3 units were not reflected in the Form EC8B. This is even more so
considering the fact that that were results for only 2 polling units' results, for Units 6 and 12, Exhibits 1209 and
214 respectively.
         The Petitioner had no obligation to tender the other Forms EC8A but the Respondents who insisted
that there was election in all the units ought to procure and tender the results.

                                                           218
         This failure by the Respondents leads us to believe that no elections were held in the 12 units which
polling units' results have not been tendered.
         It is observed that for Unit 006 of this ward, Exhibit 1209, has shown that 296 votes were cast while
the number of thumb-printed ballot papers for the unit, Exhibit 1077 (7) were only 149.
         In respect of Unit 014 of this ward the result, Exhibit 214, shows that 211 valid votes were recorded
for the unit when only 10 ballot papers were issued to the unit.
         On the bases of the irregularities stated herein we arrive at the inevitable conclusion that the
whole election in this ward was substantially marred by the irregularities.
         In any event, even if we accept the evidence of RW5 that there was election in Unit 006 of this ward
it cannot change the fact that in the rest of the units there was evidence, as shown, indicating that there
indeed was no election and this is so fundamental that we have no alternative than to uphold the
allegations of he Petitioner. See OPIA vs. IBRU (1992) 3 NWLR (Part 231) 638.
         We have observed that there are differences between the number of registered voters in the
register and the ward's result in Form EC8B for same units. These are stated hereunder:
UNIT           EXHIBIT NUMBER OF                    NUMBER OF VOTERS IN           NUMBER OF REGISTERED
               VOTERS' REGISTER                     THE REGISTER                  VOTERS IN FORM EC8B:
                                                                                  EXHIBIT 215 (1) AND (2)
5              204(1) -(32)                         551                           539
6              205(1) -922)                         349 + 5                       356
7              206(1) -(14)                         232                           BLANK
10             209(1) -(18)                         279 + 1                       277
12             21 1(1) -(29)                        499                           BLANK
13             212(1)- (103)                        126                           772
14             213(1)- (3)                          563                           BLANK


         These differences reinforce the belief that the results were indeed arbitrarily written and by
the substantiality of the irregularities and the belief as regards this ward, the Petitioner has substantially
proved the allegations contained in his petition.
         On Irele IV Ward 009 the Petitioner's witness, PW31 testified that electoral materials were
carted away to the residence of one Dr. Francis Igbasan where the ballot papers were thumb-printed and
votes allotted and recorded and that the Form EC8B for the ward was signed by the said Dr. Francis Igbasan.
         PW47 has analysed and condemned the results of the election for the whole ward as being
irregular in Volume 11 of the Petitioner's bundle of documents.
         It is instructive that none of the parties tendered Forms EC8A which are the primary evidence of the
holding of elections for the units of this ward.
         It is the responsibility of the party who pleads the due conduct of election, as was done by
the 1st Respondent in this case, to tender the forms EC8A as evidence that the election did indeed take place.
                                                          219
        That burden does not lie on the petitioner who maintained that there was no election at all in the
ward.
        This is so because the Form EC8A is the foundation upon which the subsistence of the election
is based. See AWUSE vs. ODILI (supra).
        We have examined the number of used or thumb-printed ballot papers for the various wards
in the unit and compared them with the number of valid votes in the form EC8B, the result for the units.
        There are obvious differences between the number of used or thumb-printed ballot papers and the
number of valid votes in the ward's result. They are illustrated as follows:


UNIT                                  NUMBER OF USED BALLOT              NUMBER OF CAST VOTES IN
                                      PAPERS FOR THE UNIT:               FORM EC8B: EXHIBIT 1199 (1)
                                      EXHIBIT 1077 (14)                  AND (2)

1                                     201                                200
2                                     285                                300
3                                     212                                165
4                                     123                                125
5                                     163                                251
6                                     327                                600
7                                     143                                146
8                                     196                                700
9                                     353                                78
10                                    185                                189
11                                    78                                 79
12                                    133                                218
13                                    495                                500
14                                    255                                287


          The differences between the number of ballot papers used and the number of votes
 recorded for the units in Form EC8B clearly show that the result in Form EC8B for the 14 units
 was obtained through means other than free and fair election.
          These show that the allegations of the Petitioner that the results were fabricated are true.
          These afflictions affect all the 14 Units of the ward.
          In the face of non-tendering of the polling booth results for all the units of the ward and the fact
 that the results for the units are shown to have been fabricated we hold that the Petitioner has shown
 that the election in the ward was substantially marred by irregularities and the allegations of the
 Petitioner on the units of this ward have been proved.
          There was no evidence from the Respondents, documentary or otherwise, that controverted the
 evidence of PW33 in respect of Ajagba II Ward 002.


                                                          220
          The Petitioner's witness PW33 evidence was to the effect that there was no election in the
 whole of the units of Ajagba II Ward 002 because the entire voting materials for the unit were carted
 away from the distribution centre at INEC's premises by the Local Governments Council chairman and were
 taken to the Local Government Secretariat while being accompanied by thugs and heavily armed
 soldiers. He added that he saw the ballot papers being thumb-printed there by thugs and that results
 were allotted and recorded. This evidence was hinged on the pleadings in paragraphs 21.6 (i), (ii),
 (iii), (iv), (v), (x) and paragraphs 28, 29 and 39 of "other pleadings" in the petition.
          We have critically analysed the voters' register for the units in this ward and the units and ward's
 results for this ward and the number of thumb-printed ballot papers to help us arrive at a fair evaluation
 of the exhibits tendered.
          We have noticed some discrepancies between the number of registered voters in the voters'
 registers for same units and the same entries in the units' and wards' result in Form EC8A and
 EC8B respectively. They are as follows:
UNIT     EXHIBIT          REGISTERED             EXHIBIT NUMBER         NUMBER              NUMBER OF VOTERS
         NUMBER           VOTERS IN              OF VOTERS              OF VOTERS IN        IN WARDS' RESULT:
         OF               UNITS'                 REGISTER               VOTERS'             EXHIBIT 243 (1) AND (2)
         UNITS'           RESULT                                        REGISTER
         RESULT
1        224 (1)             500                 231(1) -(81)           1066                500
2        " (2)                                   232(1) -(87)           393                 405
3        " (2)               375                 233 91) -(17)          42                  375
5                                                234 91) -(37)          90                  375
7        " (5)               332                 336(1) -(96)           632                 332
8        " (6)               431                 237(1) -(43)           64                  431
9                                                238(1) -(83)           36                  330
11       " (7)               368                 240(1) -(78)           17                  368


          These differences mean that the number of voters in the Forms EC8A and EC8B were
arbitrarily recorded which seem to prove the allegation that the results were fabricated.
          There are also differences in the number of valid votes cast in some units in Form EC8A and their
reflection in the ward's result in Form EC8B, Exhibit 243 (1) - (2). They are illustrated hereunder.
UNIT    EXHIBIT NUMBER OF            NUMBER OF VALID         NUMBER OF VALID VOTES IN WARDS'
        UNITS' RESULT                VOTERS IN UNITS' RESULT RESULT: EXHIBIT 243 (11 AND (2)

3       242 (2)                      296                              300
4       " (3)                        358                              400
6       " (4)                        289                              300
7       " (5)                        293                              300
8       " (6)                        388                              396
11      " (7)                        298                              300
12      " (8)                        236                              240

                                                           221
This means that the results for the 7 units in Form EC8B were not gotten from the Forms EC8A. It is
from Form EC8B that entries are collated in Form EC8C and to the ultimate result of the election.
            There are differences between the used or thumb-printed ballot papers for the units of this
ward, Exhibit 1077, and the units' results in Forms EC8A and the wards' result in Form EC8B. The
differences are explained below:
UNIT    NUMBER OF USED             EXHIBIT           NUMBER OF CAST NUMBER OF CAST VOTES
        BALLOT PAPERS              NUMBER OF         VOTES IN NITS' IN THE FORM EC8B: EXHIBIT
        EXHIBIT 1077 (9)           UNITS' RESULT     RESULT         243 (1) AND (2)

1       294                        242 (1)          400                    400
3       296                        " (2)            297                    400
4       398                        " (3)            358                    400
6       298                        " (4)            289                    300
7       296                        " (5)            293                    300
8       396                        " (6)            388                    396
11      300                        " (7)            298                    300


            It is obvious that the 7 units' results were not the products of a valid election and if they were
they would correspond with the number of used ballot papers for the unit. We, therefore, agree with
the Petitioner that the results were concocted.
            In sum, the results for 10 out of 12 units of this ward have been shown to be infected by one
form of affliction or another ranging from the number of voters being arbitrarily inserted,
fundamental differences between the results in Forms EC8A and EC8B to the fact that the results were
clearly not the products of the voting process.
            In view of the substantiality of the irregularities we are bound to agree with the Petitioner that
elections did not hold in the whole of the units of this ward and that the results were fabricated.
            PW34 testified to the effect that the voting materials for this ward were carted away from the
distribution centre at INEC's office by the Chairman of the Local Government accompanied by armed
thugs and were taken to the Local Government Secretariat where the ballot papers were thumb-
printed by the thugs and results were allotted and recorded in Form EC8B. He said that there was no
election in all the units in the ward.
            This evidence was covered by paragraph 21.6 (1) - (x) and particularly paragraph 21.6 (v) of the
petition.
            PW47 also condemned the results for the units and the wards.
            There are also serious discrepancies between the number of thumb-printed ballot papers for the
units and the entries for number of valid votes in the units' and ward's results.


                                                      222
          There are glaring differences between the number of used or thumb-printed ballot paper for
 some units in the ward, Exhibit 1077 (6), and the valid votes in the units' and ward's results for this
 ward. They are illustrated as follows:
UNIT      EXHIBIT            NUMBER OF USED           NUMBER OF VALID      NUMBER OF BALLOT
          NUMBER OF          BALLOT PAPERS            VOTES IN UNITS'      PAPERS INWARD'S RESULT:
          UNIT'S RESULT      EXHIBIT 1077 (6)         RESULT               EXHIBIT 279 (1)AND(2)
1                            134                                           200
3         278 (1)            365                      397                  400
4                            398                                           400
5         "    (2)           125                      155                  169
6                            142                                           119
7                            197                                           200
8                            41                                            42
9         " (3)              132                      121                  120
10                           158                                           168
11                           389                                           397


         These discrepancies affect 10 out of the 11 units of this ward.
         These discrepancies mean that the results for the 10 units were not derived from the used ballot
papers for the units and have therefore been completely discredited. It is noteworthy that there are 11 units
in the ward.
         It is also noted that from the name, the handwriting and the signature it was the one and same
person in the name of Yemi Tadema who signed the Form EC8B for this unit (Exhibit 279 (1) and (2)) and
for Irele II Ward 007, Exhibit 169 (1) and (2). We also note the pleading of the Petitioner in paragraph 21.6
(2) which has not been disputed that the 2 wards are more than 30 kilometres apart. We adopt our decision
in respect of Irele II Ward 007 on this issue and hold that the Form EC8B for this unit is not worthy of any
credit
         The Petitioner's grouse on Irele I Ward 006 as contained in paragraph 21.6 (x) of the petition was
that votes were not counted and results were not declared at any polling booth in the ward, that no results
were declared at the wards' collation centres, that results in INEC's forms were concocted by the
Respondents, that all ballot boxes and papers were hijacked by thugs and agents of the 1st and 2nd
Respondents and that the votes were allocated in the house of a political office holder who later signed
the Form EC8C for the Local Government Area.
         PW47 has said in Volume II of the Petitioner's bundle of documents on page 224 that the results
emanating from this ward should not be relied upon.
         Only one Form EC8A was tendered as evidence that there was election in the unit. It is for Unit
006 of the ward: Exhibit 148.


                                                        223
           The Respondents whose pleadings averred that election took place neither produced the other
13 polling units' results nor provided any reason for their failure to do so.
           These results are the primary evidence of the holding of the election. See AWUSE vs. ODILI
(supra).
           The Petitioner could not be expected to produce the results of an election he claimed did not
take place.
           Even in the said form EC8A, Exhibit 148, the entry for number of registered voters is 500 while
in the voters' register it is 825. The entry for number of voters in Form EC8A is supposed to be obtained
from the register of voters. See the procedure stated on page 30 of the "Manual for election Officials
2007".
           Clearly then Exhibit 148 was also fabricated.
           Differences have been noticed between the number of used or thumb-printed ballot papers,
Exhibits 1077 (1) and (3) and the wards' result in form EC8B: Exhibit 149 and 150.
UNIT        NUMBER OF BALLOT PAPERS FOR UNIT               NUMBER OF CAST VOTES FOR UNIT IN
                                                           WARD'S RESULT: EXHIBIT 149 AND 150

1           174                                            140
2           124                                            168
3           99                                             83
4           150                                            171
5           399                                            400
7           33
8           298                                            300
10          171                                            172
11          128                                            127
12          177                                            156
13          211                                            276
14          204                                            200.


            The implication of these is that the results as expressed in the Form EC8B are not the products
 of a valid election since the ballot papers are the raw materials from which the results are distilled.
            We accordingly, hold that the allegations of the Petitioner that the results for 11 out of 14
 units of this ward were fabricated appears to be borne out.
            There are differences between the number of registered voters in the ward's result and
 the voters' registers. The exhibit number of the ward's results are 149 and 150. The differences are as
 follows:




                                                           224
UNIT    VOTERS' REGISTER AND ITS           NUMBER OF VOTERS IN            NUMBER OF REGISTERED
        EXHIBIT NUMBER                     THE VOTERS' REGISTER           VOTERS IN THE WARD'S
                                                                          RESULT: EXHIBITS149 AND 150
6       139(1) -(47)                       828                            286
12      145(1) -(18)                       283                            284
13      146(1) -(32)                       522                            527


         These discrepancies tend to prove the Petitioner's allegation that in the above stated units the
results were concocted.
         The fact that the results for these 12 units out of 14 in the ward have been proved to have
been fabricated reveals clearly that the election in the ward was substantially marred by irregularities.
         This is particularly so when the respondents failed to produce any credible results for the elections in
the polling units
         The Petitioner's complaint on the conduct of the election in Irele III Ward 008 can be found in
paragraphs 21.6 (vi) and (x) of the petition among others.
         In sum the Petitioner alleged that the election was taken over by thugs and armed soldiers acting
on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, that the elections in all the units of the ward were
characterized by massive violence perpetrated by the said thugs and that all results returned in all
the units in the ward were fictitious and were arbitrarily allocated by the said thugs.
         The 1st Respondent refuted these allegations in paragraphs 186, 187, 195 and 200 of his reply
and maintained that elections were duly conducted in the ward in a free and fair atmosphere devoid
of malpractices.
         We hold that the allegations are covered by the said pleadings.
         PW47 who testified for the Petitioner disparaged the Form EC8B for the ward for being
irregular and that the thumb-printed ballot papers were less than the number of votes cast at the polling
stations as recorded in the Form EC8B.
         We have looked at the exhibits tendered in the cause of evaluating the evidence in this
case and we have arrived at same conclusions.
         Differences have been noticed between the number of used or thumb-printed ballot papers and
the number of valid votes recorded for the units in the ward's result. They are illustrated as follows




                                                        225
:UNIT    NUMBER OF BALLOT PAPERS FOR THE                        NUMBER OF CAST VOTES IN THE
         UNIT: EXHIBIT 1077 (18)                                WARD'S RESULT EXHIBIT 184 (1) AND (2) AND
                                                                1216 (1) AND (2)

2        307                                                     497
4        147                                                     149
5        498                                                     500
7        540                                                     500
8        328                                                     189
9        175                                                     132
10       137                                                     45
11       85                                                      136
13       677                                                     221
14       497                                                     546
          This is evidence that in 11 out of 18 polling units of this ward the results were not derived from he
 used ballot papers for the units. In other words, they are not the results of the election. They were, as the
 petitioner alleged, arbitrarily allocated.
          Discrepancies have been noticed between the number of registered voters' recorded in
 the registers and the form EC8B, Exhibit 184 (1) and (2) for same units in this ward. They are
 shown below:
UNIT      EXHIBIT NUMBER OF                   NUMBER OF VOTERS NUMBER OF REIGSTERED VOTERS IN
          NITS' VOTERS' REGISTER              IN THE REGISTER  FORM EC8B EXHIBIT 184 (1) AND (2

1         170(1) -(38)                        624                           448
2         171(1) -(30)                        510                           544
6         175(1) -(26)                        448                           278
7         176(1) -(45)                        788                           787
10        179(1) -(29)                        501                           BLANK
11        180(1) -(21)                        327                           328


          This shows that the results for Units 1, 2, 6, 7, 10 and 11 of this ward were indeed arbitrarily
 written since the number of voters in both Forms EC8A and EC8B should have emanated from the
 contents of voters' register but did not.
          None of the parties tendered the units' results in Forms EC8A for this ward.
          This we hold to be a failure on the part of the Respondents who have asserted that election was
 duly conducted in all the units of the ward.
          The Petitioner, who asserted that there was no election in any of the units of the ward could not be
 saddled with the responsibility of proving the holding of such election.
          The 1st Respondent neither tendered the forms-EC8A nor provided reasons for his inability to do
 so.

                                                        226
         In the instant situation, the Forms EC 8A were fundamental to the Respondents ability to prove to this
Tribunal that election was conducted in the units of this ward.
         He has failed to do so at the peril of having it decided that there was actually no election in
this ward in the election in issue on 14th April, 2007.
         The obvious discrepancies in the number of voters in the form EC8B and the voters' register
and the number of used ballot papers and number of votes cast in Form EC8B which show that the
result for 11 of the 18 units were actually fabricated and the failure to tender Forms EC8A has the
effect that there were truly no valid elections held in the whole of the units of the ward.
         In view of the substantiality of the irregularities established that 10 out of the 11 polling units'
results were concocted, and the fact that the Form EC8B for this ward was signed by the same
person who signed the Form EC8B for Irele II Ward 007, we accept that the Petitioner's story that
the electoral materials for this ward were carted away and the results sheets arbitrarily completed at a place
or places other than the designated polling units and collation centre as correct.
         The Petitioner's allegations on the units in the ward as contained in paragraph 21.6 (x) of
the petition are that there was no voting in any of the units because the electoral materials were carted
away by thugs of the 1st and 2nd Respondents and soldiers to the house of a political office holder where
votes were allocated and that the Forms EC8A, EC8B and EC8C for the ward were concocted.
         The 1st Respondent controverted the allegations and averred that the elections for the ward
were conducted freely and fairly without incidences of malpractices.
         We have critically analysed the documents tendered alongside other evidence towards
resolving the issues in this petition.
         Differences are noticed between the number of used or thumb-printed ballot papers
and the results for the units and as reflected in the ward's result. The ballot papers are Exhibits 1077.
         The differences are as expressed hereunder:
UNIT    NUMBER OF               EXHIBIT NUMBER            NUMBER OF CAST       NUMBER OF CAST VOTES IN
        USED BALLOT             OF UNITS' RESULT          VOTES IN UNITS       WARDS RESULT: EXHIBIT 253
        PAPERS                                            RESULT               (1) AND (2)

1       291                                                                    292
3       94                                                100                  95
5       298                                                                    300
6       99                      252 (3)                   100                  100
7       245                     " (4)                     300                  300
8       357                     " (5)                     358                  358
9       301                     " (6)                     300                  300


       The discrepancies in the number of used ballot papers and the number of votes cast in the results

                                                          227
show that the results were not generated from the used ballot papers. In effect the votes, as alleged
by the Petitioner were arbitrarily recorded in the Forms.
         In the result for Unit 006, Exhibit 252 (3), 100 ballot papers were issued for the election out of
which 640 were recorded as been stolen and 100 were recorded as valid votes cast. In other words the
number of ballot papers stolen and used was 740 while only 100 ballot papers were available for the election.
         The Forms EC8A tendered is for 6 out of 9 units and no explanations have been proffered for
the non-tendering of the other 3.
         It is, as stated earlier on in this judgment, the duty of the Respondents who base their
defence on the due conduct of elections in the units to tender the Form EC8A and not that of the
Petitioner whose claim is hinged on non-conduct of the election.
         We, accordingly, hold that there was no valid election conducted in Units 001, 004 and 005 of
this ward.
         The following voters' cards were tendered as evidence that their holders were not afforded the
opportunity to vote:
             1.   5 pieces for Unit 002: Exhibit 1098 (10).
             2. 24 pieces for Unit 007: Exhibit 1098 (10).
             3.   49 pieces for Unit 008: Exhibit 1098 (10). It is observed that none of the voters' cards
                  was marked or punched to show that its holder ever used it to vote.
        We have checked samples of the voter's card against entries in the voters' registers for the
respective units and our findings are stated hereunder:

        UNIT 007 WITH VOTERS' REGISER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 249 (1) - (18)
SERIAL NUMBER            VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'              NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE VOTER'S
                         REGISTER                                   CARD

1.                       74                                         TWO
2.                       177                                        “
3.                       53                                         “
4.                       106                                        “
5.                       105                                        “
6.                       67                                         “
7.                       297                                        NOT TICKED
8.                       9                                          TWO
9.                       222                                        “
10.                      255                                        “




                                                         228
        UNIT 008 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 250
SERIAL NUMBER            VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'                  NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE VOTER'S
                         REGISTER                                       CARD

1.                       67                                             TWO
2.                       298                                            “
3.                       98                                             “
4.                       189                                            “
5.                       68                                             “
6.                       194                                            “
7.                       72                                             “
8.                       145                                            ONE
9.                       252                                            TWO
10.                      175                                            “


          These charts show that there was improper accreditation in the units because though the
 voters' cards were not ticked, the voters' registers were ticked to show accreditation took place when in
 actual fact there was no accreditation. An accreditation, as held in AONDOAKAA vs. AJO (1990) 5
 NWLR (Part 602) 206, is an essential ingredient of a valid election.
          Accordingly, we find that no valid election was conducted in any of the polling units of this ward. We
 believe the allegation of the Petitioner that the results for the election in this ward were concocted.
          In paragraph 21.6 (x) of the petition the complaints are that there was no voting in any of the units
 in the ward because the electoral materials were hijacked by thugs and soldiers acting for the 1st and 2nd
 Respondents, that the electoral materials were taken to the house of a political office holder where votes were
 allocated and that the results in Exhibits EC8A, EC8B and EC8C for the whole ward and Local Government
 Area were fabricated.
          The 1st Respondent denied the allegations in paragraphs 195 and 199 of his reply to the petition.
          PW 47's evidence as contained in the Petitioner's bundle of documents (Volume 11) is that there
 are 2 Forms EC8B for this ward, that there are differences between the entries of results for this ward in the
 Forms EC8B and EC8C, that there are differences between the number of thumb-printed ballot papers and the
 voters for same units of the ward and that there are a lot of unused voters' cards for persons who could not
 vote because there was no election.
          We have considered the evidence on the units in this ward and our conclusions are stated
 hereunder.
          We have noticed differences between the ballot papers for the units, Exhibits 1077 (3), and the
 number of valid votes in the ward's result as stated hereunder:




                                                        229
UNIT     NUMBER OF USED BALLOT PAPERS FOR THE                   NUMBER OF CAST VOTES IN WARD'S
         UNIT IN EXHIBIT 1077 (3)                               RESULT: EXHIBIT 266 (1) - (2)

1        497                                                    498
2        498                                                    499
3        530                                                    500
4        609                                                    645
5        398                                                    ^00
6        400                                                    400
7        543 AND 341                                            1010
8        449                                                    485
9        463                                                    381
10       339                                                    395
11       374                                                    498
12       362                                                    398


         These show by whichever results one works with, the results for the units in Form EC8B did not
emanate from the number of votes cast at the unit rather they were arbitrarily allocated to the parties as
alleged by the Petitioner.
         None of the parties tendered the Form EC8A, the polling unit results, for this ward.
         The Form EC8A is the primary evidence of the holding of an election at the polling units.
         The Petitioner who bases his claims on non-conduct of valid election in the units of this ward cannot
be expected to produce the forms EC8A. However, the Respondents whose defences are predicated on
holding of due elections in the units of the ward have the obligation of presenting the Forms EC8 A to the
Tribunal as evidence of the holding of such election.
         In MALUMFASHI vs. YABA (1999) 4 NWLR (Part 598) 230 at 237 it was held as follows:
         "It must be noted that the only way one can question the lawfulness or otherwise of some of
the votes is to tender in evidence on the forms used......"
         We also rely on AWUSE vs. ODILI (supra)
         The failure of the Respondents to provide the required evidence in Forms EC8A to show
that election was duly conducted in all the units of this ward is inimical to the interest of the
Respondents in this petition.
         Two distinctly different ward's results have been tendered in respect of this ward: Exhibits 266 (1)
and 266 (2).
          Exhibit 266 (1) has entries for 12 units of the ward while Exhibit 266 (2) has entries for only 9
units. In the latter the names of Units 010, 011 and 012 have been stated but their codes, number of registered
voters and total votes cast are missing and the number of registered voters for Units 002 and 004 are also
missing.
          Both exhibits have been certified by INEC.
                                                        230
          We are put in a position in which we cannot pick and choose which of the two Forms EC8B to
accept as the authentic result for this ward.
          We, accordingly, accord no probative value to either of Exhibits 266 (1) and (2).
          The fact that the Respondents have not been able to produce the polling unit results in court, and
the existence of two distinctly different results hi Forms EC8B for the ward symbolize a situation in which the
available results are clearly not obtained through collation and the election cannot be said to have been
conducted at all.
          We, therefore, in the circumstances, agree with the Petitioner that the results were concocted.
          Generally on IRELE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA there is Exhibit 1090 (1) - (2) which
is a "Report on 14th April, 2007 Governorship/House of Assembly election" from the Electoral officer
for Irele Local Government to the Resident Electoral Commissioner for Ondo State. In Exhibit 1090 (2)
in the 1st paragraph it is stated as follows:
          "At around 4.15 p.m. before the commencement of the election, our officer was attacked while
we were distributing the materials and members of staff ran for safety".
          Section 48 of the Electoral Act 2006 provides that:
          "Voting in any particular election under this Act shall take place on the same day and time through
out the federation".
          And, by paragraph 2.4 on page 15 and paragraph 3.3 on page 24 of the "Manual for election
Official 2007" the polls are supposed to open by 8.00 a.m. and close by 3.00 p.m.
          In the instant situation, by the admission of the Electoral Officer for Irele Local
Government AREA by 4.15 p.m. the elections had not commenced and that the electoral process
was marred by violence in which INEC's officer was attacked and other INEC's staff had to run for
safety.
          The report of Department of State on the elections in Irele Local Government, Exhibit 1100
(1) - (9) particularly 1100 (8) lends weight to the fact that the election was marred by violence. The said
report says people were coerced to vote for the PDP and that there was massive rigging of the election.
          From these it can be concluded that:
                    1.              The election did not start at 8.00 a.m. by the rules.
                    2.              The election did continue even after 3.00 p.m. when it was, by the rules,
                                    supposed to have closed.
                    3.              The atmosphere on the day of the election was fraught with violence,
                                    intimidation and massive rigging.
          These combinations cannot be said to be conducive for the conduct of free and fair election in Irele


                                                            231
Local Government. In the light of this and our findings in respect of the various wards we nullify the election in Irele
Local Government Area.


         OKITEPUPA LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA
         The Petitioner alleged that throughout Okitipupa Local Government Area ballot papers were
hijacked and diverted by members/agents of the 2nd Respondent on the instigation, collusion and connivance of
the 1st and 2nd Respondents with the active support of the police and the Nigerian Army.
         The 1st Respondent countered that no electoral materials were hijacked or diverted by anybody and
that the Respondent never appointed any agent for that purpose nor did he instigate, collude or collaborate
with anybody or with other Respondents or law enforcement agents in respect of any electoral malpractice.
He added that election took place peacefully in the Local Government Area.
         The 15th and 16th Respondents' reply was also to the effect that the police did not collaborate with
the 1st and 2nd Respondents to hijack and divert electoral materials but rather they escorted the electoral
materials and INEC's officials to distribution centre and that they were not jointly deployed to polling units
with soldiers.
         PW 37 testified to the effect that he was commissioned by his party to supervise the election in Iju-
Odo/Erekiti/Iju Oke Ward of Okitipupa Local Government Area, that the election was characterized by violence,
snatching of ballot boxes at gunpoint by PDP agents assisted by soldiers and mobile policemen, that Labour Party
agents waited for the INEC officers to come to the various polling units till 4.30 p.m. when they left for their
houses because they never turned up, that results entered into Forms EC8A for the units were fabricated and
recorded because there was no counting of votes and declaration of results and no result sheet was signed and
that Labour Party supporters and other voters who were denied the opportunity to vote in the ward
complained to him and surrendered their voters' cards to him as evidence that they were not allowed to
vote. PW37 then identified exhibits 1098 (22) - (30) as the voters' cards surrendered to him by voters who were
denied the right to vote. PW37 added that he did not vote on that day and there were 16 units in the ward and that
he went round all the units, that although some of the voters' cards he identified are contained in envelopes he was
there when they were put in the envelopes, that he did not make Exhibits 1098, that all the persons whose
voters' cards he identified except one are alive, that he registered at St. Paul's Anglican Primary School Unit where
he went and saw that there was no election.
         PW38's evidence was that he was commissioned to be party agent for Ode Aye Ward 10 of Okitipupa
Local Government Area which has 9 units, that the election was characterized by violence and snatching of ballot
papers by 1st Respondent's agent assisted by a detachment of policemen and soldiers, that voting did not take
place in most of the polling units and that after the purported election voters who were denied the
opportunity to vote especially members and supporters of Labour Party in the ward complained to him and
                                                          232
surrendered their voters' cards to him.
         PW38 added that he did not vote at the election, that he did not meet with Dr. Agagu and he was not
at all the units at the same time, that every unit had a Labour Party agent and that on the day of the election he was
surprised to see so many policemen.
         PW40 said by virtue of his membership of Labour Party he was made a supervisor for the 14th April,
2007 for Igbotako Ward of Okitipupa Local Government Area, that on that day voting materials were
distributed to INEC's ad hoc staff at each of the units of the ward by 10.26 a.m., that he visited all the units in
the ward, that he observed that the electoral materials for Units 006, 009, 01l, 014 and 010 were carted
away by one Femi Johnson (Special Assistant to 1st Respondent) and some PDP thugs and Tayo
Akinmusin who were armed with axes and rifles and who shot sporadically into the air to scare away the
electorates, that similar occurrences took place in virtually all the other units in the ward, that many of the
electorates who were denied the right to vote left with their cards unmarked, that the results of some of
the units were cancelled by the Returning Officer when Femi Johnson and INEC's ad hoc staff supported by
armed thugs brought the result to the collation centre, and that there was no free and fair election in
the ward on that day.
         PW40 stated further that the materials did not get to Akinfosile Adeoye Unit before they
were carted away, that the materials for Korede Camp, Okedebi and Adewinle Units were taken to
the units from where they were carted away by Femi Johnson and the thugs, that he visited all
the units, that from Igbotako Adewinle is ten minutes drive and between Sogbon Camp and
Okedebi is 7 minutes drive, between Okedebi and Adewinle is 3 minutes drive, Adewinle and
Korede 2 minutes drive, Jorede to Akinyosile about 4 minutes drive, and that there was no
announcement of results of the election.
         PW39 stated that he was commissioned by Labour Party to supervise the election of Ilutitun III
Ward 09 in Okitipupa Local Government Area as the party's agent, that while voting was going on thugs,
policemen and soldiers led by Hon. Ola Oguntimehin presently a Special Assistant to the 1st Respondent
hijacked and snatched ballot boxes in every polling unit in the ward and took them to the house of the
said Hon. Oguntimehin where multiple thumb-printed ballot papers were stuffed into the ballot boxes, that
after the purported election voters who were denied the right to vote especially members of the
Labour Party surrendered their voters' cards as evidence that they did not vote on 14th April, 2007 and
that there was no counting of votes, no declaration of results and no signature on any election result
sheets in the units by any Labour Party's agent and that the results in Forms EC8A and EC8B were
fabricated and recorded in the house of Oguntimehin. PW39 identified Exhibits 1130 (1) - (13) as the Forms
EC8A he alleged were fabricated and Exhibits 734 (1) and (2) as the original and CTC of Form EC8B he also said
was fabricated.
                                                         233
         PW39 added that election did not take place, that he did not make Exhibits 1130(1)-(13) and he
was not there which it was made, that it is ten minutes ride on a bike between Ilutitun and
Omotosho, that he covered the entire ward, that there are signatures in the column for Labour
Parry's agents in Exhibits 1130 (2) - (4) and 1130 (6) and (7), that he could not know what was happening
at Omotosho when he was in Ilutitun, that although he was a registered voter he was not allowed to vote at the
election, that he went round all the 23 units on that day, that there is no column for Supervisory Agent
to sign on Exhibit 734 (1) and (2), that he was at each polling units while the snatching was taking place and
that he never attended any meeting between policemen, soldiers, thugs and the 1st Respondent.
         PW42's evidence was that he was commissioned by Labour Party to supervise the conduct of the
election in Erinje Ward 20 in Okitipupa Local Government Area which was characterized by violence,
snatching of ballot boxes at gunpoint by agents of the 1st Respondent assisted by a detachment of
soldiers and mobile policemen, that while voting was taking place the said persons led by Fola Ewegbemi
Special Assistant to Femi Agagu the Chief of Staff to the 1st Respondent hijacked and snatched ballot boxes
in every polling unit in the ward and took them to the house of Fola Ewegbemi where thumb-printed ballot
papers were stuffed into the ballot boxes, that there was no counting of votes or declaration of results or
signing of result sheets by any Labour Party's agent, that the purported results in Forms EC8A and EC8B for
the ward were fabricated and recorded in Fola Ewegbemi's house and that after the purported election
voters who were denied the opportunity to vote especially supporters of Labour Party in the ward
complained to him and surrendered their voters' cards to him as evidence that they did not vote.
         PW42 identified Exhibits 592 (1) - (19) as the Forms EC8A and Exhibit 593 (2) as the Form
EC8B which he alleged were fabricated. PW42 said that everything in his deposition was correct, that there are
19 units in the ward and that he supervised all of them, that there is no ward 20 and that the code of the ward he
supervised is 01, that he could not be at 2 units at the same time and could not tell what was happening in
Unit 02 while he was in Ward 01 but that he got information of what was happening from his agents, that he went
round and saw thugs for himself, that he was not the maker of Exhibit 592(1)-(19) and that he was not
present when they were made, that there are signatures of Labour Party's agents in Exhibits 592 (3) - (10), that
the people he claimed did not vote are alive, that the thumb-printing was done on the verandah of Fola
Ewegbemi's house, that the glass in the house was only on windows, that he was not a member of the
thuggery group, that he was at Unit 008 where he was registered as a voter from 10.00 a.m. to 10.05 a.m. and could
not vote and moved on to supervise other units, that he monitored Femi Agagu and Fola Ewegbemi for 15
minutes at a distance that he witnessed all the snatching, that the 19 polling units are not in the same location, that
the ward consists of only one town and one village which has 2 units.
         PW47, in his opinion in Volume 11 of the Petitioner's bundle of documents, attacked and condemned the


                                                         234
results of the election.
            The 1st Respondent led some witnesses too.
            The evidence of RW1 was to the effect that he voted at Unit 002 of Igbotako Ward 003 of Okitipupa
Local Government Area on 14th April, 2007, that he was properly accredited and that he was not
harassed by anybody.
            RW1 tendered his voter's card which was admitted and marked as Exhibit 1203 which has 2
marks one of which he said was made at the gubernatorial election. RW1 also identified his name in the
voters' register for the unit, Exhibit 1202, on page 004 which was also ticked twice.
            RW1 added that his house is close to the voting centre so he could view what was happening
there, that from his observation voting was free and fair in the unit, that Labour Party won at the unit, that
the policeman there maintained law and order only, that from the voters' register for the unit, all the
registered voters voted, that he was not at the polling unit when the result for the election was recorded in
the unit.
            RW2 said he voted at Unit 002 of Iju-Odo/Erekiti/Iju-Oke Ward, that he was duly accredited
before he voted and that he was not harassed by anybody.
            RW2 tendered his voter's card which was admitted and marked as Exhibit 1204.
            RW2 added that he was neither the first nor the last to vote at the unit, that the 2 marks at the back
of his voter's card were made by INEC officials and one of them was in respect of gubernatorial election, that
there are 2 units in Iju-Oke, and that the election was free and fair, that after casting his vote he went back
home.
            RW3 testified to the effect that he was a registered voter, he was duly accredited and he voted at
Unit 001 of Ilutitun Ward III on 14th April, 2007 and that after he voted his voter's card was marked.
            RW3's voter's card was admitted and marked as Exhibit 1206.
            He added that the polling unit was close to his house so he could see what was happening at the
polling unit from his house, that people voted before and after he voted, that at about 6.00 p.m. people were
still in the voting queue, that the distance between Omotosho and Ilutitun is more than 7 minutes drive
because it is about 40 kilometres, that it was not possible for Ayorinde Akinrohin to move round
the whole of the ward on the day of the election because in some places one has to cross a river, that the
said Akinrohin voted in the same place with him, that he could not tell how long it would take for one to
traverse the ward, that the particulars in Item 47 of the voters' register for the unit, Exhibit 1201 (1) -
918) are his, that the name was ticked twice in the Exhibit, that all the 307 names in his unit were
ticked twice in the voters' register except for numbers 216, 218, 192, 162, 163 and 152.
            He added that voting started there at 1.35 p.m. but that he did not wait there until close of polls.
            RW7's evidence was that as a registered voter in Unit 016 he was duly accredited before he voted
                                                           235
on 14th April, 2007 and his voter's card was marked by a polling official.
         RW7's voter's card was admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit 1217.
         He added that his ward is Ilutitun Ward 003, that the election was free, fair and peaceful, that on that
day he noticed that voting was taking place at Units 009, 01l, 012, 013 and 017 of the ward, that after voting
his temporary voter's card was marked, that Ola Oguntimehin was a Special Adviser to the 1st Respondent
until he became the Director General of the 1st Respondent's campaign, that the conduct of the election in
his unit was free and fair and that the materials got to his unit at 1.35 p.m.
         RW8 said he registered and voted at Unit 008 of Iju Odo/Erekiti/Iju Oke Ward after he
was duly accredited without harassment.
         He tendered his voter's card which was admitted and marked as Exhibit 1218. He added that the
2 marks at the back of his voter's card indicated that he voted on 14th and 21st April, 2007. He also
said he noticed people on a queue voting at Unit 007 which was a stone throw away from his own
unit, that he did not see people fighting at Unit 008 and Unit 007, that the evidence of PW37 that the
election in his ward and unit was characterized by violence was not true, that the police maintained law
and order at the 2 units, that all the voters' names except 4 voters were ticked twice on the voters'
register for the unit, Exhibit 642 (1) - 921), that although he is a member of PDP he did not know PDP's
agent at his unit, that he did not know that all the voters in the unit were indicated on the register to have
voted, that he did not know if all the voters in Unit 007 were accredited.
         RW25 stated that he was a registered voter and that he was duly accredited before he voted at
Unit 014 of Ode-Erinje Ward in Okitipupa Local Government Area on 14th April, 2007. RW25's voter's
card was admitted and marked as Exhibit 1245.
         RW25 added that he used the temporary voter's card to vote, that it was collected by INEC and
was substituted with Exhibit 1245, that his voter's card was marked to show that he voted. RW25
then identified his name and particulars as number 95 in the unit's voters' register, Exhibit 586 (1) - (20), that
his voter's card was marked twice, that he knows 2 Fola Ewegbemi's- Folabayo Ewegbami and
Folasakin Ewegbemi who are politicians and his cousin, that each of them is called Fola in short, that
they both belong to PDP, that Falabayo was the PDP's collation agent for Erinje Ward and for Okitipupa
Local Government Area level, that Folashakin voted in his own unit (Unit 015) and he was a
businessman and a Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff to the Governor of Ondo State, that he is
familiar with the signature of and hand writing of Folabayo Ewegbami, that he was also his Personal
Assistant when (he) RW25 was the Executive Chairman of Okitipupa Local Government, that Folashaki
was PDP's Secretary in Okitipupa Local Government Area between 1999 and 2002. RW25 then identified
the signature and handwriting of Folabayo on it. He added that the evidence of PW40 to the effect that
thugs used guns and other weapons to scare away voters in Erinje Ward and the entire Local
                                                          236
Government Area was false and that the INEC's officials and policeman at the unit were performing their
duties.
          He added that both Folabayo and Folashaki Ewegbemi are members of PDP and they are alive, that
it is Folashaki who is the Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff to 1st Respondent, that in Exhibit 593 (2) the
name written is "Ewegbemi Fola A" which was signed and not Ewegbemi Folabayo, that the same Folabayo
acted as agent for the PDP at the Local Government Area level, that the same signature is also in the Local
Government Area result sheet, Exhibit 815 (2), the Local Government election result in Form EC8C,
that what is written in the said Exhibit Ewegbemi Fola A", that he knew that the Special Assistant to the Chief
of Staff to 1st Respondent is known in Government circles as Mr. Ewegbemi Fola A which, he said, is
his other name, that he knew that Ewegbemi Fola A was holding office as Special Assistant to the said
Chief of Staff up to 14th April, 2007, that after voting he could observe what happened at the unit
from the front of his house, that he did not follow the INEC's officials to the collation centre so he could
not tell if the results from his unit were collated there, that he did not know if the result for his unit was
different from what was collated in the ward's result, that Exhibit 1245 was not the voter's card he used to
vote which was a temporary one and that he is not a staff of the Chief of Staff.
          RW27's evidence was that he was a registered voter and was duly accredited before he voted at
Unit 012 of Ward I, Okitipupa Local Government Area.
          RW27's voter's card was admitted and marked as Exhibit 1248. He said he used it to vote and
it was marked twice to show that he voted. He then identified his photograph as number 42 in Exhibit 745
(1) - (28) in the voters' register, that it was not true that elections in Ode Aye Ward 001 was characterized
by violence, snatching of ballot boxes at gunpoint by agents of 1st Respondent assisted by soldiers and
policemen, that election was peaceful in the whole ward because nobody reported violence to him, that the
election was free and fair, that PDP had agents in all the units of his ward, that his ward is Aye Ward 001
and not Aye 1 Ward 010, that he could not tell who the PDP's agent in Unit 012 of his ward was, that PDP
won the election in his unit but he could not tell if PDP's agent signed the result, that he did not know the
number of registered voters in the unit, that the 2 marks on his voter's card were made on 14th and
21st April 2007, that he did not know that the marks for the election of 14th April, 2007 were supposed
to have been made in blue and not red ink and that he did not make the red marks.
          RW28's testimony was to the effect that he was a registered voter and he was duly accredited
before he voted at Unit 01l of Ward 001, Okitipupa Local Government Area. RW28 said that his voter's
card got missing and he did not go to INEC to collect a new one, that he used the temporary voter's card
to vote which was marked to show that he voted, that the name and photograph on serial number 111
on page 8 of the voters' register, Exhibit 744 (1) - (9), are his own, that the said Exhibit 744 (1) - (9) has 2
marks on his particulars which were made by INEC's officials who accredited him and they are
                                                        237
evidence that he voted on both 14th and 21st April, 2007, that he is also called Femi, that it was not true
as stated by Christopher Bolafemi, that the election in his ward and the units was characterized by
snatching of ballot boxes, violence by Agagu's agents assisted by a detachment of soldiers and mobile
policemen, that it was also not true that voting did not take place in the units, that the election was peacefully
conducted in his unit, that the police provided adequate security at the unit where he voted, that he did not
know if the result for the unit as declared by INEC correctly represented the outcome of the
election, that the election was free and fair and the result was not falsified in his unit,


           AYEKA/IGBODIGBO/OKUNMO/IGODAN WARD 01
           The Petitioner alleged that no election took place in any of the units in this ward.
           The 1st Respondent denied the allegation and stated that election took place in all the units
complained of and the votes emanated from lawful votes cast at the polling units.
           The 15th and 16th Respondent dismissed the allegations as being of the Petitioner's imagination.
           We have noticed that there are two Forms EC8A for Unit 014 of this ward, i.e. Exhibits 572 (14) and 572
(15) bearing different entries. Since we are not in a position to pick and choose which of the two to give credit to
we discountenance both.
           Furthermore, in Exhibit 552 (14) the number of registered voters is 441 while in the voters' register
for the unit, Exhibit 558 (1) - (29), it is 488. The number of voters in the Form EC8A is expected to be
derived from the voters' register for the unit. We have also observed serious irregularities in the results
for Units 001,002, 006 and 008.
           For Unit 001 the Form EC8A, Exhibit 572 (1), shows that there are 608 registered voters in the
unit. However, 600 valid and 9 spoilt votes were recorded making the total ballots cast as 609. This is an
incidence of over voting.
           A simple calculation of the valid votes in Exhibit 572 (2), the result for Unit 002 shows that it is 309 and
not 392.
           For Unit 006, the Form EC8A, Exhibit 572 (6) shows that there are 302 voters in the register. A
calculation of the valid votes shows 325 and not 285 as shown on the results with 7 rejected votes. This
also shows over voting.
           The Form EC8A for Unit 008 shows 210 registered voters and 206 valid and 206 rejected ballots.
This is also over voting. The Form EC8A is Exhibit 572 (8),
           These indicate that the results for the Polling Units 001, 002, 006, 008 and 014 could not be relied
upon in computing the results for the election.
           We have also discovered that there are differences between the number of thumb-printed
ballot papers from the result of counting which is Exhibit 1283 (1) - (27) and the number of votes cast as
                                                           238
reflected the Forms EC8B, Exhibit 573 (1) and (2), the wards result.
         Exhibit 1283 (1) - (27) shows that there are 5550 thumb-printed ballot papers for the 1.7 units of
this ward while the Form EC8B shows that the votes cast were 5761.
         The Petitioner's allegations that the results in the Form EC8B are not the outcome of the election is
therefore borne out. The number of votes cast as reflected in the result form is a representation of
the ballots cast at the election so the two figures could not differ from each other.
         Exhibit 573 (1) and (2) could not, therefore, be relied upon.
         There is also evidence that there was no collation of results of the units' results at the ward level in this
instance and collation being an essential aspect of election makes the Form EC8B worthless.
         The irregularities we have highlighted in the results for this ward are limited to Units 001, 002, 006, 008
and 014. These relate to only 4 out of the 17 units in this ward.
         We are of the view that the irregularities are not sufficient to warrant us to upset the results for this ward.
         The Petitioner's allegations on this ward have not been sustained.


         ODE-ERINJE WARD 02
         The Petitioner alleged that elections did not hold in this ward because PDP leaders in company of thugs
commissioned by the 1st and 2nd Respondents moved around the units in 2 passenger buses and 2 private cards
assisted by policemen and soldiers and carted away election materials and that fictitious scores were
returned from the units.
         The 1st Respondent denied all the allegations and added that elections were held in the ward
without any violence or electoral malpractices, that scores credited to the candidates emanated from lawful
voters and that there was no alteration of Form EC8B.
         The 15th and 16th Respondents also averred that election was duly held in the ward and that the
police did not collaborate with the 1st and 2nd Respondents to commit electoral malpractices.
         The evidence PW42 was that the forms EC8A for the units and Form EC8B for the ward were
fabricated by 1st Respondent's agents assisted by soldiers and policemen led by one Fola Ewegbemi
a Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff to the 1st Respondent who hijacked and snatched away the
electoral materials for every unit of the ward. That the Forms EC8A and EC8B were recorded in Fola
Ewegbemi's house. PW42 said he witnessed the snatching in all the 19 units from a distance.
         RW25 who also gave evidence on the same ward said he voted at Unit 014 where election was
peacefully conducted without any incidence of violence. RW25, in a long cross-examination, admitted that
Ewegbemi Fola A, which is the "other name" of Folashaki Ewegbemi, the Special Assistant to the Chief of
Staff to the 1st Respondent, signed Form EC8B for this ward and Form EC8C for the Local Government
Area.
                                                           239
         We have observed that while the evidence of PW42 was that he watched from a distance as the
snatching of the electoral materials was being conducted by agents of the 1st Respondent and the soldiers
and mobile policemen the evidence of RW25 was restricted to the Unit 014 in which he said he voted.
         There is no other evidence, documentary or otherwise, except the result sheets which were
alleged to have been fabricated to controvert the evidence of PW42.
         In the cause of cross-examination RW25 admitted that Folashaki Ewegbemi, who is the
Special Assistant is also called Ewegbemi Fola A.
         There is no evidence that Folabayo, the man whom RW25 said signed the Forms EC8A for this
ward and EC8C for the Local Government is also called Ewegbemi Fola A.
         We therefore agree with the Petitioner that the Fola Ewegbemi who signed the Form EC8B
for this ward as Ewegbemi Fola A is the Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff to the 1st Respondent.
         There is no evidence that the said Fola Ewegbemi or Ewegbemi Fola A. who signed the
results is not a political office holder.
         In the circumstances, we accept that Ewegbemi Fola A. who signed the Forms EC8B for this ward and
EC8C for the Local Government is a political office holder who is by the provision of Section 46 of the Electoral
Act 2006, not supposed to serve as an agent of any political party at the election.
         In the light of this contravention we are persuaded to also accept that this act of Ewegbemi
Fola A gives boost to the incontroverted evidence of PW42 that the electoral materials were carted to the
residence of Ewegbemi Fola A. or Fola Ewegbemi who then went ahead and signed the results as PDP's agent.
         Our belief is reinforced by the fact that the number of votes cast in the Form EC8B for the ward, which
was signed by the said Ewgbemi Fola A or Fola Ewegbemi the Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff to the 1st
Respondent, Exhibit 593 (1) and (2), is 4029 while the source from which the result was obtained the
thumb-printed ballot papers Exhibit 1078 (35) and (41) for this ward are 3901.
         This adds weight to the Petitioner's allegations and the evidence so far that the results were
made without recourse to their natural origin, i.e. the thumb-printed ballot papers.
         We consider it unsafe to accept the evidence of RW25 because he came to mislead the court
into believing that the Fola Ewegbemi who signed the results in Forms EC8B and EC8C is Folabayo and
not Folashaki until he was virtually forced to speak out the truth by a rigorous cross-examination. He
has lost credibility and cannot be believed.
         In this situation where the evidence of PW42 with regards to the malpractices in all the units of this
ward was not challenged even by the Forms EC8A which has been shown to have been fabricated we
have no alternative than to accept and act on the evidence of PW42.
         On this we rely on the decision of INEC vs. RAY (2004) 14 NWLR (Part 892) 92 at 131 where


                                                          240
Ogunbiyi JCA held as follows:
         "........ it is settled law that an unchallenged evidence ought to be accepted by a trial court or
tribunal as proof of the fact or issue in respect of which the evidence is given".
         It is, therefore, unnecessary for us, in view of our findings that the results were fabricated to go
into calculating the scores of the parties on a result that is manifestly unreliable .
         We, accordingly, nullify the election for this ward.


         IGBOKATOKO I WARD 03
         The Petitioner alleged that virtually all the electoral materials for this ward were diverted to the
houses of 2nd Respondent's chieftains by the use of thugs who acted for the 1st and 2nd
Respondents with the assistance of policemen and soldiers who commandeered and abducted electoral
officers at gunpoint to the said chieftain's house where ballot papers illegally thumb-printed in favour of the
1st and 2nd Respondents were stuffed into the ballot boxes, that when Fajiwe, an agent of Labour
Party asked questions about the diversion of the election materials he was machetted by the said
thugs who were shouting "No Agagu, No Election".
         The 1st Respondent contended that elections duly took place in all the units, that no electoral
materials were diverted, that no thugs acted for the 1st Respondent to perpetrate any electoral
malpractice, that law enforcement agents maintained law there, that no illegal thumb-printing and
stuffing of ballot boxes occurred, that entries in result sheets emanated from lawful votes and that all the
allegations of the Petitioner were false.
         The 15th and 16th Respondents also denied the allegations on this ward and said that the police
did not engage in the malpractices attributed to them by the Petitioner and dismissed same as figment
of his imagination.
         The evidence of PW40 was that the materials for all the units were carted away by armed men led
by one Femi Johnson and Tayo Akinmusin.
         RW l's evidence was that he voted at Unit 002 of this ward where election was conducted
peacefully and that he was not at the polling unit when the result was recorded.
         The evidence of PW40 covered all the 24 units of this ward and was based, clearly, from what he
personally experienced.
         On the other hand the evidence of RW1 was restricted to Unit 002 of this ward where he said
election was duly conducted but that he was not there when the result, that is Form EC8A, was
recorded.
         There are 2 Forms EC8A for the unit where RW1 said he voted having different entries
and signed by two different Presiding Officers.
                                                          241
            One is Exhibit 1180 (2) which has 100 registered voters, 100 issued ballots and 100 valid votes
cast and was signed by one Adeyekure Arioyele as Presiding Officer.
            The other, Exhibit 617 (2) has 197 registered voters 200 issued ballots and 109 valid
votes and was signed by one Adeyekun M.O. as the Presiding Officer.
            Furthermore, it is apparent from the voters register for the said Unit 002, Exhibit 595 (1) -
(13), and as admitted by RW1 under cross-examination, that all the registered voters were shown to
have voted because each of the names and particulars there has been ticked two times.
            A cursory look at one of the results for the unit Exhibit 617 i (2), which has the same number
of voters as contained in the voters' register, shows that there are 197 registered voters in the unit
out of which 109 valid, 11 spoilt and 11 rejected votes where recorded in the result. In other words only 131
votes were cast.
            The other result for the unit, Exhibit 1180 (2) has 100 registered voters and all the 100
were recorded as valid votes. However, the member of voters in the said register is 197 while in the
Form EC8A it is 100.
            In the light of these analyses it is clear that there are two results for Unit 002 of Igbotako I
Ward 003 and they tell lies against each other and from which we cannot pick and chose which to
believe.
            Secondly, there cannot be two results for the same polling unit manned by two different Presiding
Officers.
            Thirdly, we accept that the results for this unit are not the products of lawful election.
            We, accordingly, hold that the evidence of RW1 to the effect that election was duly conducted in
Unit 002 of Igbotako I Ward 003 is not worthy of any credit.
            We have also considered the ward's result, Form EC8B and the thumb-printed ballot papers for the
ward.
            There are discrepancies between the said Form EC8B, Exhibit 618 (1) and (2) and the
thumb-printed ballot papers for the ward, Exhibit 1079(3).
            The number of votes cast is to be derived from the number of thumb-printed ballot papers.
            In this instance, however, the number of votes cast in the ward, as contained in the Form EC8B,
is 3400 while the number of thumb-printed ballot papers for the whole ward is 4162.
            It is apparent then that the results in the Form EC8B were made without recourse being
had to the thumb-printed ballot papers.
            We note that the Forms EC8A for the unit, Exhibits 617 (1) -(24), are having substantially the
same entries with the ward's results in terms of number of registered voters and number of votes cast.


                                                        242
        These discrepancies, we have pointed out, clearly show that the results were, as alleged by the
Petitioner, unlawfully procured.
        This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the evidence of PW40 was not controverted and the
persons whose names were mentioned as having participated in the electoral malpractices have not come to
explain the roles, if any, they played at the election. In AKINTOLA vs. BALOGUN (2000), NWLR (Part
642) 532 at 545 Tabai JCA held as follows:
        "It is settled law that a party who does not give evidence in support of his pleadings or in challenge
of the evidence of the adverse party is deemed to have accepted the evidence of the adverse party
notwithstanding the general traverse".
        In view of these findings we hold that election did not hold in any of the units of Igbotako I Ward
003 in the Governorship election of 14th April, 2007 and that the results of the purported elections
tendered for the units, Exhibit 617 (1) - (24) and 1180 (1) - (2) and for the ward, Exhibit 618 (1) and (2)
are illegitimate products of illicit acts consummated at places other than designated areas where
elections and collation of results were supposed to have been carried out.
        We, in the light of these findings, nullify the election in Igbotako I Ward 003.


        IGBOTAKO II WARD 004
        The Petitioner's allegations on this ward as contained in paragraph 21.5 (v) are that there
was no election in the ward and that all the materials for the election were hijacked by a political office
holder who was assisted by thugs, soldiers and policemen who were agents of the 1st Respondent.
        The 1st Respondent in his reply said that election duly took place in this ward, that no electoral
materials were hijacked, that no agent of the 1st Respondent carried out any electoral malpractices.
        Two Forms EC8A for unit 004 were tendered as Exhibit 633 (4) and 633 (8) with entries which are
completely different. For example while Exhibit 633 (4) has 161 valid votes Exhibit 633 (8) has 387.
        We, therefore, discredit both of them as being unreliable.
        There are obvious differences in the number of voters in the voters' register for some of the units
and the form EC8A, the units' results, for this ward. They are as follows:




                                                      243
UNIT    EXHIBIT             NUMBEROF                    EXHIBIT NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VOTERS IN
        NUMBER OF           REGISTERED VOTERS           VOTERS' REGISTER  VOTERS' REGISTER FOR
        UNIT'S RESULT       IN UNIT'S RESULT            FOR THE UNIT      THE UNIT
1       633 (1)             369                         254(1) -(31)           507
2       " (2)               304                         255 (1) - (30)         499
3       " (3)               101                         256(1) -(33)           556
4       " (4)               331                         257(1) -(36)           651
5       " (5)               273                         258(1) -(30)           507
7       " (6)               273                         260 (1) - (59)         1,010
8       " (7)               266                         26 1(1) -(29)          488
4       " (8)               NOT CLEAR                   -                      -
10      " (9)               255                         263(1) -(29)           471
11      " (10)              255                         264(1) -(26)           498
12      " (11)              447                         265(1) -(29)           486


         These differences show that the Forms EC8A were made without recourse to the
voters' register as required by the provisions of the "Manual for Election Officials" at page 30 where it
is expressly stated that the Presiding Officer shall copy the number of voters to be inserted into
the Forms EC8A from the voters' registers for the respective units.
         This lends credence to the allegation of the Petitioner that the results were not the products of the
elections in these units.
         The Respondents who claim that elections were duly conducted have the responsibility of
providing the evidence of such elections in all the units in dispute in Form EC8A.
         No Forms EC8A were tendered for Units 006, 009, 013 and 014 of this ward and no explanation
was offered as to the reason for their non-tendering.
         The Petitioner who alleged that election never held in any of the units does not have the
responsibility of tendering the said polling unit results.
         In the circumstances, we accept that there was no election in Units 006, 009, 013 and 014 of this
ward.
         A comparison of the number of thumb-printed ballot papers for this ward and their reflection in
the ward's result, Form EC8B reveals inconsistency in the entry in the result Form.
         The thumb-printed ballot papers are the raw materials from which the results for the election
are procured and should, at all times, be consistent with the number of votes cast as recorded in the
result forms.
         In the form EC8B for the ward, Exhibit 634 (1) and (2), the number of votes cast is recorded as
1,733 while the thumb-printed ballot papers are 5, 151 (Exhibit 1079 (10)).
         These inconsistencies show that the results were obtained independently of a duly conducted
                                                     244
election in the units.
         We have observed that the entries in terms of number of voters in the units and the number
of votes cast in the Forms EC8A and EC8B for this ward are inconsistent.
         We are left, in the circumstances, with no alternative than to agree with the allegations of the
Petitioner that due election did not take place and that the results are products of electoral malpractices.
         We, therefore, nullify the election in this ward.


         IJU-ODO/EREKITI/IJU-OKE WARD 05
         The Petitioner alleged that election materials for this ward were diverted to the house of the 1st
Respondent by thugs hired by the 1st and 2nd Respondents in collaboration with policemen and soldiers.
         The policemen used, he alleged further, were those assigned to the Ondo State Government
house as security detail to the 1st Respondent.
         The 1st Respondent contended that electoral materials were brought to the designated polling
units and collation centres, that election duly took place in the centres without any distraction, that there
was no collaboration with the police and soldiers to cause electoral malpractices.
         The 15th and 16th Respondents refuted the allegation that policemen attached to the
Government House were used to perpetrate electoral malpractices and that there was no diversion of
electoral materials.
         The Petitioner tendered exhibits 1098 (23), the voter's card for 6 units in this ward to show that
election did not take place in the ward as a result of which some voters gave them to PW37 as evidence
that they were deprived from voting. The voters' cards are 20 pieces for Unit 2, 16 pieces for Unit 5, 11
pieces for Unit 6, 21 pieces for Unit 7, 5 pieces for Unit 09 and 20 pieces for Unit 11 of the said ward.
         We note that the unit's results for Units land 13 were not signed by the Presiding Officers
nor are their names written on them.
         Although the petitioner alleged that the same number of voters who were registered voted
in this ward a calculation of the number of votes cast shows that the number cast exceeds the
number of registered voters. While the registered voters are 207 the votes as we calculated in Exhibit 651
(14) are 392.
         PW37 testified for the Petitioner that the electoral materials for this ward were forcibly
snatched and carted away by PDP agents assisted by policemen and soldiers and that electorates
waited for the materials at the various polling units up to 4.30 p.m. and were never brought and that all
the Forms EC8A were fabricated.
         RW2 who testified for the Respondents said he voted at Unit 002 of the ward where election
was duly conducted without malpractices.
                                                        245
          RW8 said he voted at Unit 008 of that ward where election was duly conducted and that he saw
voting taking place peacefully at Unit 007 of the ward, that the election in the two units was devoid of
malpractices.
          The Petitioner tendered unused cards as evidence that their holders were not given the
opportunity to vote. They are as follows:
UNIT               NUMBER OF VOTERS' CARDS: EXHIBIT 1098 (23) NUMBER OF VOTER'S CARD


2                  1098 (23)                                          2
5                  “     “                                            16
6                  “      “                                           11
7                  “       “                                          21
9                  “        “                                         5
11                 “        “                                         20


         For Unit 002 with voters' register as Exhibit 636 (1) - (10) only 2 cards were tendered for
 voter number 009 and 102 in the register of which one was not ticked and the other was ticked twice in the
 register, Exhibit 636 (1) - (10).

UNIT 005 OF WARD 005 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 639 (1) - (18)
S/NO.    VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'            NUMBER OF TIMES VOTER'S NAME IS TICKED IN
         REGISTER                                 THE REGISTER

1        30                                       ONE
2        252                                      “
3        211                                      “
4        262                                      “
5        158                                      “
6        234                                      “
7        69                                       “
8        75                                       “
9        226                                      “
10       73                                       “




                                                   246
      UNIT 006 WARD 005 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 640 (1) - (15)

S/NO.              VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'      NUMBER OF TIMES VOTER'S NAME IS
                   REGISTER                           TICKED IN THE REGISTER


 1                 171                                TWO
2                  110                                “
3                  204                                ONE
4                  145                                TWO
5                  57                                 “
6                  56                                 “
7                  103                                “
8                  170                                “
9                  146                                “
10                 168                                “


UNIT007OFWARD005 WIITHVOTERS’’ REGISTERMARKED AS EXHIBIT 641 (1) - (11)
S/NO.            VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'     NUMBER OF TIMES VOTER'S NAME IS
                 REGISTER                          TICKED IN THE REGISTER

1.               24                                TWO
2.               25                                ‘’
3.               19                                ‘’
4.               236                               ‘’
5.               57                                ‘’
6.               342                               ‘’
7.               205                               ‘’
8.               200                               ‘’
9.               217                               ‘’
10.              350                               ‘’


UNIT 009 WITH OF WARD 005 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT
643 (1) - (11)
S/NO.            VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'     NUMBER OF TIMES VOTER'S NAME IS
                 REGISTER                          TICKED IN THE REGISTER

1.               139                               TWO
2.               86                                ‘’
3.               87                                ‘’
4.               159                               ‘’
5.               144                               ‘’




                                         247
UNIT Oil OF WARD 005 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 645 (1) -
(21)
S/NO.               VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE REGISTER              NUMBER OF TIMES VOTER'S NAME IS
                                                                TICKED IN THE REGISTER

1.                  70                                          TWO
2.                  75                                          ‘’
3.                  196                                         ‘’
4.                  154                                         ‘’
5.                  155                                         ‘’
6.                  140                                         ‘’
7.                  317                                         ‘’
8.                  340                                         ‘’
9.                  342                                         ‘’
10.                 175                                         ‘’


          This is showing that accreditation which is an essential ingredient of the election was not
 properly conducted in these 6 units.
          The evidence of PW37 related to all the units of the ward and covered all the 16units of this ward.
          The evidence of RW2 and RW8 are, however, limited to what they said they experienced at
 Units 002, 007 and 008 of this ward.
          As shown earlier, on there is evidence that there was no accreditation of voters in Units 002
 and 007, among others in this ward so it cannot be said there was due election in the two units.
          The evidence of PW37 is, so far, only challenged by the evidence of RW8 that there was
 election in Unit 008 of the ward.
          The evidence that up to 4.30 p.m. on the election day no electoral materials were delivered to
 the units was not controverted and so we assume it to be true.
          By the provision of Section 48 of the Electoral Act 2006 all polls are to open and close at the same
 time throughout Nigeria and by page 15 and 24 of the "Manual for Election Officials 2007" all polls are to
 open at 8.00 a.m. and close at 3.00 p.m.
          This means that since the electoral materials for the units were not delivered to them as at
 4.30 p.m. on that day, that is one hour and 30 minutes after the statutorily prescribed time for
 closing the polls we accept that there was no valid election in any of the units of this ward.
          Furthermore, there is difference between the number of thumb-printed ballot papers for
 this ward from which the number of votes cast in the ward can be determined and the number of
 votes cast as recorded in the ward's result: Form EC8B.
          The number of thumb-printed ballot papers for this ward, Exhibits 1079 (18), (20) and (48),
 are 4711 while the number of votes cast as recorded in the Form EC8B, Exhibit 652 (1) and (2), is 4448.

                                                       248
         This is evidence that there was no collation of results into the result sheets since the entries in the
Forms EC8A for the ward are with respect to number of voters and the votes cast at the units,
substantially the same.
         We are, therefore, persuaded by these facts to accept the Petitioner's allegations that
elections were not conducted in all the units of this ward. This failure is substantial enough to warrant the
nullification of this ward's election and we accordingly nullify the said election


         IKOYA/IGBINSIN-OLOTO WARD 6
         The allegations of the Petitioner on this ward was that the election was marred by
malpractices perpetrated by 2nd Respondent's leaders who visited every unit in company of thugs
/hoodlums commissioned by the 1st and 2nd Respondents assisted by policemen and soldiers, that the said
hoodlums/ thugs scared away prospective voters and took away all the electoral materials to an unknown
destination and concocted scores emanating from the units which were later entered into Forms EC8A,
EC8B and EC8E.
         The 1st Respondent replied that the election was free and fair and that he did not either by himself
or by any hoodlums or thugs perpetrate any malpractices or concoct scores with the assistance
ofanybody.
         The 15th and 16th Respondents stated in their defence that neither them nor any of their
officers assisted any political leaders of the PDF to perpetrate any electoral malpractices in the ward.
         he number of votes cast for Unit 014 exceeds the number of voters' registered for the
unit. 292 voters were registered in the unit, 273 valid votes and 27 spoilt ballot papers were
recorded making a total of 300 votes cast. We refer to Exhibit 637 (14).
         The Petitioner tendered Exhibits 1098 (27) the unused voters' cards for 4 units in the ward to show
that some voters who were disenfranchised submitted their voters' cards as evidence that they were
deprived from voting. The said voters' cards are 20 pieces for Unit 13, 16 voters' cards for Unit 16, 9
pieces for Unit 17 and 3 pieces for Unit 18.
         We note that none of the said unused voters' card has been marked to show that its holder ever
used it to vote.
         A comparison of the said voters' cards with the contents of the voters' registers for the said
units reveals that while all the samples of the voters' cards are not marked the voters' registers have
all been ticked to show that the holders of such cards voted. These are shown below:




                                                        249
UNIT 013 OF WARD 006 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 665 (1) -
(13)
S/NO.            VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'                    NUMBER OF TIMES VOTER'S NAME IS
                 REGISTER                                         TICKED IN THE REGISTER

1.              56                                                 TWO
2.              101                                                ‘’
3.              24                                                 ‘’
4.              104                                                ‘’
5.              102                                                ‘’
6.              156                                                ‘’
7.              103                                                ‘’
8.              168                                               ‘’
9.              167                                               ‘’
10              152                                               ‘’


UNIT 016 OF WARD 006 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 668 (1) - (27)
S/NO.        VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' NUMBER OF TIMES VOTER'S NAME IS
             REGISTER                      TICKED IN THE REGISTER
1.               126                                              TWO
3.               187                                              ‘’
4.               228                                              ‘’
5.               362                                              ‘’

        NOTE that only 4 out of the 16 voters' cards tendered are found in the voters' register.


UNIT 017 OF WARD 006 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 669 (1) - (22)
S/NO.                  VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'                NUMBER OF TIMES VOTER'S NAME
                       REGISTER                                     IS TICKED IN THE REGISTER

1.                     247                                          THREE
2.                     262                                          ‘’
3.                     238                                          TWO
4.                     237                                          ‘’
5.                     261                                          ‘’
6.                     202                                          ‘’
7.                     133                                          ‘’
8.                     96                                           ‘’


UNIT 018 OF WARD 006 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 670 (1) - (13)
S/NO.                  VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE                       NUMBER OF TIMES VOTER'S NAME
                       VOTERS' REGISTER                            IS TICKED IN THE REGISTER
1.                     171                                         ONE
2.                     142                                         ‘’
3.                     141                                         ‘’



                                                     250
         These show that accreditation did not take place at any of the units stated above and this failure renders
the election and results in these units unreliable.
         The results in Forms EC8A for the units and EC8B for the ward are the total number of thumb-
printed ballot papers which are reflected in them. The results in Forms EC8A, Exhibits 673 (1) -(20), have been
copied into the ward's result, Form EC8B (Exhibit 674 (1) and (2)) for onward transmission into subsequent results.
         The number of thumb-printed ballot papers for the ward, Exhibits 1079 (1) and (2), are therefore
supposed to be equal to the number of votes cast in Exhibit 674 (1) and (2). In the instant case, however, they are
different.
         The number of thumb-printed ballot papers for the ward are 5693 while the number of votes cast as
reflected in the Form EC8B for the ward are 5654.
         These show that the number of thumb-printed ballot papers are not the bases of the result.
         A situation where the votes counted for the election are not used to arrive at the results of the
election cannot be said to have been the outcome of a free and fair election.
         We therefore agree with the Petitioner that there was no election in this ward and the
results were fabricated.
         We nullify the election for this ward.


         ILUTITUN 1 WARD 07
         The Petitioner's allegation in this ward is that no election took place in this ward because
the electoral materials were diverted to the house of PDP chieftains from INEC's distribution centre
by thugs, who acted as agents of the 1st Respondent in collaboration with policemen and soldiers
who worked for them and that all the results entered into the result forms are fictitious because they
are fabricated.
         The 1st Respondent replied that election took place in the entire ward, no electoral materials
were diverted by thugs or agents of anybody, that there was no collaboration with law enforcement agents
to commit electoral malpractices and no fictitious results were entered and that he denied all the
allegations on the ward.
         The 15th and 16th Respondents similarly denied the allegations.
         PW47 in his opinion contained in Volume II of the Petitioner's bundle of documents has
condemned the result of the election.
         Forms EC8A for units 009 and 015 are the only 2 tendered out of the 18 expected to be
tendered.
         Exhibit 691 (1) the result for Unit 009 shows that 10 ballot papers were issued to the unit but
295 valid and 5 spoilt votes were recorded and this is clearly irregular.
                                                       251
            The result for Unit 013, Exhibit 691 (2), is also irregular because the number of registered voters in the
 result which is 400, is at variance with the number of voters in the register, Exhibit 685 (1) - (9) which is 129.
            The Petitioner tendered voters' cards for 7 units in the ward which were retrieved from voters who were
 allegedly denied the opportunity to vote, Exhibits 1098 (29). The voters' cards 11 pieces for Unit 2, 10 pieces
 for Unit 12, 4 cards for Unit 13, 58 cards for Unit 014, 9 cards for Unit 015, 50 cards for Unit 17 and 43 cards for
 Unit 18.
            All the unused voters' cards tendered have no markings to indicate that they have ever been used to vote. of
 the voters' registers for these 7 wards and these are our findings. For Unit 002 of Ward 007 the voters' register has
 not been tendered.



UNIT 012 OF WARD 007 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKEDAS EXHIBIT - 684 (1) - (43)
S/NO.                        VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' NUMBER OF TICKS ON THE VOTERS'
                             REGISTER                      NAME IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER
1.                           2                                               ONE
2.                           6                                               NOT TICKED
3.                           25                                              ONE
4.                           7                                               NOT TICKED
5                            11                                              ‘’


UNIT 013 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 685 (1) - (9)
S/NO.                  VOTERS' NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'                    NUMBER OF TICKS ON THE VOTERS'
                       REGISTER                                         NAME IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER

1.                     66                                               TWO
2.                     104                                              ‘’
3.                     59                                               ‘’
4.                     68                                               ‘’


UNIT 014 OF WARD 007 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 686 (1) -
(26)
S/NO.                 VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' NUMBER OF TICKS ON THE VOTERS'
                      REGISTER                      NAME IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER
1.                    303                                              TWO
2.                    55                                               ‘’
3.                    207                                              ‘’
4.                    54                                               ‘’
5.                    51                                               ‘’
6.                    378                                              ‘’
7.                    379                                              ‘’
8.                    50                                               ‘’
9.                    353                                              ‘’
10.                   418                                              ‘’


                                                              252
        UNIT 015 OF WARD 007 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 687 (1) - (24)
S/NO.                VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'                NUMBER OF TICKS ON VOTER'S
                     REGISTER                                     NAME IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER

1.                   135                                          TWO
2.                   79                                           ‘’
3.                   7                                            ‘’
4.                   324                                          ‘’
5.                   74                                           ‘’
6.                   266                                          ‘’
7.                   320                                          ‘’
8.                   285                                          ‘’


 UNIT 017 OF WARD 007 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 689 (1) - (24)
S/NO.                 NUMBER OF VOTER ON VOTERS' NUMBER OF TICKS ON VOTER'S
                      REGISTER                   NAME IN THE VOTERS' REGISTER

1.                    238                                         ONE
2.                    231                                         ‘’
3.                    131                                         ‘’
4.                    381                                         ‘’
5.                    151                                         ‘’
6.                    137                                         ‘’
7.                    62                                          ‘’
8.                    150                                         ‘’
9.                    262                                         ‘’
10.                   385                                         ‘’

 UNIT 018 OF WARD 007 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 690 (1) - (15)
S/NO.               VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'                     NUMBER OF TICKS ON VOTER'S
1.                  182                                               TWO
2.                  42                                                ‘’
3.                  112                                               ‘’
4.                  154                                               ‘’
5.                  171                                               ‘’
6.                  63                                                ‘’
7.                  166                                               ‘’
8.                  132                                               ONE
9.                  131                                               ONE
10.                 4                                                 TWO


         NOTE that page 4 and 5 of the voters' register for this unit, exhibit 690 (4) - (5) have the same contents.
         These show that in all these 7 wards proper accreditation of voters was not conducted. This,
therefore, has been excluded from the conduct of the election.
         In answer to the Petitioner’s pleading that there were no elections in this ward the Respondents
have insisted in their replies that free, fair and peaceful elections were conducted in the units of this ward

                                                         253
and that the results were duly collated.
         The Forms EC8A are the primary evidence of the holding of the elections.
         The Petitioner who said elections did not hold cannot be expected to produce the results of
the election. It is the Respondents who are under obligation to tender the Forms EC8A in proof of
their assertion that election was freely and fairly conducted and results duly collated and declared.
Their failure to do so simply means that they have failed to prove holding of elections in units other than
009 and 015 of this ward.
         In this wise, we hold, as we are entitled to, that no elections were conducted in Units 001,
002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 010, Oil, 012, 013, 014, 016 017 and 018 of this ward on 14th April,
2007.
         We have also looked at the Forms EC8B, Exhibit 692 (1) and (2) of this ward and the number of
thumb-printed ballot papers for this ward, Exhibit 1079 (5) and (27).
         The thumb-printed ballot papers are the raw materials from which the electoral materials were
supposed to be sourced. The number of thumb-printed ballot papers are the number of votes cast which
should be recorded in the result forms.
         In the instant case, there is a variation, between the number of thumb-printed ballot paper
which is 4147 and the number of votes cast as recorded in Form EC8B which is 4524.
         These differences mean, that as the Petitioner alleged, the results in Form EC8B are fictitious
because they are not the results of the election.
         On the whole, the results of the election as tendered for this ward have been thoroughly
discredited, we have accepted that there was no election in any of the 18 units of this ward and we
accordingly nullify the election in this ward.


         ILUTITUNII WARD 08
         In this ward, the Petitioner alleged that no election took place in any of the units, that thugs
commissioned by the 1st and 2nd Respondents assisted by policemen and soldiers forcefully took away
election materials to an unknown destination and stuffed the ballot boxes with thumb-printed ballot papers in
favour of the 1st Respondent.
         The 1st Respondent denied the allegations and stated that election took place in all the units in
the ward without disruptions or electoral malpractices, that no thug was commissioned by the 1st
Respondent and none was assisted by the law enforcement agents for the purpose of perpetrating electoral
malpractices, that the law enforcement agencies provided security to INEC's staff, that no ballot paper was
illegally thumb-printed, that no ballot box was stuffed with ballot papers and that the election was freely
conducted at designated centres.
                                                    254
          The 15th and 16th Respondents denied the allegations absolving the police force of any
collaboration or connivance to perpetrate electoral malpractices adding that no mobile policemen were deployed
to polling units.
          PW47, in his opinion contained in Volume II of the Petitioner's bundle of documents,
attacked and condemned the results for this ward for being irregular.
          Forms EC8A were tendered for Units 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16 of this ward marked as
Exhibit 1129 (1) - (11) respectively out of the 18 units in the ward.
          The Forms EC8A for Units 001 and 007, Exhibit 1127 (1) and (5) respectively show that there is over
voting in the results for the two units.
          For Unit 001 there are 331 registered voters but 300 valid, 53 spoilt and 53 rejected votes were recorded
making the total votes cast 406.
          Similarly, for Unit 007 there are 335 registered voters while 288 valid, 43 spoilt and 43 rejected voters
were recorded making the total number of votes cast 374.
          By Section 54 of the Electoral Act 2006 the results for the 2 units ought to have been nullified by
INEC.
          The Petitioner also tendered unused voters' cards for the units in the ward to show that
some eligible voters were deprived from their rights to vote in the said election. The said voters' cards are:
          65 pieces for Unit 2: Exhibit 1098 (4).
          40 pieces for Unit 3: Exhibit 1098 (24).
          14 pieces for Unit 5: Exhibit 1098 (24).
          6 pieces for Unit 7: Exhibit 1098 (24).
          214 pieces for Unit 10: Exhibit 1098 (24).
          49 pieces for Unit 11: Exhibit 1098 (24).
          160 pieces for Unit 14: Exhibit 1098 (24).
          39 pieces for Unit 15: Exhibit 1098 (24).
          59 pieces for Unit 16: Exhibit 1098 (24).
          We have checked the unused voters' cards tendered and we have seen that none of them has
been marked to show that its holder ever used the card to vote.
          We have checked samples of the unused voters' cards against the entries in the voters' registers for
the respective units and our findings are as shown hereunder.




                                                        255
UNIT 002 OF ILUTITUN WARD 008 WITH VOTERS'
S/NO.          VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'   NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE VOTERS'
               REGISTER                        REGISTER
1.             156                             ONE
2.             1                               ‘’
3.             264                             TWO
4.             265                             ‘’
5.             155                             ‘’
6.             2                               ‘’
7.             259                             ‘’
8.             150                             ONE
9.             358                             NOT TICKED
10.            353                             ‘’


UNIT 003 OF ILUTITUN II WARD 008 WIH VOTERS'REGISTER MARKED AS
EXHIBIT 695 (1) - (24)
S/NO.          VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'   NUMBER OF MARKS ON THE VOTERS'
               REGISTER                        REGISTER
1.            311                               TWO
2.            262                               ‘’
3.            238                               ‘’
4.            391                               ‘’
5.            301                               ‘’
6.            283                              ‘’
7.            178                              ‘’
8.            354                              ‘’
9.            232                              ‘’
10.           25                               ‘’


UNIT 005 OF ILUTITUN II WARD 008 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS
EXHIBIT 697 (1) - (23)
S/NO.          VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'    NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE
               REGISTER                         VOTERS' REGISTER
1.             182                              TWO
2.             268                              ‘’
3.             50                               ‘’
4.             183                              ‘’
5.             334                              ‘’
6.             49                               ‘’
7.             121                              ‘’
8.             155                              ‘’
9.             47                               ‘’
10.            53                               ‘’


                                        256
UNIT 007 ILUTITUN II WARD 008 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS
EXHIBIT 699 (1) - (21)
S/NO.                 VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE
                      REGISTER                      VOTERS' REGISTER
1.                    24                                           ONE
2.                    253                                          ‘’
3.                    245                                          ‘’
4.                    19                                           ‘’
5.                    22                                           ‘’
6.                    125                                          NOT TICKED


         The voters' register for Unit 010 was not tendered so there is no means of verifying the claim of voting
and accreditation of the voters for that unit.

UNIT Oil OF ILUTITUNII WARD 008 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT
702 (1) - (31)
S/NO.                VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'                 NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE
                     REGISTER                                      VOTERS' REGISTER
1.                   132                                           TWO
2.                   138                                           ‘’
3.                   142                                           ‘’
4.                   135                                           ‘’
5.                   271                                           ‘’
6.                   78                                            ‘’
7.                   76                                            ‘’
8.                   272                                           ‘’
9.                   71                                            ‘’
 10                   242                                           “


UNIT 014 OF ILUTITUN II WARD 008 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS
EXHIBIT 705 (1) - (11)
S/NO.                 VOTER'S NUMBER             IN   THE VOTERS' NUMBER OF MARKS                  IN THE
                      REGISTER                                    VOTERS' REGISTER
1.                    85                                            ONE
2.                    9                                             TWO
3.                    43                                            “
4.                    151                                           ONE
5.                    81                                            “
6.                    11                                            TWO
7.                    22                                            “
8.                    123                                           ONE
9.                    31                                            TWO
10.                   114                                           ONE

                                                       257
UNIT 015 OF ILUTITUN II WARD 008 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS
EXHIBIT 706 (1) - (17)
S/NO.                  VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'               NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE
                       REGISTER                                    VOTERS' REGISTER
1.                     210                                         TWO
2.                     181                                         THREE
3.                     212                                         “
4.                     197
5.                     56                                          “
6.                     57                                          11
7                                                                  “
8.                     186                                         “
9.                     180                                         “
10.                    170                                         “

                  UNIT 016 OF ILUTITUNII WARD 008 WITH VOTERS
S/NO.                  VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS'               NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE
                       REGISTER                                    VOTERS' REGISTER
1.                     69                                          TWO
2.                     68                                          “
3.                     67                                          “
4.                     240                                         “
5.                     17                                          “
6.                     91                                          “
7.                     76                                          “
8.                     74                                          “
9.                     241                                         “
10.                    79                                          “


         These are evidence that in Units 002, 003, 005, 007, 010, Oil, 014, 015 and 016 of this ward,
accreditation, which is an essential element in any valid election, has not been properly conducted in and
this failure vitiates the results in Forms EC8A for the units.
         None of the parties tendered polling unit results for Units 4, 6, 8,9,12,13 and 17.
         The polling unit results have been held to be the primary evidence of holding of elections in the
units. See AWUSE vs. ODILI (supra).
         The Petitioner, whose claim is based on non-conduct of the election in all the units of the ward is
not expected to tender results for these units. It is the Respondents whose defence is that elections were
duly held who have the responsibility of producing these results which they could have obtained from
their agents or INEC.
         The failure of the Respondents to produce the results for these 7 units lead us to conclude that


                                                             258
the Petitioner's allegations that there was no election in these units are true.
            Furthermore, the number of used ballot papers is what is recorded in the result forms as the
number of votes cast for any election. In other words, the number of votes cast in the result form is, in
any circumstance, expected to be equal to the number of used ballot papers for that particular election.
            In the instant case, there is difference between the number of used ballot paper for Ilutitun II
Ward 008 with their reflection in the ward's result - Form EC8B.The used or thumb-printed ballot paper
for the ward, Exhibit 1079 (9), (17), (29) and (30), are 3680 while total votes cast in the form ECSB, Exhibit
709 (1) and (2), is 5351.
            The discrepancies show that the results as contained in Exhibit 709 (1) and (2) was not
obtained from the results of the election. In this wise we agree with the Petitioner that there was no
election in the ward since clearly there was no collation of results which constitutes a vital part of the
election.
            Bearing in mind the massive irregularities associated with the results of the election tendered for this
ward and the non-tendering of other results, and the failure to accredit voters and properly collate
results which have permeated the units' results and the wards' results we are of the view that the
irregularities have substantially affected the outcome of the election to the extent that we cannot uphold
the result for this ward.
            We, in the light of these, nullify the election in this ward. ILUTITUN III WARD 09
            The Petitioner alleged that no election took place in this ward, that the electoral materials were
diverted to 2nd Respondent's chieftains houses by thugs hired by and who acted as agents of the1st and 2nd
Respondents assisted by policemen and soldiers and that fictitious and concocted results were issued in the ward.
            The 1st Respondent replied that the electoral materials were brought to the various polling units, that
elections duly took place, that the Respondents did not hire thugs or appoint agents to commit electoral
malpractices, that law enforcement agents did not participate in any electoral malpractices, that the election
was devoid of malpractices and that the results declared by INEC are lawful results. The 1st Respondent denied
all allegations on this unit.
            The 15th and 16th Respondents deny the involvement of the police in any electoral malpractices in this
ward adding that no armed policeman was sent to any unit.
            PW39 whose evidence has already been summarized said there was no election as a result of
hijacking of electoral materials and other forms of malpractices and that the results in Forms EC8A and
EC8B were fabricated.
            RW3, on the other hand, said he voted at Unit 001 of this ward where election was conducted
freely and fairly, that it is not possible for PW39 to traverse the whole ward on that day because he had to cross a
river and that he could not tell how long it will take to traverse the whole ward.
                                                         259
           RW7 also testified that election took place in Unit 016 where he voted, and it was free, fair and peaceful.
He testified further that he saw elections taking place in Units 009, 011, 012, 013 and 017 of the ward peacefully.
           PW47 condemned the result of this ward in his opinion reports contained in Volume II
of the Petitioner's bundle of documents.
           We are satisfied that the evidence of these witnesses is in line with the pleadings.
           We will refer to their evidence in due course.
           It is observed that in Unit 13, the result, Exhibit 1130 (10) shows that there was over voting in
the unit. While 312 voters were registered, 309 valid votes were recorded with 5 spoilt votes and 3
rejected votes showing that there is over voting by 2 votes.
           In units 1, 3 and 23 of the ward there were discrepancies in the number of registered voters
in 3 units in the ward's result sheets, Forms EC8A, and the register of voters. The discrepancies are as
follows:
UNIT            EXHIBIT        NUMBER OF                NUMBER OF VOTERS          EXHIBIT NUMBER OF
                NUMBER      OF VOTERS IN THE            IN REGISTER OF            VOTERS' REGISTER FOR THE
                UNIT'S RESULT UNIT REGISTER             VOTERS                    UNIT
1               1130(1)           304                   307                       710(1)-(18)
3               " (3)             100                   168                       712(1)-(10_
23              " (13)            300                   109                       732(1) -(9)

           These showed that the results for Units 001, 003 and 023 were not procured from the
electoral processes which require that the number of voters in form EC8A, is to be copied from the
voters' register for the units.
           The Petitioner tendered voters' cards as evidence that their holders were deprived from voting
in their respective units in the ward. The voters' cards are:
           1.     6 pieces for Unit 1: Exhibit 1098 (30).
           2.     6 pieces for Unit 2: Exhibit 1098 (30).
           3.     30 pieces for Unit 3: Exhibit 1098 (30).
           4.     2 pieces for Unit 4: Exhibit 1098 (30).
           5.     5 pieces for Unit 10: Exhibit 1098 (30).
           6.     2 pieces for Unit 11: Exhibit 1098 (30).
           7.     26 pieces for Unit 16: Exhibit 1098 (30).
           8.     2 pieces for Unit 20: Exhibit 1098 (30).
           9.     3 pieces for Unit 21: Exhibit 1098 (30).
           10. 1 piece for Unit 22: Exhibit 1098 (30).
           A comparison of the sample of the unused voters' cards shows that none of them was marked
to indicate that its holder ever used it to vote; and the contents of the voters' registers for the

                                                             260
respective units lead us to make the following findings:


         UNIT 001 WITH VOTERS' REGISER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 710 (1) - (18)
S/NO.                   VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE
                        VOTERS' REGISTER      VOTERS' REGISTER
1.                      68                    TWO
2.                      67                    “
3.                      66                    “
4.                      69                    “
5.                      76                    “
6.                      251                   “


               UNIT 002 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 711(1)-(4)
S/NO.               VOTER'S      NUMBER     IN NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE
                    VOTERS' REGISTER           VOTERS' REGISTER
1.                      44                                       TWO
2.                      24                                       “
3.                      19                                       “

 NOTE that only the names of 93 out of the 6 voters' cards holders were found in the register.


           UNIT 003 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 712 (1) - (10)
S/NO.              VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE
                   VOTERS' REGISTER          VOTERS' REGISTER

1.                      127                                      TWO
2.                      104                                      “
3.                      43                                       “
4.                      38                                       “
5.                      42                                       “
6.                      23                                       “
7.                      129                                      “
8.                      73                                       “
9.                      22                                       “
10.                     142                                      “


          For Unit 004 the names and particulars of the holders of the two voters' cards tendered
 could not be traced in the voters' register, Exhibit 713 (1) - (5).
          Similarly for Unit 010 none of the names of the holders' of the 5 voters' cards could be found
 in the voters' register for the unit, Exhibit 719(1)-(19).




                                                           261
         UNIT Oil WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 720 (1) - (10)
S/NO.                VOTER'S NUMBER               IN      THE NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE
                     VOTERS' REGISTER                         VOTERS' REGISTER
1                    5                                         TWO
2                    56                                        “


          UNIT 016 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 725 (1) - (23)
S/NO.             VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE
                  VOTERS' REGISTER           VOTERS' REGISTER

1.                   144                                       ONE
2.                   217                                       “
3.                   378                                       “
4.                   130                                       “
5.                   24                                        “
6.                   53                                        “
7.                   198                                       “
8.                   113                                       “
9.                   116                                       “
10.                  158                                       “


         UNIT 020 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 729 (1) - (13)
S/NO.            VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE
                 VOTERS' REGISTER           VOTERS' REGISTER

1.                   144                                       TWO

 NOTE that 2 cards were tendered by only the name of one of the holders is found in the register.


         UNIT 021 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 720 (1) - (16)
S/NO.            VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE
                 VOTERS' REGISTER           VOTERS' REGISTER
1.                   113                                        TWO
2.                   192                                        “
3.                   214                                        “

         UNIT 022 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 721 (1) - (12)
S/NO.            VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE
                 VOTERS' REGISTER           VOTERS' REGISTER
1.                   78                                         TWO


        From the above analyses it is clear that in Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 16, 20, 21 and 22 of this ward
 here was no proper accreditation which would confer legitimacy on the election.
        Polling units' results for Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 20 and 22 were tendered. The rest Units

                                                    262
 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, 19, 21, 23 and 24, were not tendered and no explanation has been offered for the failure to
 tender them.
          The Petitioner has no obligation to tender the results of an election which he claims never took
 place.
          The burden is on the Respondents and they have failed to discharge same.
          We, therefore, hold that election was never hold in Units 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, 19, 21, 23 and 24 of this
 ward.
          In view of our finding with respect to the non-accreditation in 10 units and the non-tendering of
 polling units' results for eleven units and the irregularity in obtaining the number of voters in 3 units and
 over voting in one unit we are convinced that elections did not hold in Units 1,2, 3,4, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 19,
 21, 22, 23 and 24.
          The evidence of PW39 related to all the units of this ward while the evidence of RW3 is
 confined to Unit 001 where he said he voted.
          The result for the unit where RW3 said he voted is Exhibit 1130 (1): Form EC8A for Unit
 007 of the ward.
          Our findings are that:
          The number of voters for Unit 001 was not procured from the voters' register for the
 unit, Exhibit 710 (1) - (18) which contravenes the provision of the "Manual for Election Officials
 2007" at page 30. This creates doubt on whether Exhibit 1130 (1) was obtained through the electoral
 process.
          1. It has been shown that accreditation, which is an essential ingredient of a duly
             conducted election has not been accorded to voters in the said unit. See
             AONDOAKAA vs. AJO (supra).
          The result for Unit 001 of this ward where RW3 said he voted has shown, on its face
that it is not a product of a validly conducted election in the unit.
          We, accordingly, disbelieve the evidence of RW3 on the holding of election in Unit 001 of
this ward.
          Furthermore, RW3 stated that it is impossible for PW39 to go round the whole units in the
ward on that day of the election because of the difficulty of the terrain, that one has to cross a river
but RW3 could not tell how long it would take to go round these units. This shows that RW3 is
ignorant on the issue he was giving evidence on and should, therefore, not be believed.
          This leaves us with the unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence of PW39 which is direct and
positive and ought therefore to be believed.
          On this we refer to AKINTOLA vs. BALOGUN (supra) and INEC vs. RAY (2004) 14 NWLR


                                                       263
(Part 892) 92 at 131.
         We have also observed that the number of thumb-printed ballot papers for this ward, which
is the same as the number of votes cast in the ward, is not correctly reflected in the ward's result in Form
EC8B, Exhibit 734 (1) and (2).
         The thumb-printed ballot papers for the ward, Exhibits 1079 (4), (23), (33) and (43), are 6817 while
the number of votes cast as recorded in Exhibit 734 (1) and (2) is 6507.
         These bear out the allegations of the Petitioner that the results were concocted and not the
products of a validly conducted election in the ward.
         In view of the findings that the election in Unit 016 where PW7 said he voted is not reliable and
the fact that election in the whole of the ward was not conducted properly and we discountenance the
evidence of RW7.
         The Petitioner has proved, substantially the allegation in his petition in this ward and we,
accordingly, nullify the election for Ilutitun III Ward 009.


         ODE AYE I WARD 10
         The Petitioner alleged that there was no election in this ward, that thugs hired by and who
acted as agents of the 1st and 2nd Respondents led by leaders of the 2nd Respondent in collaboration
with armed mobile policemen and soldiers snatched electoral materials from all the units
particularly Units 002, 003, 004, 007, 008, 010, Oil, 012, 013, 015 and 019. The snatched ballot boxes,
he added were taken to the house of one of their said party chieftains where multiple thumb-
printing of ballot papers were stuffed with in the ballot boxes in favour of the 1st Respondent and the
concocted results emanating from this ward as discovered in INEC results forms.
         The first Respondent countered that elections took place at stipulated times without hitch in
the ward, that no hired thugs or agents collaborated with or led by law enforcement agents in
snatching electoral materials in any of the units, that all electoral materials were brought by INEC
to the designated voting and collation centres and results were announced by INEC's officials, that
there was no multiple thumb-printing and stuffing of ballot, that the 1st Respondent did not appoint any
party chieftain or thug or agent for the purpose of electoral malpractices and that all the results were
from lawful votes cast.
         15th and 16th Respondents also countered that elections took place in the ward, which electoral
materials were never diverted to the house of any political leader and that elections were duly held.
         PW38 testified to the effect that there was no election in any of the units of Ode Aye I Ward
010 because of malpractices perpetrated by the 1st Respondent's agent assisted by soldiers and policemen.
         The Respondents have not led any witness on the activities in this ward on the day of the election.
                                                       264
         We note that there are discrepancies between the results recorded for Units 1, 5, 6, 14,
15 and 7 of this ward in Forms EC8A and the results recorded for the same units in the ward's
result in Form EC8B Exhibit 753 (1) and (2) as follows:
UNIT         UNIT'S RESULT: EXHIBIT      TOTAL RESULTS FOR UNIT            THE RESULT FOR UNIT IN
             NUMBER                                                        FORM EC8B EXHIBIT 753
                                                                           (l)AND (2)
1            1132(1)                     55                                74
5            "    (3)                    179                               200
6            "    (4)                    176                               179
14           "    (9)                    86                                100
15           "    (10)                   334                               344
17           "     (")                   65                                75

        This shows that proper collation did not take place at the ward level.
        The Petitioner also tendered voters' cards for the following units to show that some voters in
the units were deprived from voting:
        1.      28 pieces for Unit 12: Exhibit number 1098 (22).
        2.      43 pieces for Unit 13: Exhibit number 1098 (22).
        3.       7 pieces for Unit 15: Exhibit 1098 (22) We have compared samples of the unused voters'
ards with the entries in the voters' register for the respective units and these are our findings.

             UNIT 010 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 745 (1) - (28)
S/NO.              VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE VOTERS'
                   VOTERS' REGISTER            REGISTER
1.                   26                                            TWO
2.                   187                                           “
3.                   230                                           THREE
4.                   226                                           “
5.                   232                                           TWO
6.                   228                                           THREE
7.                   233                                           TWO
8.                   245                                           “
9.                   243                                           “
10.                  264

             UNIT 013 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 746 (1) - (27)
S/NO.                VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE VOTERS' NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE VOTERS'
                     REGISTER                      REGISTER
1                    43                                         NOT TICKED
2                    44                                         “
3                    444                                        “
4                    109                                        “
5                    380                                        “
6                    7                                          “

                                                          265
7                     126                                         “
8.                    368                                         “
9.                    22                                          “
10.                   449                                         “

             It is noted that the names of all the 449 registered voters have not been marked in the register.


              UNIT 015 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 748 (1) - (20)
S/NO.              VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE NUMBER VOTERS'
                   VOTERS' REGISTER           OF MARKS IN THE
1.                    40                                          ONE
2.                    58                                          “
3.                    184                                         TWO
4.                    91                                          “


            It is noted that only 4 out of holders of the 7 voters' cards tendered are traced in the voters'
register.
            It is noted that none of the voters' name in voters' register for Unit 013 of this ward, Exhibit 746
(1) - (27), has been ticked to show that the voters voted. This means that voting did not take place in that
unit.
            It is apparent from the above analyses that there was no accreditation in Units 010 and 015 of
this ward.
            Discrepancies have been seen in the number of registered voters as contained in Forms EC8A,
EC8B, the voters' registers and the Polling Stations Directory for this Local Government. They are as
follows:


UNIT           EXHIBIT         NUMBER OF          EXHIBIT             NUMBER           NUMBER OF             NUMBER OF
               NUMBER OF       REGISTERED         NUMBER OF           OF VTERS IN      REGISTERED            REGISTERED
               UNIT'S          VOTERS' IN         VOTERS'             VOTERS'          VOTERS IN THE         VOTERS IN
               RESULT          UNIT'S             REGISTER            REGISTER         DIRECTORY OF          FORM EC8B:
                               RESULT                                                  POLLING UNIT:         EXHIBIT 735
                                                                                       EXHIBIT 1107          (1) AND (2)
1              1132(1)         707                735(l)-(27)         484              468                   707
2              -               -                  736(1)-(13)         224              469                   478
3              " (2)           281                -                   -                213                   281
4              -              -                    73 (1)-(15)        256              286                   256
6              " (4)          311                  740(1)-(19)        311              312                   311
7              -              -                    741(1X24)          360              361                   360
8              752            320                  742(1)-(21)        320              321                   320
9              1132(5)        270                  -                  -                270                   270
10             -              -                    743(1X57)          76               307                   606
11             " (6)          135                  744(1X9)           135              334                   135

                                                          266
|12         " (7)             500                745(1)(28)       500               502                   500
13          " (8)             449                746(1>(27)       449               450                   449
14          " (9)             173                747(l)-(29)      0                 374                   173
15         1132(10)          344                748(1)- (20)     344               314                   344
           -                 -                  749 (1) -        178               177                   178
16                                              (11)
17         " (11)            160                750(1) -(10)     160               162                   160
18         (12)              71                 751(1X21)        78                379                   71
19         " (13)            328                -                -                 363                   328


         We have noted that in respect of Unit 014 of this ward the cover page shows zero votes, but the
second to the last pages where the particulars of the voters are recorded are for Unit 012 which is a
completely different unit.
         It is noteworthy that all these Exhibits which are clearly at war with each other were brought
from the custody of INEC and have been duly certified by INEC. They all related to the same election.
The differences are so irreconcilable that we are left with no alternative than to give no credit or worth to
all of the them with the sole exception of the result for the units.
         This is so because the records, as tendered by INEC, are so different from each other that they
cannot be relied upon as the results of a valid election.
         None of the parties tendered polling unit results for Units 2, 4, 7 10 and 16.
         The Petitioner whose petition is based on the fact that no election was conducted in the units
cannot be expected to produce the results. The burden is, clearly, on the Respondents who claim that
election was duly conducted and results were collated to support that with the primary evidence of the
conduct of the election - the Forms EC8A.
         We, therefore, accept that no election was conducted in the 5 units under reference. The
number of thumb-printed ballot papers is what is recorded as the result of the election in the
result forms. The number of votes cast in Forms EC8A and EC8B must be equal to the number of thumb-
printed ballot papers to give accurate number of votes cast.
         In the instant case, however, the result in Form EC8B is different from the number of
thumb-printed ballot papers for the ward. In Form EC8B, Exhibit 753 (1) and (2), the number of votes cast is
4232 while the number of thumb-printed ballot papers for the ward, Exhibits 1079 (24), (28) and (36), are
3545.
         This gives force to the Petitioner's allegations that the results for the election were concocted since
from these differences it is certain that the results, as recorded in Exhibit 753 (1) and (2) were not derived
from the number of votes cast at the election and could not, therefore be relied upon.
         Apart from all these irregularities highlighted above, which on the whole affected the credibility of the

                                                       267
election beyond repairs, there is also the fact that the evidence of PW38 has remained unchallenged
and uncontroverted by any form of evidence or even under cross-examination. See AKINTOLA vs.
BALOGUN (supra) and DAGGASH vs. BULAMA (2004) 14 NWLR (Part 892) 144 at 24.
         We accordingly nullify the election for Ode Aye I Ward 010 of Okitipupa Local Government.


         ODE AYE II WARD 11
         In this unit the Petitioner alleged that ballot boxes for Units 001, 004, 006, 007, 008, O i l and
014 were hijacked and diverted by the 2nd Respondent's chieftains in collaboration with other
soldiers and that the results were concocted.
         1st Respondent, however, avers that electoral materials for the ward were never hijacked, that all
the electoral materials were brought to the units, that voting was peaceful and the result was duly
entered into the result sheets.
         The 15th and 16th Respondents denied the allegations adding that elections duly took place in
the unit without diversion of electoral materials.
         In Unit 001 the Form EC8A, (Exhibit 1133 (1)) shows that 295 voters were registered and 295 valid
votes and 5 rejected votes were cast. This means while the registered votes are 298 the votes cast are 300 which is
5 votes in excess of the registered number of voters. See Section 46 of the Electoral Act 2006.
         It is observed that number of registered voters for Unit 11 is not 37 as contended by the
Petitioner but 82 as contained in the register of voters for the unit, Exhibit 763 (1) - (16). We
agree with the Petitioners that the number of registered voters as represented in the result for
the unit, Exhibit 767 (2) is 300 which is at variance with the 82 contained on the voters' register. It is on
the basis of the said number of registered voters that 280 valid votes and 20 rejected votes were
recorded in Exhibit 707 (2), the unit's result sheet. This shows that the result for the unit was
arbitrarily made of the same ward. There are 295 voters registered in the voters register, Exhibit 754 (1) -
(17) while in Form EC8A the result for the Unit was 295 valid votes and 5 rejected votes were
recorded as cast. This was 5 votes in excess of the registered voters.
         For Unit 11, 280 valid votes and 20 rejected votes were recorded in Form EC8A, Exhibit
767 (2) but in the ward result in Form EC8B, Exhibit 768 (2), 300 valid votes and 20 rejected votes were
recorded.
         The entries in the counterpart original copy of the ward's result sheet in Form EC8B and
the certified copy of the result showed variations in their entries (Exhibit 768 (1) and (21). While the total
votes cast in Exhibit 768 (1) is 3047 in Exhibit 768 (2) it is 3303. The results for Units 1, 4, 6, 9, 12 and 13
on the same Exhibit are 295, 189, 300, 176, 228 and 142 respectively for Exhibit 768 (1) and 290,
129, 320, 191, 227 and 149 for the same units respectively in Exhibit 768 (2). One of the results is expected to

                                                         268
be an exact copy of the other in terms of the entries in them.
        The following unused voters' cards were tendered by the Petitioner as evidence that in the
respective wards some voters were deprived of their rights to vote.
        2 pieces for Unit 8: Exhibit 1098 (25).
        7 pieces for Unit 11: Exhibit 1098 (25).
        10 pieces for Unit 14: Exhibit 1098 (25) We have compared samples of the said voters' cards ith
the entries in the voters' registers and these are the findings:

               UNIT 008 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 760 (1) - (9)
S/NO.           VOTER'S    NUMBER    IN    THE NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE
                VOTERS' REGISTER               VOTERS' REGISTER
1.               53                                                TWO
2.               116                                               “


           UNIT Oil WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 763 (1) - (16)
S/NO.            VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE NUMBER OF MARKS IN
                 VOTERS' REGISTER             THE VOTERS' REGISTER

1.                   23                                            NOT TICKED
2.                   22                                            “
3.                   8                                             “
4.                   27                                            “
5.                   43                                            “
6.                   3                                             ONE
7.                   4                                             “



      UNIT 014 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 766 (1) - (17)
S/NO.       VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE NUMBER OF MARKS IN
            VOTERS' REGISTER             THE VOTERS' REGISTER
1.                   15                                            TWO
2.                   29                                            “
3.                   84                                            ONE
4.                   272                                           TWO
5.                   151                                           ONE
6.                   205                                           TWO
7.                   229                                           “
8.                   197                                           ONE
9.                   177                                           TWO
10.                  160                                           cc


        These charts show that no proper accreditation, which is an essential ingredient of the election,
was conducted in Units 008, Oil and 014 of this ward.


                                                       269
         Forms EC8A tendered were for only Units 001 and Oil. The polling units' results for the remaining
12 units were not tendered and no reason has been advanced for the failure to tender them.
         The case of the Petitioner is that there was no election in any of the units of this ward and that
the results for the ward are fictitious.
         The Respondents whose defence were based on the fact that there was elections duly conducted and
results announced have the burden of proving the holding of the said election in all the units by producing
the primary evidence for holding of such election in Forms EC8A for the units.
         The failures of the Respondents, which include INEC the body charged with the responsibility
of conducting these elections indicate that no election was conducted in the said 12 units.
         We, accordingly, so hold.
         The results for Units 001 and 011 tendered have been shown to be of no credit at all.
         The fact that two ward's results in Forms EC8B, Exhibits 768(1) and 768 (2), were tendered
with different entries for this ward, as stated earlier gives credence to the allegations of the Petitioner
that the results were concocted.
         As it is, we cannot pick and choose which of the two wards' results to accept as the genuine one.
         A comparison of the two wards' result, Exhibit 768 (1) and 768 (2) with the number of thumb-
printed ballot papers for this ward, Exhibits 1079 (6), (25) and (42), show that while the thumb-printed ballot
papers are 4383 the votes cast in Exhibit 768 (1) are 3047 and in Exhibit 768 (2) it was 3303.
         The results are, therefore, not the products of the election in contemplation.
         The irregularities highlighted are so fundamental that they cannot be consistent with the holding of
a free and fair election.
         The election for Ode Aye II Ward Oil is, for these reasons, nullified.


         OKITIPUPAI WARD 12
         The Petitioner alleged that election in every unit of this ward was marred by irregularities and
diversion of electoral materials to the houses of 2nd Respondent's chieftains through the use of thugs hired by
the 1st and 2nd Respondents assisted by policemen and soldiers who terrorized prospective voters
on the day of the election by shooting sporadically and wounding several voters while they were
running away from the polling booths for safety and that the results emanating from this ward were concocted.
         The 1st Respondent countered that electoral materials were brought promptly to the various
polling units in the ward in the presence of law enforcement agents, that election took place
without any hitches or complaints of irregularities, that there were no diversion of electoral materials by
thugs or anybody and no thugs were hired by the Respondents, that the atmosphere was devoid of
any violence, that all eligible voters voted and all the results emanated from lawful votes cast.
                                                       270
         The 15th and 16th Respondents also deny the allegation and say that election materials were never
diverted, that elections were duly held in the ward and that the police did not assist anybody to perpetrate
electoral malpractices.
         PW47 testified as an expert witness for the Petitioner. His opinion is contained in volume II
of the Petitioner's bundle of documents.
         The Petitioner tendered the following unused voters' cards to show that some voters were
disenfranchised in their respective units in the ward:
         1.     7 cards for Unit 003: Exhibit 1098 (28).
         2.     11 cards for Unit 19: Exhibit 1098 (28).
         3.     12 cards for Unit 20: Exhibit 1098 (28).
         We compared samples of the unused voters' cards with the contents of the voters' registers for
the unit to confirm whether the holders of the said voters' cards voted or not.


         UNIT 003 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 771 (1) - (29)
S/NO.               VOTER'S NUMBER                   IN      THE NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE
                    VOTERS' REGISTER                             UNIT'S VOTERS' RECITER
1.                  164                                          TWO
2.                  297                                          “
3.                  282                                          “
4.                  267                                          “
5.                  483                                          “
6.                  295                                          “
7.                  281                                          “


              UNIT 019 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 787 (1) - (30)
1.                 103                           TWO
2.                 415                           “
3.                 406                           “
4.                 208                           “
5.                 455                           “
6.                 108                           “
7.                 426                           “
8.                 318                           “
9.                 519                           ONE
10.                125                           TWO




                                                           271
         UNIT 020 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 788 (1) - (35)
S/NO.        VOTER'S NUMBER IN TH NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE
             VOTERS' REGISTER               UNIT'S VOTERS' REGISTER
1.               24                                           TWO
2.               389                                          “
3.               325                                          “
4.               122                                          “
5.               126                                          “
6.               553                                          THREE
7.               30                                           “
8.               88                                           TWO
9.               297                                          “
10.              581                                          “


        These show that there was no proper accreditation in the 3 units of this ward.
        We also agree with PW47 that Form EC8B for the ward was stamped with the stamp of a non-
existent body. National Electoral Commission which has the words "Presiding Officer" inscribed instead
of "collation Officer" This raised serious doubt on the authenticity of the Form EC8B for this ward.
        The number of votes cast for any election is determined the number of thumb-printed ballot
papers. It is the number of thumb-printed ballot papers that are recorded in the result forms. The
number of votes cast as recorded in the result forms should as a matter of cause, be equal to the
number of thumb-printed ballot papers.
        In this case the number of used or thumb-printed ballot papers for this ward, Exhibits 1079
(3), (8), (39) and (45), are 6017 while the number of votes cast as recorded in Form EC8B, Exhibit 790(1) and
(2), was 7316.
        This conclusively shows that the results as recorded in the Form EC8B were made
independently of the election. We therefore accept that they were concocted.
        In the instant case Forms EC8A for the units were tendered, except for those for Units 003, 019
and 020, which are only 3 units out of 20 units, are substantially regular. Forms EC8A being the primary
evidence of the conduct of the election were tendered. We hold that the evidence adduced by the
Petitioner is too weak to upset the results for this ward.
        We, in this wise, discountenanced the claims of the Petitioner on this ward. See AWUSE vs.
ODILI supra).


        OKITIPUPA II WARD 13
        In this ward the Petitioner alleged that the elections were marred by violence, massive
rigging and hijacking of ballot materials by thugs hired by and who acted as agents of the 1st and 2nd

                                                    272
Respondents in collaboration with INEC officers assisted by the police and soldiers to divert electoral
materials to unknown destinations where few people thumb-printed the ballot papers in multiples in
favour of the 1st Respondent and that the results emanating from the ward are concocted.
         The 1st Respondent denies the allegation and stated that the election was devoid of any violence,
rigging, hijacking of ballot materials, illegal collaboration, multiple thumb-printing, that the INEC officials
performed their duties independently and the law enforcement agents provided the required security
without collaboration for purposes of committing electoral malpractices, that the scores entered in
forms EC 8A emanated from the lawful votes cast at the various units, that the 1st Respondent did not hire
thugs or anybody as his agent except as accredited by the 2nd Respondent for the purpose of
monitoring the election.
         The 15th and 16th Respondents deny the allegation stating that electoral materials were never diverted
rather they were escorted to the polling stations from the distribution centre to the polling units where
election were duly conducted and that the claims of the Petitioner are not true.
         There were evidence of over voting in Units 9 and 18 in results sheet, Exhibits 1131 (9) and
1131 (18) respectively.
         In exhibit 1138 (9) 300 voters were registered while 296 valid votes and 4 rejected and 4
spoilt votes were recorded putting the number of votes cast at 304 which is 4 votes in excess of the
registered voters.
         For Unit 18 the result sheet Exhibit 1131 (18) shows that 619 ballot papers were issued to the
polling unit and 619 valid votes and two rejected votes were recorded making the number of votes cast
621 which is two in excess of the ballot papers issued.
         In Unit 10 of the same ward, the result Exhibit 1131 (10) shows that 800 ballot papers
were issued to the unit while 799 votes were cast, one vote was rejected and one vote was spoilt
putting the number of votes cast at 801 which is one vote in excess of ballot papers issued.
         For Unit 14 the result in Exhibit 1131 (4) shows that 600 ballot papers were issued and
566 valid votes were cast and 34 votes were spoilt and 34 votes were rejected, putting the number of
votes cast at 644 which was 44 ballot papers in excess of the 600 issued.
         On the following units, the number of valid votes cast recorded in Forms EC8A and EC8B
vary as indicated below:




                                                      273
UNIT       UNIT RESULT             VALID VOTES IN                VALID VOTES FOR UNITS IN WARD'S
           EXHIBIT NUMBER          UNIT'S RESULT                 RESULT SHEET: EXHIBIT 814 (1) AND (2)
1          1131(1)                 686                           630
4          " (4)                   566                           600
6          " (6)                   461                           466
9          " (9)                   296                           300
10         " (10)                  799                           800
12         " (12)                  564                           568
18         " (18)                  619                           621
19         " (19)                  365                           369


               This shows that there was no collation at polling units for these units into the ward's result
      form: Exhibit 814 (1) and (2).
               Voters' cards for the polling units in the ward were tendered as evidence that their holders
      were not able to vote at the election.
               1.   11 pieces for Unit 001: Exhibit 1098 (26).
               2.   11 pieces for Unit 006: Exhibit 1098 (26).
               3.   4 pieces for Unit 009: Exhibit 1098 (26).
               4.   2 pieces for Unit 017: Exhibit 1098 926).
               5.   13 pieces for Unit 22: Exhibit 1098 (26)
          All these voters' cards have not been marked to indicate that they have ever been used to vote.
          We have taken samples of these voters' cards and compared them with the entries in respect of
their respective holders in the voters’ register to confirm the allegation of the Petitioner that they
did not use the voters' cards to vote.
          UNIT 001 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 791 (1) - (41)
S/NO.                VOTER'S      NUMBER            IN    THE NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE VOTERS'
                     VOTERS' REGISTER                         REGISTER
1.                   400                                         ONE
2.                   681                                         “
3.                   339                                         “
4.                   614                                         “
5.                   258                                         “
6.                   3                                           “
7.                   343                                         “
8.                   688                                         “
9.                   310                                         “
10.                  86                                          “




                                                         274
           UNIT 006 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 796 (1) - (26)
S/NO.            VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE VOTERS'
                 VOTERS' REGISTER              REGISTER
1.               100                           TWO
2.               421                           “
3.               102                           “
4.               73                            “
5.               77                            “
6.               75                            “
7.               76                            “
8.               458                           “
9.               212                           “


           UNIT 009 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 799 (1) - (18)
S/NO.               VOTER'S          NUMBER        IN    VOTERS' NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE VOTERS'
                    REGISTER                                     REGISTER

1.                  253                                             TWO
2.                  23                                              “
3.                  289                                             “
4.                  292                                             “


           UNIT 017 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 806 (1) - (64)
S/NO.           VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE VOTERS'
                VOTERS' REGISTER           REGISTER
1.              175                        NOT TICKED
2.              1040                       “


           UNIT 022 WITH VOTERS' REGISTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 810 (1) - (18)
S/NO.           VOTER'S NUMBER IN THE NUMBER OF MARKS IN THE
                VOTERS' REGISTER           VOTERS' REGISTER
1.                  212                                             TWO
2.                  274                                             “
3.                  282                                             “
4.                  285                                             “
5.                  197                                             “
6.                  36                                              “
7.                  37                                              “
8.                  66                                              “
9.                  221                                             “
10.                 44                                              “

      These show that there was no proper accreditation in Units 001, 006, 009 and 022 of this ward which
make the electoral process there incomplete. See AONDOAKAA vs. AJO (supra).
      The irregularities alleged in this ward, from the evidence available are from 10 out of the 25 units of the ward.


                                                          275
           We are, bound to accept the regularity of the results for the other 15 units which have been
shown to bear no stains.
           We, accordingly, hold that the evidence is not substantial enough to warrant the setting aside of
the results for this ward.
           We hold that the election in this ward was, substantially regular and, therefore we refuse
the claim of the Petitioner in respect of this ward.
           Generally on OKITIPUPA LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA the Electoral Officer for this Local
Government has written a report, Exhibit 1098, which admits that there was information that some thugs
disrupted the election in some areas but that this did not affect the conduct of the election.
           A security report was also tendered to show that there were electoral malpractices including
violence and hijacking of electoral materials: Exhibit 1100 (9).
           From the other evidence, we have analysed the fact that Exhibit 1100 (9) is from a more independent
source than Exhibit 1098 which is from INEC which is a Respondent in this petition we accept that electoral
malpractices permeated the conduct of the election in all the wards of this Local Government Area. These give
weight to our findings on this Local Government Area.
           From the above analyses and computation the lawful votes cast in each of Akoko North West, Akoko
North East, Akure North, De-Oluji/Oke-Igbo, Odigbo, Ose, Ese-Odo, Ilaje, Irele and Okitipupa Local
Government Areas are as follows:
       -     Akoko North West Local Government Area                   - 28,982
       -     Akoko North East Local Government Area                   - 15,958
       -     Akure North Local Government Area                       - 11,985
       -     He-Oluji/Oke-Igbo Local Government Area                 - 20,327
       -     Odigbo Local Government Area                            - 27,760
       -     Ose Local Government Area                               - 25,395
       -     Ese-Odo Local nGoverment Area                           - 3,866
       -     Ilaje Local Government Area                             - Nil
       -     Irele Local Government Area                             - Nil
       -     Okitipupa Local Government Area                         - 24,737




                                                          276
         Out of the votes cast as stated above, the two parties, Labour Party and PDF scored as follows:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA                                  LABOUR PARTY                     PDP
1. AKOKO NORTH WEST                                    10426                            3063
2. AKOKO NORTH EAST                                    4461                             3439
3. AKURE NORTH                                         5292                             1889
4. ILE-OLUJI/OKE-IGBO                                  9761                             6928
5. ODIGBO                                              8953                             13905
6. OSE                                                 9175                             12348
7. ESE-ODO                                             91                               2968
8. ILAJE                                               0                                0
9. IRELE                                               0                                0
10. OKITIPUPA                                          3734                             20903


         We have already said that the parties did not dispute the elections and their resultant scores in
respect of Akoko South-East, Akoko South-West, Akure South, Idanre, Ondo East, Ondo West and Owo
Local Government Areas. We will now set down the votes recorded in Exhibit 3 (Form EC8D) for each
of the 7 Local Government Areas not in dispute along with those for the above-named Local Government
Areas as analysed and computed by us in addition to their percentage scores in the following chart:.


                                                           LP     LP                PDP                PDP
S/NO.       LOCAL                         TOTAL            VOTES  %                 VOTES              %
            GOVERNMENT                    VOTES            SCORED                   SCORED
            AREA
1.          AKOKO SOUTH EAST              7514             3237        43%          2666               35.4%
2.          AKOKO SOUTH WEST              38840            16971       43.6%        8718               22.4%
3.          AKURE SOUTH                   66196            34209       51.6%        22932              34.6%
4.          IDANRE                        32227            16895       52.4%        9617               29.8%
5.          ONDO EAST                     18123            9417        51.9%        5235               28.8%
6.          ONDO WEST                     57536            43887       76.2%        7926               13.7%
7.          OWO                           34457            21760       63.1%        6132               17.7%
8.          AKOKO NORTH WEST              28982            10426       35.9%        3063               10.5%
9.          AKOKO NORTH EAST              15958            4461        27.9%        3439               21.5%
10.         AKURE NORTH                   11985            5292        44.1%        1889               15.7%
11.         ILE-OLUJI/OKE-IGBO            20327            9761        48%          6928               34%
12.         ODIGBO                        27760            8953        32.2%        13905              50%
13.         OSE                           25395            9175        36.1%        12348              48.6%
14.         ESE-ODO                       3866             91          2.3%         2968               76.7%
15.         ILAJE                         NIL              0           0%           0                  0%

                                                      277
16.           IRELE                       NIL           0              0%          0               0%
17-           OKITIPUPA                   24737         3734           15%         20903           84.5%
              TOTAL                       413903        198269                     128669


        The reliefs sought by the Petitioner from the Tribunal are contained in paragraph 38 (i) - (x)
of his petition. In paragraph 14.0 on page 365 of the Petitioner's written address, he now seeks the reliefs
in paragraph 38 (i) - (v) thereof and they are simply the determination by the Tribunal that the 1st Respondent
was not duly elected or returned by majority of lawful votes; that the 1st Respondent's election be
voided; that elections in four named Local government Areas be nullified and that he be declared as
duly elected and returned as the Governor of Ondo State.
        A Petitioner approaching an Election Petition Tribunal and seeking to be declared by the
Tribunal as the duly elected Governor of a State in Nigeria, has, by virtue of the provisions of Section
179 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, two constitutional hurdles to jump. The
Petitioner is saying that he, and not the 1st Respondent, was elected by majority of lawful votes cast at
the Governorship election of 14/4/2007 in Ondo State. To succeed, he must jump the two hurdles.
These are, as contained in Section 179 (2), (a) and (b) of the Constitution, that:
        (a) he has the highest number of votes cast at the election.
        (b)    he has not less than one-quarter of all the votes cast in each of at least two thirds of all the
Local Government Areas in the State.
        Ondo State has 18 Local Government Areas and 2/3 of same are 12 Local Government Areas.
        In our last chart above, we have shown that the Petitioner's political party, Labour Party scored a
total of 198269 lawful votes while the 1st Respondent's party PDP scored 128669 lawful votes. Labour Party
also had not less than one-quarter of the votes cast in 13 Local Government Areas of Akoko South East,
Akoko South West, Akure South, Idanre, Ondo East, Ondo West, Owo, Akoko North West, Akoko
North East, Akure North, Ile-Oluji/Oke-Igbo, Odigbo and Ose. On the other hand PDP had not less than
one-quarter of the votes cast in 9 Local Government Areas of Akoko South East, Akure South, Idanre,
Ondo East, Ile-Oluji/Oke-Igbo, Odigbo, Ose, Ese-Odo and Okitipupa. It is therefore clear that the
Petitioner, and not the 1st Respondent satisfied the two constitutional requirements.
        On the totality of the evidence before us, and based on all what we have said so far, we are
satisfied that all the electoral irregularities and malpractices earlier highlighted have seriously and
substantially affected the outcome of the election. The Petitioner has therefore proved his case
and is entitled to the favourable judgment of the Tribunal. We hold that the 1st Respondent was
not duly elected and returned by the highest number of lawful votes cast at the Ondo State
Governorship election held on 14th April, 2007.


                                                      278
        We order that the purported election of the 1st Respondent as the Governor at the Ondo State
Governorship election of 14/4/2007 be and is hereby nullified.
        We also order that the Petitioner, having satisfied the requirements of Section 179 (2), (a) and
(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and by virtue of Section 147 (2) of the
Electoral Act, 2006, be and is hereby declared as the elected Governor of Ondo State of Nigeria.
        The 1st Respondent shall pay costs of N20, 000.00 only to the Petitioner.


HON. JUSTICE G.M. NABARUMA CHAIRMAN, ELECTION TRIBUNAL




JUSTICE A.E. OKON MEMBER, ELECTION TRIBUNAL




HON. JUSTICE D.I. OKUNGBOWA MEMBER, ELECTION TRIBUNAL




HON. JUSTICE M.B. GOJI MEMBER, ELECTION TRIBUNAL




                                                      279
   HON: JUSTICE A.S. UMAR
MEMBER, ELECTION TRIBUNAL




                       280
APPEARANCES:


Parties absent.

Chief Wole Olanipekun,SAN for the Petitioner with Chief Olu

Ogidan, Debo Ologunagba, Dr. O.F. Ayeni, Chief Yinka

Adeyosoye, Hon. Boluwaji Kunlere, Hon. Aderemi Olatubora,

Chief Tunde Atere, Rotimi Ekundayo, Olufemi Omoniyi,

Olufemi Fadare, Opeyemi Fadoju, Okey Onyianta, Yakubu

Daudu, O. Aderibole, F. Amure, Miss Toyin Aladegbami,

Akinbo Dara, Miss Amedu Oputa, Miss Kemi Ake,Yesiru

Oladele, S.A. Ayesa, and Oludotun Ogunfolu.

L.O. Fagbemi SAN for the 1st Respondent with Adeniyi Akintola

SAN, Dr. J.O. Olatoke, B.O. Adesina, S. Ojile, S. Akinwande,

M.B. Jimoh Akogun and Y. Fajemiroye.

H.T. Fajimite for the 2nd Respondent with K Adetowubo, S.

Adeseun, Tunji Salawu, Y.L. Akanbi, Dauda Abdulkadir,

Temitope Adedipe and Prince Ojopagogo.

P.O. Jimoh - Lasisi SAN for the 3rd to 14th Respondents with J.K.

Adeyi - Odunbaku and Uche Okoro.

J.C.A. Idachaba for the 15th and 16th Respondents

with A.

Olukoya.




                                                     281

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:395
posted:7/13/2011
language:English
pages:281