Governor of Osun State, Ademola Adeleke, said that the election tribunal ruling which relieved him from office was not a majority opinion, contrary to publicly available court documents.

This is as hot debates continue to flare in the wake of the Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal, which delivered its judgement yesterday annulling the victory of Mr Adeleke, the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) who was sworn-in in a colourful ceremony last year.

The tribunal sitting in Osogbo on Friday cancelled the results of more than 700 polling units where the chairman of the panel, Justice T.A. Kume, claimed to have established cases of overvoting. Subsequently, the result of the tightly contested election was overturned, and Gboyega Oyetola of the All Progressives Congress (APC) was declared the winner.

In a state broadcast after the judgement, Mr Adeleke said that only two members of the panel delivered their ruling, the chairman, Mr Kume and Member One, Justice B.A. Ogbuli, while Member Two of the panel, Chief Magistrate Rabi Bashir, abstained.

“We have all heard the split judgement of the governorship election tribunal. Two members of the tribunal delivered opposing judgments. The Chairman and the Member One. The Member Two did not deliver any judgement; she abstained,” Mr Adeleke said.

Mr Adeleke emphasised that there was no majority judgement as none of the three members of the panel agreed with each other on the defining rulings of the tribunal.

“The chairman’s judgement affirmed the claim of overvoting, while the Member One’s judgement agreed with our position as captured by the BVAS machine as the primary source of data of true accreditation on the day of the election,” Mr Adeleke noted.

He argued further: “The reality of my election as the governor of Osun state is captured in the Member One’s judgement. The claim of over voting in the chairman’s judgement was unfounded.

“This was clearly a miscarriage of justice. Based on the above, there was no majority judgement,” he added.

Meanwhile, the Certified True Copies (CTC) of the ruling, which was circulated over social media on Friday, contradict Mr Adeleke’s assertion that Ms Bashir, the second panellist, abstained. Instead, Ms Bashir co-signed Mr Kume’s judgement, which analysts may legitimately interpret as support for Mr Kume’s viewpoint.

Mr Adeleke, in his assertion, might be banking on a not-yet-emphasised procedural irregularity in the delivery of the judgement, Lagos-based electoral analyst and constitutional lawyer, Festus Ogun, told The Gazette.

Mr Ogun argued that the three panellists are required by law to independently write their own judgements, state their agreements and difference with co-panellists where such exists and read their submissions in open court, a procedure that was breached when Mr Kume single-handedly read the judgement that was cosigned by Ms Bashir.

Before considering the actual facts of the election dispute, Mr Ogun says, the procedural irregularities could prove fatal to the panel’s verdict as member two of the panel, Ms Bashir, did not deliver a judgement in open court.

“I honestly think it is a misnomer that a member of the panel, Rabi Bashir, would co-sign a judgement with the lead panellist, My Lord Hon Justice Kume. It is even more strange, in my respectful opinion, that a member of the election tribunal did not personally read his judgement in open court. The practice and procedure is that the three judges, members of the panel, have to deliver their judgements separately, with the lead judgement dissecting the matter in-depth.

“The other judges are then required to write and read their opinion and state whether they agree, partly agree or completely disagree with the lead judgement. The co-signed judgement blurred the line between the lead judgement and the opinion of the second member of the panel. The failure of Mr Bashir to read his own judgement in open court might open a vista for an appeal.” Mr Ogun said.