Governor Olagunsoye Oyinlola of Osun State and his party, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), seem to have been turned to perpetual debtors before the Justice Ali Garba-led Election Petition Retrial Tribunal, as they were slammed with another N10,000 cost again on Wednesday.

The cost was awarded by the tribunal against Oyinlola and his party, sequel to the application brought by their counsel, seeking to call a statistics analyst, one Lateef Bababatunde Adeleke, who is a professor of statistics at the University of Ilorin, Kwara State to counter the analysis done by Mr Tunde Yadeka, one of the experts of the Action Congress (AC) governorship candidate in the state, Engineer Rauf Aregbesola who analyzed the ballot papers used for the controversial April 14, 2007 election in the state.

Aregbesola is challenging the election of Oyinlola before the retrial tribunal following the order of the Court of Appeal, sitting in Ibadan , Oyo State , ordering the retrial of the petition that had earlier been heard by the discredited Justice Thomas Naron-led tribunal.

It would be recalled that Yadeka had earlier told the tribunal that he had detected over-voting and multiple voting among others in the votes awarded to the PDP during the poll.

At the resumed hearing of the petition on Wednesday, one of Oyinlola’s counsel, Mr Kemi Pinheiro (SAN) brought the application, seeking to call the analyst to counter the evidence of Yadeka.

Moving the application, Oyinlola’s counsel said that his application was dated March 12, 2010 seeking five prayers pursuant to relevant provision of the constitution.

In his argument, he recalled that since the petitioners had called Yadeka as an expert to analyse the ballot papers used for the election, his client was entitled to proffer rebuttal evidence, saying that when evidence of an expert was before a court and no other person is called to challenge it, the court could rely on such evidence alone.

According to him, the intention of bringing the application to call another expert on behalf of his clients was to proffer rebuttal evidence against the evidence of Yadeka, with a view to ensuring that the tribunal balances its discretion and do justice to the matter.

Pinheiro then argued that it was important for the tribunal to grant the application in the interest of justice with a view to settling the issue of justice denied.

Counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mr Dayo Famakin-Johnson and the police counsel, Mr Niyi Owolade raised no objection to the application, rather, they urged the tribunal to grant same.

Objecting to the application, Aregbesola’s counsel, Mr Ajibola Bashir said that he was not contending the right of Oyinlola’s counsel to call rebuttal evidence, but the question was whether the witness had been called within time or not.

He queried Oyinlola’s counsel for just bringing the application despite the fact that the petitioners’ expert, whose evidence was in contention had testified before the tribunal a long time ago.

Ajibola further argued that Oyinlola’s counsel had not placed enough materials before the tribunal to justify the granting of the application.

He also argued that on March 1, 2010 during one of the sittings of the tribunal, one other Oyinlola’s counsel, Mr Nathaniel Oke (SAN) had given an undertaken that after the evidence of their first expert, Dr Ndarabasi Ekong, they would close the case for the 1st to 3rd respondents, adding that “they can not come here and be playing us”, just as he urged the tribunal to reject the application.

Replying on point of law, Oyinlola’s counsel argued that on the issue raised by Aregbesola’s counsel that they would be overreached, if the application was granted, they have not shown the tribunal how they would be overreached, saying, “they should let us call the expert; why are they scared”?

Ajibola rose up again and said: “This is not part of arguments in my learned friend’s address; if he wants to raise that issue, he should have raised it in his address. But for him to say that we are scared, we are not scared of anybody”.

Ruling on the application, the tribunal ruled that it had considered the application, the objection raised and it was satisfied with materials placed before it by Oyinlola’s counsel, just as it granted all the prayers in the application.

The tribunal then awarded a cost of N10,000 against Oyinlola and his party, PDP.

After the ruling, Pinheiro told the tribunal that he was ready to call the expert since the application had been granted, saying that within the next 15 to 30 minutes, the witness would arrive at the court.

Responding, Aregbesola’s counsel said that he was actually preparing to cross-examine the witness the following day, saying that if the tribunal was minded to grant adjournment till the following day (Thursday), he would appreciate it, but if the court insisted that he should go ahead, he would not have any problem with the decision.

Oyinlola’s counsel then jumped up and stated that Aregbesola’s counsel had been making allegations that his clients had been delaying the proceedings, but now that he was ready, the petitioners’ counsel was asking for an adjournment, just as he opposed the application for adjournment, saying that in the next 15 minutes, his witness would be in court.

At this point, Aregbesola’s counsel rose and stated that telling the court that the witness would arrive the tribunal in the next 15 minutes shows that the witness was not available at the moment, saying that Pinheiro was also asking for a stand-down, which he would as well be objecting to.

He said: “My lords, if they have the witness in court at the moment, they should call him now and put him in the witness box. We are not soothsayers and we did not know which way the ruling of your lordships would go. That is why they did not, as well, bring their witness to court in the first place and they are asking for stand-down. They can not ask us to wait here for the witness that has not even left his house”.

Subsequently, the tribunal stood down the case for 10 minutes for Oyinlola’s counsel to call the witness.

After the break, Pinheiro called the expert witness, Professor Lateef Babatunde Adeleke into the witness box and he swore with holy Quran.

After the witness had adopted his deposition, Oyinlola’s counsel tendered the Curriculum Vitae of the witness and that of one Dr Oyeyemi Gafar Matanmi, who the witness claimed to have carried out the analysis alongside with.

Objecting to the tendering of the application, Ajibola argued that he would not be objecting to the first set of the documents belonging to Adeleke on the basis that he was the maker, but he would be objecting on the basis that the documents were photocopies and not original.

On the second set of the documents belonging to Matanmi, Ajibola objected on the ground that under Section 91 of the Evidence Act, the witness was not allowed to tender the documents, because he was not the maker of the said documents.

Responding, Oyinlola’s counsel argued that the documents were in their original form and the signature on each of them were also in their original forms, adding that the witness had indicated in his deposition that he would tender the CV before the tribunal. He then urged the tribunal to grant the application.

Ruling, the tribunal admitted the two sets of the documents on the ground that the signatures on each of the documents were in their original form, just as it admitted the documents as exhibits R15(1-6) and R16(1-7).

Subsequently, Pinheiro also tendered the report of the purported analysis carried out by the expert and the report was admitted as exhibit R27 (1-22).

However, when it was the turn of INEC counsel to cross-examine the witness, he said: “My lords, I am constraint to ask for an adjournment at this stage. I am still perusing the report and the deposition of this witness. I never knew it would go this far today. So, I am not prepared for it today. I shall be asking for an adjournment till tomorrow”.

This application was initially opposed by Ajibola who called the attention of the tribunal to the fact that he had made a similar application and he was heckled by respondents’ counsel in disapproval to his earlier request, saying that when the respondents insisted that the matter should continue, he had tasked his brain alongside other members of his team to ensure that the matter was continued.

He said: “My lords, when my learned senior insisted that we should continue, we buckled up and we have tasked our brain more, to ensure that we continue. And now, we are prepared forensically and even scientifically to go on. But I leave it to the discretion of the court”.

The tribunal then adjourned till Thursday, March 18 for the cross-examination of the witness.

By kazeem mohammed

Other Related Stories

• July 6, 2010 -- Cleric Urges Osun Residents To Be Optimistic Over Aregbesola’s Appeal (3)
• June 24, 2010 -- Aregbe’s Legal Fire Power Frustrates Oyinlola’s Camp (5)
• June 23, 2010 -- Now Or Never! (0)
• June 17, 2010 -- Osun Tribunal, An Exposure Of Judicial Insincerity – Activist (0)
• June 11, 2010 -- Osun PDP’s Show Of Shame: PDP Thugs Terrorize Traders With Charms and Cutlass (2)
• June 11, 2010 -- 17 Years After June 12 (3)
• June 11, 2010 -- Who Is Afraid Of Justice? (3)
• June 11, 2010 -- Osun Tribunal Judgement: A Travesty Of Justice (11)
• June 10, 2010 -- Of Electoral Reforms And A Truly Representative Electoral Process (0)
• June 9, 2010 -- Professor Attahiru Jega as INEC Chairman! A wasted opportunity? By Ken Davidson (4)