SPMGN SPOTLIGHT 08: The Falae/Obasanjo Presidential Petition
Mobolaji E. Aluko
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPMGN SPOTLIGHT 08: The Falae/Obasanjo Presidential Petition
March 30, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post Express
Category: News
Date of Article: 03/30/99
Topic: falae Vs obasanjo Police Chiefs Testify Today
Author: Jude Owuamanam, Staff Reporter
Full Text of Article:
POLICE commissioners in the states where electoral malpractices were
alleged to have been perpetrated during the last presidential election,
were to appear in the Court of Appeal, Abuja, yesterday, as hearing
resumes in the legal tussle over the declaration of Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo
as president-elect in the February 27 presidential election. Some of the
states with alleged irregularities as contained in Chief Olu Falae's
petition include Delta, Niger and Nassarawa.
Falae, the defeated All People's Party (APP) candidate is challenging the
victory of Obasanjo who was elected under the People's Democratic Party
(PDP).
The appearance of police chiefs is sequel to an application filed by Chief
G.O.K. Ajayi, Falae's counsel, seeking an order of the court, to summon
the police bosses through the office of the inspector-general (IG) of
police.
At its sitting last Tuesday, the Court of Appeal had also granted Ajayi
leave to inspect all the documents, including ballot papers used in the
February 27 presidential election, especially forms EC8A, EC8B, EC8C,
EC8D.
However, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had said
that it required N80 million to facilitate the inspection.
In Niger State, Falae's counsel was prevented from inspecting ballot boxes
used in the election by the state Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC),
Dr. Sam Anugwalem. In a statement dated March 26, signed by Chief Solomon
Asemota (SAN) and addressed to the commission's Secretary, Alhaji Adamu
Bawa Muazu, Asemota alleged that his team and the fingerprint experts on
the team of inspectors were refused access to ballot papers at the weekend
on arrival at the commission's premises.
This is said to be at variance with the letter by the secretary of the
commission to the state REC dated March 23, directing that the
petitioner's counsel be allowed access to ballot papers.
Apart from the letter, the INEC secretary was also said to have sent a
radio message informing all RECs, of the petitioner's counsel's intending
visit to their premises.
The appeal court had, however, in an earlier ruling, struck out an
application brought by Chief Ajayi, seeking leave to administer
interrogatories on the second respondent, INEC.
In striking out the motion, the appeal court presided over by the Acting
President, Justice Dahiru Mustapha awarded N3,500 cost to both first and
second respondents.
The Falae/Obasanjo case has spun many legal antecedents. At the earlier
hearing, the President of the Court of Appeal and Chairman of the
five-member panel hearing the case, Justice Umaru Abdullahi withdrew his
participation in the adjudication on the ground that his wife is the
current resident electoral commissioner in Edo State. This led to the
naming of Justice Mustapha as the panel's chairman.
Last Monday, the Court of Appeal had also struck out a petition brought by
Chief Chuba Egolum, asking it to nullify the outcome of the presidential
election.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guardian
Tuesday, March 30, 1999
Court warns against intimidation on polls petition
>From Kunle Sanyaolu, Special Projects Editor, Abuja
PUBLICATIONS in two editions of The Guardian newspaper formed yesterday
the subject of a 50-minute debate at the Court of Appeal in Abuja which
succeeded, after six hours of proceedings, to resolve all preliminary
issues relating to the election petition filed by Chief Olu Falae against
Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo.
The debate was hinged on a request by leading counsel to the Independent
National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mr Kehinde Sofola, a Senior Advocate
of Nigeria (SAN), to Falae's leading counsel, Chief Godwin Kolawole Ajayi
(SAN), to advise his client against making inflamatory comments in
newspapers on the February 27 presidential polls verdict being contested
in court.
Substantive hearing in the petition, in which INEC and 58 of its officers,
including its chairman Justice Ephraim Akpata are respondent, began at
4.30 p.m. yesterday.
Besides the debate of The Guardian publications, motions standing in the
way of the petition which were resolved yesterday are:
Falae's request for an amendment of his petition to change an expression
"55 per cent" to "20 per cent" and thereby make the paragraph meaningful.
It was endorsed by the court.
A request by Obasanjo asking the court to decline jurisdiction on the
ground that "proper parties" were not in court, in the alternative to
disallow Falae from leading incriminatory evidence on the February 27
election where no person was named as respondent. The court granted the
alternative prayer.
Another application by Obasanjo seeking "further particulars" from Falae
of the wide allegations in the petition. The application was withdrawn by
Obasanjo's leading lawyer, Chief Afe Babalola, "to save time," and
following suggestions by the court that it might not be necessary having
regard to Obasanjo's comprehensive defence already filed in court. The
application was consequently struck out.
The first six hours of yesterday's proceedings - which ended at 3 p.m, and
paved the way for the main complaint, hearing of which started at 4.30
p.m, saw the court presided over by Justice Dahiru Musdapher struggling to
balance time constraints against the litigating parties' desire to fully
canvass their position in the preliminary applications.
The courtroom had been specially re-arranged for yesterday's session to
create more room for both the lawyers and the public. The seats were drawn
closer and more chairs provided. But the effect was hardly noticeable due
to an apparent increase in the number of lawyers and members of the public
who turned up.
One of the additions in the lawyers' list is Chief Bamidele Aiku, a Senior
Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) from Ibadan who joined Obasanjo's team of 34
lawyers led by Chief Afe Babalola (SAN). Five other SANs are included in
the team, namely Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, Mr Ben Nwakanma, Prince Lateef
Fagbemi, Mr M.A.O. Okulaja and Mr J.K. Gazama.
Mercifully, the courtroom atmosphere had been made more conducive by
restoring airconditioners which last week did not function, thereby making
the court stuffy and uncomfortable.
Last week, the court was also bogged down with preliminary application,
which forced it to adjourn to yesterday without being able to address the
substantive matter. The court was particularly concerned that it had
exactly seven days from yesterday to conclude the hearing and deliver
judgment, in accordance with provisions of the Presidential Election
(Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provisions) Decree 6 of 1999.
The decree provided for 21 days in all to conclude proceedings, from March
15 when Falae filed his petition. Basically, he wants the court to declare
that he, not Obasanjo, won the presidential polls; or that the whole
election be voided on grounds of widespread fraud and irregularity.
In one of his numerous responses to complaints over the time factor, and
appeals for co-operation by the lawyers, Justice Musdapher, who stayed
back in Abuja during the Eid-el-Kabir holidays rather than going to Kano
to celebrate the sallah with his family, reminded the lawyers that within
the seven days remaining for the court to conclude trial, two days (Good
Friday and Easter Monday) are public holidays and two other days fall on
weekend (Saturday and Sunday).
He had specifically stayed back in Abuja last weekend to grant order of
substituted service on 33 witnesses being invited by Falae to establish
his case; and to attend to other matters relating to the petition.
The first salvo in yesterday's debate over The Guardian publications was
fired by Sofola, the most senior member of the Bar present in court and
leading lawyer to INEC and its 58 officers named as respondents in the
case.
Leading six other lawyers, including Mr A.O. Ehobamien, another S.A.N.,
Sofola informed the court shortly after the arrival of the five judges, of
"certain complaints" on the pending petition. He said his attention had
been drawn to the front-page story in The Guardian of March 20, 1999 with
banner headline, "Falae in London, promises evidence of polls' fraud."
The INEC lead counsel quoted extensively from the report, based on an
interview with Falae by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). He
then focused on the portion that cited Falae as saying that although he
had confidence in the judiciary, "the courts are free to conspire with
INEC to perpetrate fraud," and that if that happened, "we will all be
saying goodbye to democracy and welcome to one-party dictatorship led by
retired Generals ..."
Sofola said: "What I am complaining about very very bitterly is that my
clients (INEC and its officials) are being shown to the whole world, they
are being painted in bad colours that they are conspiring with the courts
to perpetrate fraud in this case. There is no iota of truth in this
allegation. It is false. And I do not think that it will be right to put
fire in the roof of this country by making such unguarded statement."
He also drew the court's attention to aother publication in yesterday's
issue of The Guardian headlined "Falae may file contempt charge against
INEC chief." He read the front page story which dwelt on an alleged bid by
Falae's lawyers to cite the Niger State Resident Electoral Commissioner
for contempt perceived in his reported refusal to allow the petitioner
inspect election documents as ordered last Tuesday by the court.
Sofola, a former Federal Attorney-General, highlighted the portion of the
story which read: "A lawyer to Falae and member of the APP alleged at the
weekend that the reported refusal of access to the petitioner's lawyers by
the resident electoral commissioner amounted to a ploy to derail the court
process and frustrate the case.
According to him, the Falae legal team was not surprised at the turn of
things. 'We knew from the beginning that those connected with the conduct
of the election might want to frustrate us so as to run us out of time. We
have expected this and that was why we were worried that the (Appeal)
Court did not direct INEC to make these (electoral) documents available to
us at its headquarters in Abuja. What is the point in INEC asking us to go
to the states ourselves to inspect the documents, only for one of the
commission's REC to deny us access even with a court order to so do? It is
only to delay the case and to enable the court to strike it out,' the
lawyer alleged."
Sofola's main grouse was that the story amounted to conducting the
petition on the pages of newspaper. "Giving audience to newspapers in this
case is not an answer to the problem. Lawyers can come to court to argue
their case but not to present such case to the press.
"I appeal to lawyers to the petitioner and senior members of the Bar to
properly advise their client. I do know that clients should listen to the
advice of their counsel. Court should not, in any shape or form, encourage
this type of statement. The whole world is looking at us and watching out
for the outcome of this case.
To give an impression that there is a hidden agenda is not necessary and
not in the interest of justice. Let us go to the merit, and not to prepare
a ground that time limitation is reason for our failure. We should not
resort to newspaper publications, either indirectly or through clients. I
have nothing to hide in this matter, but I am concerned that things should
be done properly."
Asked for his comment, Ajayi, who led 12 other lawyers including Chief
Solomon Asemota (SAN), Dr. Hameed Kusamotu and Dr. E.O. Ometan, recalled
that Babalola had raised the issue of Falae's comment last week while the
court was debating the desirability or otherwise of Appeal Court president
Justice Umaru Abdullahi sitting on the petition, bearing in mind that his
wife, resident electoral commissioner for Edo State in the presidential
polls, was named fifth respondent in the case.
Noting that the statement at the time was said to have been reported by
The Guardian, Ajayi said: "I thought that even at that time, my learned
friend (Babalola) ought not to have approached it that way. But the
court's attention had been drawn to it and I assumed that the statement
would be held in its proper context. Afterall, it was The Guardian that
published the statement and credited it to Falae, who is not here but in
the United Kingdom.
"I said at the time that my learned friend really did not intend to have
the matter taken up seriously by the court, because that statement is not
the type that should emanate from the party or the press or the Bar. If my
learned friend had so intended, he should have requested the court to
bring Guardian newspaper here to explain the publication they have made.
"That statement was an indictment of my client who was not here and it is
most unlikely that he was quoted correctly. I was a bit embarrassed
because it was credited to my client. The matter was let to lie."
Asked by Justice Thompson Akpabio to respond to yesterday's publication,
Ajayi said as far he knew, "there is no accusation of any impropriety or
accusation against the integrity of the court." He, however, explained
that though he did not know which of his lawyers might have spoken with
The Guardian as was claimed, the report was not far-fetched.
The lawyer told the court: "I can say that we in fact intend to make a
report to your Lordships this morning about the conduct of the Resident
Electoral Commissioner for Niger State."
He recalled that following the court's order last week, he met INEC
chairman, Justice Akpata, who informed him and his team that ballot papers
were with resident electoral commissioners in the states. Justice Akpata,
according to him, had consequently written a letter to the RECs, asking
them to allow inspection of the required documents.
Ajayi said the REC in Niger State refused to allow him conduct the
inspection. "What the newspaper reported, in any case, is a reflection of
what we intend to do this morning. It is not unlikely that a member of my
team could have made the statement," he added.
The Falae lead counsel reminded the court that since hearing in the case
started, proceedings have been besieged by numerous journalists who did
not allow the lawyers much breathing space.
He recalled that at every step of the inspection by his team the press was
always there to ask questions, towards satisfying the public's desire to
know because what was published is a matter of public interest, including
the action of INEC officers. In any case, he argued the complaint by
Sofola did not amount to on disrespect by the newspaper for the court, nor
did the publication in any way prejudice proceedings before the court.
"The public want and are entitled to know what is happening. We are being
frustrated by the action of a subordinate officer of INEC whose boss, the
chairman, had given directives to give effect to the court's order," Ajayi
said.
In his own contribution to the debate, Babalola recalled the arguments
leading to his making reference to The Guardian publication of March 20,
1999. He explained that it was basically to support his view that Justice
Abdullahi should not sit on the case.
"As a leading counsel, my learned friend (Ajayi) should have asked has
client whether that publication was true, and if so, he should stop such
scandalous and unwarranted statement," he added.
According to him, the two publications referred to had only one focus of
"scandalising the court and frustrating the proceedings." Nevertheless, he
said he did not believe that it was necessary to invite The Guardian to
court. "Every responsible person in this country knows that The Guardian
is the most reputable newspaper in this country," Babalola said
emphatically drawing murmured assent from other lawyers in court.
He said if the newspaper published such damaging statement credited to
Falae, it was the duty of his lawyers to advise his client to stop. "We do
not believe that the court can be intimidated by anybody. But we have a
duty to ensure that this trial should proceed without unnecessary
intimidation by the press. We do not want people to come at the end of the
day to insinuate unfairness and injustice in the trial."
Putting a stop to the debate, Justice Musdapher said the court appreciated
that the matter before it was one of "great public interest" and the whole
world was interested in it, and that justice should not be polluted. The
court also recognised the enormity of its task in resolving the dispute.
He stressed, however, that time was running out for the court and it would
not wish to be distracted in its assignment. Consequently, the press
should allow the court do its work while reporting the proceedings fairly
and accurately.
Justice Musdapher stressed, however, that no matter what anybody said, the
court would not be intimidated or cajoled into doing anything that might
compromise justice in the case. He warned that nobody should do anything
to scandalise or intimidate the court in reaching a just decision in the
matter.
He also agreed that there was no need to invite The Guardian and further
appealed to the lawyer for cooperation in ensuring that the case was
determined within the time statutorily allowed the court.
The court then invited Ajayi to make his application to amend paragraph 8
of Falae's petition to indicate that "the consensus among the groups of
national and international observers and monitoring groups who monitored
the elections was that the voter turn-out was not more than 20 per cent."
In the petition, the percentage figure had been 55 and Ajayi said when the
whole paragraph was read together, the former figure was not meaningful.
He relied on court rules and paragraph 50(5) of schedules 4 to Decree 6 of
1999.
The court had asked him whether to take the motion as "fully argued," but
Ajayi said he would like to argue it, not knowing how the mind of the
court was working. The amendment, he said, was necessitated by "pure
typographical error and amounted to inconsequential formal amendment to
correct a slip."
Opposing the application, Babalola, for Obasanjo, argued on four grounds,
saying that by the affidavit sworn to in support of Falae's request a
lawyer in Ajayi's team deposed that the mistake in the figure was made by
the secretary. Babalola therefore said that the best person to adduce that
reason was the secretary himself.
According to Babalola: "A desponent who swears to an affidavit does not
enjoy greater privilege than a witness in the box." He insisted that the
affidavit, based on hearsay evidence, was not admissible as was the
principle in Busari V. Oseni 1992 and UBA Ltd V. SGB Ltd., 1996 6 NWLR Pt
478 P. 381.
Secondly, Babalola said that contrary to Ajayi's submission, the proposed
amendment, in so far as it related to a figure of more than 31 million
votes - which is the difference between the 55 per cent originally in the
petition and the 20 per cent Ajayi sought to replace it with - was
"substantial." He said it was not a question of typographical error and as
such, it was too late for Falae to propose it.
Thirdly, Babalola said since his client had filed a defence to the
original allegation, it would be wrong in law for the court to allow the
amendment which was intended to "overreach the defence," which had already
disputed any consensus of figures among election monitoring groups.
He also submitted that there was no correlation between the figures 55 and
20 and that made the application "unmeritorious." He asked the court to
dismiss it.
In his contribution, Sofola who had earlier indicated that he would not be
opposing the application for amendment, gave reasons for his position,
saying that although his clients (INEC) had in its defence described
Falae's contention on the figures as "completely false," the application
was not substantial.
The court rose for 15 minutes to consider the submission and upon return,
Justice Musdapher held that Falae's request did not bring in a new ground
for the petition and did not import substantial change in the case. "I am
satisfied that the amendment will only give meaning to the intention of
the applicant" and "it does not overreach."
He allowed the amendment, stressing that there was no need to use legal
technicalities to obstruct justice. The four other justices - Aloma
Mouktar, George Oguntade, Thompson Akpabio and Dennis Edozie - all agreed.
Arguing his own application to strike out the petition on the grounds that
proper parties had not been brought to court, and that consequently the
court lacked jurisdiction, Babalola said in an election petition, the
court exercised a "purely statutory jurisdiction" and that as a result,
all preliminary statutory steps towards presenting a petition were
"critically foundamental" and must be complied with as was held in the
case of Eminue v. Nkereuwen, Digest of Cases by Fawehinmi, Vol. 5 P.723.
He stressed that failure to join necessary and statutory parties was "a
fundamental error which is incurable" and, unlike ordinary civil cases,
"it is not merely a case of non-joinder which the court may be called upon
to rectify." Where there is such failure, "the court is duty-bound to
strike out the petition," he added.
Reminded by Justice Musdapher that the Supreme Court had held in several
cases that where there were other paragraphs which could sustain the
complaint, it would not be struck out, Babalola insisted that the
offending paragraphs referring to various election malpractices and
without naming specific respondents be struck out.
Besides, he urged the court to apply its decision in Chuba Egolum's
petition to Falae's case since the facts were the same. In the Egolum
case, the court had ruled that he would not be allowed to lead evidence on
misconduct of electoral officials who were not named as respondents in the
petition. But the whole petition was struck out on grounds that Egolum had
no locus standi.
Later, Babalola abandoned his request seeking to strike out the petition
but maintained that Falae should not be allowed to lead evidence on
paragraphs in his petition alleging serious malpractices and offences
against presiding officers in states who were not named as respondents.
Replying, Ajayi urged the court to look closely at provisions of section
50(2) of Decree 6 which provides that any electoral officer, presiding
officer or returning officer against whom allegations of misconduct is
made was "deemed" to be a party and "shall be joined" as a respondent.
Reminded by Justice Musdapher that the argument "goes against the grain"
of the court's ruling in Egolum's case, Ajayi said he agreed that having
made a determination in another case with similar facts, the court might
feel inclined or bound to follow the earlier decision.
Ajayi insisted that by S.50(2) an electoral officer or any person against
whose conduct a complaint was made is "for all practical and legal
purposes, a party to the proceedings" by virtue of the word "deemed" which
had a meaning attached to it in law and for which legal effect should be
given.
He referred to Savannah Bank v. Ajilo, a 1989 decision of the Supreme
Court, on the effect of "deemed." Asked by the court what the effect of
"shall be joined" should be in relation to the petition, Ajayi said it was
"an empty formality" and he did not have to join them before they could be
regarded as parties. He, however, agreed with the court that in law he
could not lead evidence on allegations bordering on criminal conduct
against INEC officials whom he had not specifically named as respondents.
Sofola blamed Ajayi for taking the court's time when the issue involved
was "simple and straightforward." He stressed that all the court needed do
was to follow its decision in the Egolum case. He also insisted that the
expression "shall be joined" in the decree was "compulsory, a command and
was mandatory" for the petitioner to lead evidence on his complaint.
Ruling after a consideration in chambers of the argument, Justice Mouktar
held that the court had no cause to depart from its decision in
and that for the avoidance of doubt, no evidence of misconduct should be
led in respect of 10 paragraphs in Falae's petition in which no respondent
was named. All four other justices endorsed the ruling.
As Babalola prepared to move his request for "further particulars" to
enable his client fully grasp the allegations against him, he was asked by
the court if he thought the application was still necessary since his
defence appeared to have dealt elaborately on issues raised in the
petition.
Babalola noted the point but observed that it was within his rights to ask
for particulars. He said, however, that in view of time constraint, he was
prepared to withdraw the motion. It was consequently struck out, leaving
room for hearing of the substantive petition to start.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard
Call Falae to order, says INEC lawyer
By Sufuyan Ojeifo & Rotimi Ajayi, Abuja
COUNSEL to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mr.
Kehinde Sofola (SAN) yesterday asked the Court of Appeal hearing the
petition filed by Chief Olu Falae against General Olusegun Obasanjo (rtd.)
to call Chief Falae to order over, "inflammatory statements" made by him
on the case in court.
The court also yesterday admitted evidence from Chief Falae's first
witness, one Dr. Samuel Olusola Omobomi, who produced the statistical
table showing the population of Nigeria and other parameters on page seven
of the petition filed by Falae.
High point of his evidence was that difference between the number of
registered voters and the number of population over 18 years and above was
in excess of 5,666,341.
However, the Court of Appeal adjourned proceedings in the substantive suit
till this morning as other witnesses for the petitioner were not in court.
Sofola cautions Falae
At the start of pre-trial proceedings, Chief Sofola complained to the
court about Falae's statements in the press, which he said were capable of
painting the court in a bad light.
He said "my attention has been drawn to the publication in the Guardian
Newspapers of March 20, 1999 in the front page under the banner headline:
"Falae in London, promises evidence of poll
"What I am complaining about very bitterly is that my client has been
shown to the whole world, painted in bad colour that they are colluding
with the court to perpetrate fraud in this case.
"There is no iota of truth in this allegation. It is false and I do not
think it will be right to put fire on the roof of this country by
unguarded statements.
"There is also another publication in the Guardian of March 29 front page
under the headline: "Falae may file contempt charge against INEC chief.
"My Lord, I did say and I want to refer to your earlier advice that we
should not conduct the case on the pages of newspapers.
"I do know my Lord, that when a case is in the court, you don't t touch
it. I want to appeal to Falae's counsel as senior members of the Bar to
discourage their clients from making these kind of volatile statements.
"The whole world is looking at us and wants the case to be decided and to
make it appear as there is a hidden agendum is not in our interest."
Chief Ajayi put up a defence but agreed that "what the newspaper reported
(yesterday) in any case, is a reflection of what we want to do this
morning (yesterday morning).
"It is quite unlikely that one of my counsel could have spoken to the
press under pressure. They keep asking us the position because it is a
matter of public interest.
"I certainly say I have not seen the account but what Sofola read does not
in any way offer disrespect for the court or in any way prejudice the
matter, we are being frustrated by the sole subordinate officer of INEC in
this matter."
Chief Babalola said that the two publications referred to have "one in
focus: to scandalise the court, to frustrate the proceedings and blackmail
all those who are involved in this case."
He added: "I don't believe you can be intimidated but we all owe it a
duty, not to sponsor intimidating publications. My learned friend has
substantially confirmed the publication."
At this point, Justice Musdapher sought the cooperation of the counsel,
pointing out that 45 minutes had been wasted already on the matter.
"We have seven days to hear and determine this petition we can only appeal
for cooperation and understanding to do our brief within the stipulated
time.
"I don't think there is any need to call the Guardian to come and
explain."
Falae's first witness gives evidence
Dr. Samuel Omobomi, Falae's first witness said yesterday that the
difference between the number of registered voters and the number of
population over 18 years and above stood at 5,666,341.
He gave the analysis of the statistical table he produced for the purpose
of Falae's petition while giving evidence in the hearing of the petition
yesterday.
Dr. Omobomi, who was cross-examined by Chief Sofola, admitted that his
statistics based on the information he got from the Federal Office of
Statistics, Abuja fell flat in the face of the voters' register compiled
by INEC.
He considered INEC's register as more authentic than the projected
calculated figures in the table produced.
Proceeding adjourned till today
Hearing in the substantive petition filed by Chief Olu Falae, challenging
the election of Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo was yesterday stalled one hour
forty-five minutes after it started as Chief Falae's witnesses were said
to have gone to sleep following a long tedious journey.
Falae's lead counsel, Chief G.O.K. Ajayi (SAN), who disclosed this to the
court, pleaded that the court be adjourned till today to enable him meet
with the group of witnesses before appearance in court to give evidence.
He addressed the court shortly after the petitioner's first witness, Dr.
Samuel Olusola Omobomi, who produced the statistical table showing the
population of Nigeria and other parameters on page 7 of the petition, had
given evidence and cross-examined by Chief Afe Babalola (SAN) and Mr.
Kehinde Sofola (SAN).
Chief Ajayi's colleague Chief Solomon Asemota (SAN) handled the opening
session of the hearing at which Dr. Omobomi was admitted into the witness
box as the first and only witness at yesterday's hearing.
Immediately, after he (Omobomi) was asked to step down from the witness
box, Chief Ajayi stood up and declared: "My Lord, I am afraid that the
court may have to adjourn till tomorrow.
"The group of witness who were expected to give evidence all the way from
the South left yesterday and only arrived some minutes ago because their
vehicles broke down on the way.
"If you noticed my Lord, I did come at the start of the hearing. I was
outside to receive them. They were so tired and I have asked them to go to
their hotel to sleep and freshen up."
Chief Babalola said that "It is my wish that this matter is concluded with
finality. We may have to work till 2.00 a.m.
I appeal to my learned friend to bring everybody tomorrow morning (today)
and not that he will bring people from the South here and tell the court
that he is still awaiting people from the North."
Chief Sofola did not object to the adjournment but only wanted the court
to put it on record that Chief Ajayi, the petitioners' counsel asked for
the adjournment.
Justice Dahiru Musdapher granted the request and further proceeding was
adjourned till this morning.
Justice Musdapher ruled that "by the provision of Section 109, the
document sought to be tendered is a public document and it satisfied the
provision of Section 111 of the Evidence Act and I rule that it be
admitted in evidence."
Court grants Falae
The court had earlier granted, Chief Falae permission to amend the
affidavit in support of his petition.
In a short ruling by Justice Dahiru Musdapher, Chief Falae was allowed to
amend paragraphs 8 of the petition.
Petitioner's counsel, Chief G.O. K. Ajayi (SAN) had sought the approval of
the court to amend the paragraph relating to the percentage of voters
turnout at the polls.
The paragraph reads "the petitioner further avers that the figures in
respect of votes cast at the election as released by the 4th respondent
show a voter turn-out of between 24.58 per cent and 88.59 per cent
relative to the registered voters with an average of 55 per cent turnout
whereas the consensus amongst the groups of national and international
observers and monitoring groups who monitored the elections was that the
voter turnout was not more than 55 per cent."
Chief Ajayi told the court that he was amending the paragraph to state 20
per cent instead of 55 per cent.
Opposing the application, counsel to Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo (rtd.), Chief
Afe Babalola (SAN) told the court the petitioner's plea was illegal and
should not be granted as amendment was not allowed at commencement of
hearing of the case.
However, Justice Mustapha said "though in paragraph 150 of Schedule 4,
Decree Number 6 of 1999 amendment is not allowed after the expiration of
the period specified under Section 49 of the decree but there are
exceptions.
"It is my view that this amendment falls under this exception in that it
has not introduced a new ground of petition as enumerated under Section
51(I) of the decree.
Furthermore, it has not involved any substantial change in the petition in
that by paragraph 13 of the petition, the petitioner alleged that not more
than 20 per cent of the total voters turned out to vote at the election in
question.
"I am satisfied that the amendment as proposed will only give meaning and
the intention of the applicant as made manifest in paragraph 13 of the
petition.
"The function of the court is to do substantial justice without undue
adherence to technicalities.
"I accordingly allow the application, the amendment is allowed, the 55 per
cent in the last line of paragraph 8 is hereby amended to read 20 per
cent. We make no order as to cost."
However, Chief Falae's petition suffered a setback as the court ruled that
he could not lead evidence in respect of alleged electoral misconduct in
states other than Edo, Kaduna and Niger
In an unanimous ruling by Justice (Mrs.) M.A. Muktar, the court ordered
that since Chief Falae did not join the electoral officials of the states
other than Edo, Kaduna and Niger as respondents in his petition, no
evidence of any electoral misconduct could be entertained against them.
The order of the court was sequel to an application brought by Gen.
Olusegun Obasanjo (rtd.) urging the court to either strike out the
petition entirely or make an order relating to the allegation of
misconduct contained in paragraphs 9, 12 to 20 of Falae's petition.
Justice Muktar said, "ruling on an application by the first respondent for
an order striking out the petition on the ground that the court lacks
jurisdiction to entertain and consider the application.
"In the alternative, he is seeking an order striking out paragraphs 9, 12
to 20 of the petition on the ground of incompetence and non-compliance
with the mandatory provision of the decree.
"And in further alternative, an order directing that the petitioner cannot
lead evidence on matters as related to facts contained in paragraphs 9, 12
to 20 of the petition in states other than Kaduna, Niger and Edo."
Gen. Obasanjo's lawyer, Chief Afe Babalola (SAN) had in the course of
arguing the case abandoned the first leg of his prayers to concentrate on
the other.
Back to top
Vanguard Transmitted 30 March, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobolaji E. Aluko
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPMGN SPOTLIGHT 09: The Falae/Obasanjo Presidential Petition
March 31, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post Express
Category: News
Date of Article: 03/31/99
Topic: Court Strikes Out Motion of Obasanjo's Lawyer
Author:
Full Text of Article:
THE Constitutional Court on Monday in Abuja struck out a motion filed by
Chief Afe Babalola, counsel to president-elect, Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo,
asking it to throw out the petition against the election of his client on
the ground that it has no jurisdiction.
Justice Mariam Mouktar, who read the ruling, said the court had no option
than to strike out the prayer because Babalola had abandoned it.
She said that while arguing the three prayers contained in the motion
paper, Babalola did not say anything on the issue of jurisdiction, holding
that his silence on it made the judges to conclude that he had abandoned
the prayer.
"The learned counsel for the applicant had earlier abandoned his first
prayer which is on lack of jurisdiction and I hereby strike it out," she
ruled.
"The learned counsel for the applicant had earlier abandoned his first
prayer which is on lack of jurisdiction and I hereby strike it out," she
ruled.
Mouktar said the second prayer which sought to restrict interrogation of
electoral officers to only those states mentioned in the petition, "is in
order and is hereby granted."
"For the avoidance of doubt, there is no evidence of allegations of
misconduct against electoral officers except those who have been made
parties to the petition," she said, adding: "All other complaints
concerning officials not made parties, are irrelevant."
"In this connection," she said it was appropriate to re-inforce the
decision of Obaseki, a Supreme Court justice, who in the case between
Omoboriowo and Ajasin, in 1984, held that no person against whom no
allegation of misconduct is made, shall be brought to court for
interrogation.
She said the effect of not joining the returning officers before
allegations of misconduct were made against them was proof that the
misconduct would not be entertained by the court.
"In the circumstance, I have no cause to depart from my earlier ruling and
it is hereby adopted," she held.
Earlier, Babalola had argued that the court should be bound by its earlier
ruling not to allow evidence to be taken from those not named in the
petition as having perpetrated or aided malpractices in the February 27,
presidential election.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nigerian court rules on evidence in election petition
Tuesday, 30-Mar-1999 8:45AM
ABUJA, March 30 (AFP) - A top Nigerian court has ruled that evidence from
only three of the country's 36 states would be admissible in a challenge
to presidential election results, court officials said Tuesday, in a
ruling seen as a setback to the challenge.
Former finance minister Olu Falae filed the challenge earlier this month,
seeking to overturn the results of the February 27 election announced
March 1.
According to the results declared by the Independent National Electoral
Commission (INEC), Falae lost, beaten by former military ruler and retired
general Olusegun Obasanjo.
In a petition launched two weeks ago, Falae cited massive electoral
irregularities in 24 of the country's 36 states, and named Obasanjo, INEC
chief Ephraim Akpata and electoral officials from three of the 24 named
states as defendants.
In a ruling handed down Monday, the Abuja Appeals Court, which is hearing
the petition, said evidence relating to Niger, Edo and Kaduna states only
would be admitted, because only in those states had electoral officials
been formally joined in court.
Lawyers for both sides said that the ruling appeared to dim chances of
success for Falae's challenge because the overall results of the election
would be less likely to be affected by the outcome of the trial, which is
expected to be known at the end of the week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Guardian
Wednesday, March 31, 1999
INEC denies Falae counsel's claims on access to records
NEITHER the Niger State office of the Independent National Electoral
Commission (INEC) nor the Abuja headquarters violated a court ruling on
inspection of ballot papers by agents of Chief Olu Falae, INEC said
yesterday as it tried to absolve itself from blame.
INEC stressed that it would not disobey any court order and would not be a
stumbling block to Falae to establish his case, in the interest of
justice.
Public Affairs Director of the commission Steve Osemeke said in a
four-page statement that it was not true that the Niger Resident Electoral
Commissioner, Dr. Anugwelem denied Falae's team access to electoral
documents as ordered by the Court of Appeal, Abuja.
Osemeke said: 'The allegation by the counsel to the petitioner as
contained in his letter to the Secretary of INEC is self-contradictory and
exposes the hollowness of the said allegation.'
Upon receiving the report of one of Falae's counsels that went to Niger
State for the inspection last weekend, leading lawyer, Chief Solomon
Asemota (SAN) formally complained to INEC Secretary, Alhaji Adamu Muazu,
and told him that lack of co-operation from the state branch of INEC was
against the wishes of the court.
The INEC statement said that the petitioners were aware as indicated in
their letter of complaint that the necessary ballot papers were not in
actual possession of the commissioner and that he could not have made
available ballot papers which were in various local government areas for
inspection at the material time.
'The learned counsel expected the Resident Electoral Commissioner to do
the impossible merely because he admitted rightly or wrongly that the
electoral law required him to be in custody of the ballot papers. There is
a world of difference between being in actual possession and being in
constructive possession of any document,' Osemeke said.
He added that the commissioner was not in actual possession of the ballot
papers.
His statement continued: 'The allegation by the counsel to the petitioner
as contained in his letter to the Secretary of INEC is self-contradictory
and exposes the hollowness of the said allegation. The relevant portion of
the letter in question reads: -Even though Dr. Anugwelem, the
Commissioner, said that he was aware of the visit, he insisted that the
ballot papers were in the various Local Government Areas and thus were not
available for inspection. He urged our team to go to the 25 Local
Government Areas of the state for inspection. Dr. Anugwelem said that he
was aware that the electoral law required the Resident Electoral
Commissioner to be in custody of the ballot papers, but nevertheless
remained unyielding...'
'The Commissioner was not in actual possession of the ballot papers. The
counsel has not established that the Resident Electoral Commissioner was
in custody of the ballot papers. The admission, rightly or wrongly, that
the law required him to be in custody of the ballot papers does not mean
that he was infact in custody of them.
'It is also relevant to state that the order of the Court of Appeal did
not require the Resident Electoral Commissioner to produce for inspection
documents which were not in his actual possession. The order of the court
reads thus: -That the petitioner/applicant is hereby allowed to inspect
the listed documents in the Motion paper under the custody of the second
Respondent, the Chief Electoral Officer of the Federation and or in the
custody of Electoral Commissioner in the state or other electoral officer
throughout the Federation. -That the first Respondent or his agent/agents
are allowed to be present at such inspections'.'
It pointed out that the court 'in its wisdom made the above order knowing
full well that no one official of INEC could be in actual possession of
all the documents.
'It is also relevant to state that the Resident Electoral Commissioner had
transmitted all the Form EC 8 series which were in his possession to the
headquarters at Abuja. These are among the documents which the
representatives of the petitioner are currently inspecting at the
Commission's headquarters.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard
How Obasanjo bribed voters, by witnesses
By Sufuyan Ojeifo & Rotimi Ajayi, Abuja
THE Court of Appeal, Abuja looking into the petition on the February 27
presidential elections heard yesterday how President-elect, General
Olusegun Obasanjo (rtd.) allegedly gave out food items to potential voters
with a view to influencing them.
Three witnesses, all from Abeokuta, hometown, of Gen. Obasanjo made the
allegation while testifying for Chief Olu Falae.
But an unimpressed Chief Kehinde Sofola (SAN), lead counsel to INEC
lamented that the Egbas were their own worst enemies, while the court
offered to extend its sitting till 10 clock tonight to enable Chief Falaes
counsel, Chief Ajayi close his case.
One of the principal witnesses, Mr. Niyi Edun, ADs supervisor in Abeokuta
South Local Government Area alleged that on the eve of the election, Gen.
Obasanjo sent to Ibara Ward 15 where he (witness) voted, 25 bags of rice,
25 bags of salt and 50 bags of gari for distribution to prospective
voters.
According to him, the food items were delivered by the PDP's publicity
secretary in the local government area, Mr. Bankole Akinjobi.
The bags of rice, which sample was displayed in the court and admitted as
exhibit, had an inscription "Vote Obasanjo for President" and PDP
He, however, admitted under cross-examination that electorate in the ward
voted according to their conscience and that the election was peaceful in
the area.
Giving similar testimony, Messrs. Kolawole Ijaola, a trader and Jimoh
Oyedele, a carpenter, principal witnesses six and seven, respectively told
the court that equal number of bags of rice, salt and gari were sent to
their wards by Gen. Obasanjo's agents.
Mr. Oyedele told the court that he was personally given a bag of rice and
salt by one Mr. Abayomi Kolawole and that he (Oyedele) immediately cooked
the rice and ate.
While cross-examining, Mr. Oyedele, Chief. Sofola (SAN) said, "I put it to
you that you Abeokuta people do not like yourselves. The three of you from
Abeokuta, have talked about rice, gari and salt in your evidence.
"You see, I schooled in Abeokuta for many years to know that you, Abeokuta
people don't love one another. The stories you have all told us - all the
three of you from Abeokuta, have been concocted, fabricated and designed
to destroy one of your own."
Also, Tuesday, representatives of the Nigerian Tribune and Concord
newspapers testified before the court on the political adverts carried by
their newspapers on the election day.
Representative of the Nigerian Tribune, Mr. Olufemi Ojewuyi told the court
that the party's publicity department had on Sunday, February 21, 1999
brought six advert materials to the Abuja office of the Tribune.
He added that the party requested that the adverts be taken from
.. [incomplete]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Guardian
Wednesday, March 31, 1999
Witnesses indict PDP on adverts, inducement
>From Kunle Sanyaolu,
Special Projects Editor, Abuja
PEOPLES Democratic Party (PDP), the political platform on which Gen.
Olusegun Obasanjo contested the February 27 presidential election, took
out newspaper advertisements and distributed various food items on the eve
of election, the Court of Appeal in Abuja was told yesterday.
Making the claims were three witnesses - two of them, journalists -
invited by Chief Olu Falae, Obasanjo's opponent at the polls. The All
Peoples Party (APP) candidate called the witnesses to give evidence in
support of his petition challenging the declaration of Gen. Obasanjo as
winner of the election.
Among persons who gave evidence for the petitioner yesterday were Mr Isaac
Olufemi Ojewuyi, senior political correspondent of Nigerian Tribune; and
Mr Ayo Aluko-Olokun, managing editor of Concord Press. Both testified that
few days preceding the disputed polls, agents of PDP placed advertisement
insertions soliciting voters' support for Obasanjo. The insertions ran
from days preceding the election up to the polls day.
Also testifying, a member of Alliance for Democracy (AD) in Ibara II ward,
Abeokuta South council area, Mr Niyi Edun, told the court that less than
24 hours to the election, PDP agents met with community leaders in the
ward and presented them with 25 packets of salt, 25 packets of rice and 50
packets of garri, to secure their electoral support for Obasanjo.
A librarian with the National Library of Nigeria, Mr. Godwin Okafor, also
testified at Falae's instance - basically to present certified true copies
of ThisDay, Weekend Concord, Tribune and Vanguard of February 27, 1999 to
the court.
The witnesses are among at least 33 lined up by Falae to argue the
petition in which he is seeking to be declared rightful winner of the
polls, or that the election be voided on grounds of fraud and electoral
irregularities.
Two nights ago, Falae formally opened his case by calling a former
assistant director at the Federal Office of Statistics, Dr Samuel Olusola
Omoboni, who picked holes in the number of voters registered by the
Independent National Electoral Commissioner (INEC) - a respondent in the
petition - on the basis of projections from the 1991 census figure.
Ojewuyi was the second witness. Led in evidence by Falae's chief counsel,
Chief Godwin Olusegun Kolawole Ajayi (SAN), the witness said on Sunday,
February 21, 1999, a lady simply called "Ngozi," said to be working in the
publicity department of PDP, brought six advertisement slots to him at the
Tribune office.
The insertions were meant for publication apiece from Monday, February 22,
to Saturday, February 27, according to Ojewuyi who identified the last
slot, depicting Obasanjo as "the man," February 27 as "the day," and
generally canvassing votes for the PDP candidate.
The six pre-election advertisement publications and the Nigerian Tribune
copy of February 27 were admitted in evidence after the court overruled an
objection by Mr Kehinde Sofola (SAN), leading counsel to INEC and its 58
officers named as respondents in the petition. Sofola had argued that the
newspaper was a public document which, under Section 109 (b) of the
Evidence Act, could be properly tendered only by an official of the
National Library which is charged with keeping records of such document.
Ajayi disagreed, on the premise that what was tendered was a printed copy
and, by legal precedent, did not require a public officer to formally
present it.
Assisting the court, Babalola had said he did not object to the newspaper
being tendered because the Supreme Court held in the case of Ogbuniya v.
Okudo 3 LRN 318 that newspapers were not within the definition of public
documents.
Following admission of the newspaper into evidence, Ojewuyi further
testified that it was printed in Ibadan, with copies for distribution
usually flown to Abuja. But he did not know the time of arrival in Abuja
on the election day because of the restriction on movement.
Cross-examined by Babalola, Ojewuyi said although he had been in Abuja for
four years, he started working for Tribune in March 1997. He knew "Senator
Anietie Okon," publicity secretary of PDP, but did not know of
advertisement placement form meant to be filled by prospective
advertisers. Neither did he know that such an advertiser must produce an
original artwork or sign a payment form.
He also acknowledged that the Tribune of February 27 contained an inserted
leaflet or handbill campaigning and soliciting votes for Falae. In colour,
the handbill had inscription such as "Vote Olu Falae for president,"
"well-tested" and "disciplined" which amounted to "another advertisement"
in the newspaper.
The PDP, according to the witness, had not paid for the advertisement. He
also said he (Ojewuyi) monitored the registration of voters by INEC, as a
journalist, but did not himself register. He remembered that INEC
displayed a list of voters for verification.
Sofola did not cross-examine the witness.
Re-examined by Ajayi, Ojewuyi said he did not know how the pro-Falae
leaflets got into the newspaper. Also responding to further
cross-examination by Babalola, he said he would not know if the handbill
was inserted from the newspaper's headquarters.
Similarly, Aluko-Olokun explained that on Tuesday, preceeding the election
day, his political correspondent, Gboyega Amoboye, brought into the office
six advert copies meant for publication from the following day -
Wednesday. The court admitted artworks of the advertisements as exhibits.
The witness confirmed that the National Concord and Weekend Concord
published the copies. He identified the slot on Saturday, February 27,
saying there was a difference between Obasanjo's photograph used and the
one sent in the art copy. The reason was because the newspaper's
headquarters in Lagos substituted the photograph in view of the fact that
the original one was faxed and was not well received. The practice of
using substituted photograph was not new, according to him.
He also testified that after the adverts were published, the newspaper
prepared invoices to PDP which has responded by paying part of the money.
But cross-examined by Babalola, Aluko-Olokun said he did not come with the
invoices as he knew only on Monday that he would testify before the court.
He had no written instruction on the advertisement, all of which the {
published. He did not come with the newspapers, and did not know who
inscribed "adverts 1-6" on the artwork. Although he was an "editorial
person," he was the overall head of the newspapers Abuja unit, and he had
records of payment of other advertisements taken out in the newspaper by
the PDP.
The cross-examination of Aluko-Olokun continued into the night yesterday.
Testifying on the issue of rice, salt and garri said to have been
distributed by or on behalf of Obasanjo, Edun, the AD agent in Ibara,
Abeokuta South, told the court that at 5 p.m on February 26, 1999, the
public relations officer (PRO) of PDP in Abeokuta, Mr. Bankole Akinjobi,
convened a meeting of all market leaders - men and women - at Ibara town
hall. The meeting was attended by 100 community leaders including himself
(Edun), Mrs. Osiyemi, leader of the market women, Mr. Saubana Odunlami,
secretary of AD in the ward and two PDP members, Messrs. Olawale and Kola
Bankole described as "twin brothers."
According to Edun, Akinjobi explained to the gathering that the purpose of
the meeting was to intimate the community about the assistance required of
them to ensure that PDP won the election in the council area. He
(Akinjobi) had gone round the community with his fellow PDP members,
including Olawale Bankole who contested and lost in the last House of
Representatives polls.
Edun, led in evidence by Ajayi, said: "After the deliberation, they
(Bankole Akinjobi and his group) gave us two large nylon bags which were
tied. When they untied the nylons, they brought out a bag containing 25
pieces of packed rice, 25 pieces of packed salt and 50 packs of garri. The
people said we should give them to those who attended the meeting.
"Later, I called Akinjobi and told him that we do not share our things
like that. He should allow us to dishich they gave me. I went to show them
to AD leaders."
The three parcels marked with inscriptions "Vote Obasanjo for president"
and with PDP logo, were tendered and admitted as exhibits after the
leading counsels to Obasanjo and INEC said they had no objection. Sofola
had added humorously that "the garri doesn't look like one from Ijebu."
Later, according to Edun, whose evidence-in-chief continued, he and
Bankole Akinjobi had met when the latter asked him whether the gift had
been distributed. Edun said he simply replied: "Never mind, we shall win."
Babalola, however, objected to the admissibility of the evidence, saying
it raised new issue which was not pleaded - an argument supported by
Sofola who added that such a new ground should have been pleaded so that
the respondent would not be taken unaware.
In a briefly-considered decision, the court overruled the objection and
admitted the statement into evidence. Justice Thompson Akpabio said the
evidence was a continuation of an earlier one by the witness to establish
Falae's averment in paragraph 5 of the petition.
Continuing his evidence, Edun said he met Olawale Bankole again during the
election at Olubara's palace polling station as a PDP agent. He left the
place when he did not observe anything of significance. He (Edun) was then
going round as an AD supervisor in his ward.
Under cross-examination by Babalola, Edun said he was "an ordinary member"
of AD though "a committed and registered member." He affirmed suggestion
that he worked hard to ensure AD's success in the presidential polls
because it was his wish that Falae should win. He also agreed that he was
disappointed that Falae lost.
"I heard, after he lost the election, that he filed a petition against the
election. I was ready to assist him in winning the petition, as a
committed party member." He also explained that with 15 polling booths in
his Ibara II ward, each with at least 500 registered voters, there were at
least 7,500 voters in the ward.
In reply to a question put to him by Babalola, he said:
"One hundred people were present at the meeting of March 26. They belonged
to different parties. I voted the following day. I am a supervisor for the
ward on election day. I recognised only three PDP members already
mentioned. I did not accompany them elsewhere until the election day. I
agree that the goods bear no signature, only the party logo."
He added that he had not attended social gathering for more than a year.
Also replying to questions from Babalola, Edun said although he believed
there were screen writers in Abeokuta, he had no business with them and he
could not confirm whether the inscriptions on the cellophane bags were
similar to what screen writers wrote. But he agreed that Bankole Akinjobi
was not the maker of the inscription although he knew him to be a printer.
Edun said he did not know that giving out gifts on election day was a
criminal offence. He also said he did not read election guidelines and he
did not know if the guidelines were given to every ward.
According to him, executive members of AD were not at the February 26
meeting. Nevertheless, he reported the gifts to them although they did not
report to the police. The AD-APP won in Abeokuta South local government.
Also cross-examined by Sofola, Edun said he could not bring to court all
the bags of rice, salt and gari presented to the community because they
had been shared. He did not eat any of them as his share was what he
brought to court.
He agreed with Sofola's suggestions that despite the gifts, the register
of voters was used for the election, voters were allowed to vote for
candidate of their choice, the election was peaceful in the local
government and INEC's handling of it was "satisfactory."
In particular, he agreed that "nobody sold his conscience" in the local
government before voting and that distribution of salt, rice and garri did
not stop the people from voting according to their conscience.
Another witness, Mr Godwin Okafor, a librarian at the National Library in
Lagos, produced certified true copies as well as the original issues of
the February 27 edition of ThisDay, Concord, Tribune and Vanguard, all of
which were admitted in evidence.
Cross-examined by Babalola, Okafor said that as a librarian, he did not
investigate the source, nor was he responsible for the contents of the
newspapers.
Two more witnesses testified later, claiming that they were given
foodstuffs by the PDP to influence their voting at the presidential
election.
The witnesses, Mr Kolawole Iyanda and Mr Jimoh Oyedele, petition witnesses
six and seven, told the court that a day before the presidential election,
PDP party faithfuls allegedly distributed packs of rice, salt and gari to
them as an inducement, to secure their votes for Obasanjo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard
Withdraw suit against Obasanjo, Adebayo urges Falae
By Tunde Olawuni
FORMER military governor of old Western Region, Major General Adeyinka
Adebayo yesterday made a fresh appeal to the defeated presidential
candidate of APP, Chief Olu Falae to withdraw the legal action against the
electoral victory of Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo.
Major-General Adebayo who addressed a news conference at his Ikeja
residence also pleaded with the leadership of the Pan -Yoruba group,
Afenifere to prevail on Chief Falae to "sheath his sword any bury the
hatchet".
He said "it is my view that Chief Olu Falae has made his protest loud
enough and this has been recognized locally and internationally.
"In the spirit of sportsmanship, and in consideration of the political
expediency of the time, Chief Olu Falae should now withdraw the legal
action against the election at the Tribunal and join hands with the
president elect to restore dignity to the transition process".
Major-General Adebayo who said that taking such action "will nip any
planned disruption of the transition programme in the bud" however,
appealed to General Obasanjo to be magnanimous in victory by extending his
hands of fellowship "to his aggrieved brother" and accommodate him in
government.
He noted "this is the time for the leadership of Afenifere as custodian of
the popular will of the Yoruba electorate to show it has learnt its
lessons.
"Afenifere leaders should rise to this occasion by prevailing on their
member-Olu Falae to sheath his sword and bury the hatchet".
Major-General Adebayo said, " to our people in the south-west, this is the
opportunity we have been waiting for. An opportunity to give good
leadership to the people of Nigeria. It behoves on us not to allow this
opportunity to elude us for whatever the political motive".
General Adebayo lamented that the Yoruba political leaders seemed to have
shown clearly "a lack of appreciation of the genuine concern of all
Nigerians to end military rule at the earliest possible time and usher in
a democratic government".
"They also seem to have failed to learn from history. When people fail to
learn from history. They allow history to repeat itself to the detriment
of the progress of such people, particularly when such history is
unpalatable".
Vanguard Transmitted 31 March, 1999
-----------------------------------------------------------------------