Why does it always take so long to do the right thing in that country. We want Mimiko there and we want him now. If he’s not sworn in before the end of this month, the God of Elijah will fight by fire, remember what happened to Abacha and his God complex.

What went wrong from the beginning is that Agagu should not have been left to continue pending appeal for his so called election victory has been nullified. It may seem good for Agagu to play games at court, oh and + PDP,but it is the innocent ordinary folks that are suffering the most while they languish in this state of ineptitude. This is a true test of tolerance, faith and patience. I believe we should start decrying this delay tactics now rather than later. Who knows what will happen especially to the State coffers within the coming two months pending the judgement. Nigeria beats me when it comes to justice, but we shall overcome in the end. Yes we shall.

Prof Akinnaso very rightly put it when he said that “Clearly, the public, particularly the people of Ondo State, would be well served if the Court of Appeal could consolidate the gains of the Election Petition Tribunal decision by assuring the public that the light at the end of the tunnel is not an oncoming train”. This train must arrive not only at the platforms at the appointed time but also at its final destination. We pray this is done quickly. As much as we are forced to wait till January before the hearing kicks off, we shall not tolerate flagrant abuse of the lopsided Nigerian legal system by Agagu. The whole of Ondo State and Nigeria should be told this.
I repeat again TIME WILL NOT ERASE THE MEMORY OF INJUSTICE, ABUSE OF OFFICE AND POWER, FALSIFIED ELECTION RESULTS AND EVIL DECLARATION OF A LOSER AS GOVERNOR OF ONDO STATE. AGAGU DOES NOT HOLD THE PEOPLE’S MANDATE, AND THE PEOPLE WANT THEIR CHOSEN GOVERNOR BACK ASAP. This is why the applause and celebration when in July the verdict of truth was given. That was almost four months to go, and we now have to wait 2 months and God knows when the verdict date will be after this.

One thing is clear. The handwriting is on the wall. Agagu’s appeal bluff has been called. He knows he is going to lose so all he can depend on now is delay tactics. Very low down debased method for someone who says he is a scholar. The chips are down so jinnni jinni ti ba awon asebi.

Remain blessed all lovers of justice and all true believers in Democracy. CAN WE GET RID OF AN EVIL IMPOSTOR IN ONDO STATE? YES WE CAN. ITS TIME FOR CHANGE (credits to Obama). Peace

In the case of Mimiko vs. Agagu, et al., the five-member Election Petition Tribunal, headed by Justice G. M. Nabaruma, sitting at Akure, ruled unanimously on July 25, 2008, that Dr. Olusegun Agagu was not lawfully elected Governor of Ondo State on April 14, 2007, and declared Dr. Rahman Olusegun Mimiko as the duly elected governor, having satisfied necessary requirements as stipulated in the 2006 Electoral Act.

As the case has proceeded to appeal, it is important for the general public to understand the three major legal issues upon which the Tribunal’s rulings were based. The first issue is about the validity of Ground One in Mimiko’s petition, in the light of the provision of Section 145(1) of the Electoral Act of 2006, which states that an election may be questioned on ANY of four grounds, including “(b) that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practice or non-compliance with provisions of the Act” and “(c) that the Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.”

Although the Petitioner’s wording, “malpractice and/or election not taking place at all,” would appear to be in alliance with Section 145(1)(b), the Respondents submitted that the ground is incompetent in law because the “proper” language of the Act was not employed.

The Honourable Justices toed the noble path to justice by putting substantial justice over technical considerations on the grounds that the judiciary is respected not for legalizing injustice on technical grounds but for removing injustice. Accordingly, they ruled that there is nothing sacrosanct about the phrase “corrupt practices or non-compliance” used by the drafters of the Act to require strict adherence to the usage, as opposed to “malpractice” employed by the Petitioner, which carries the same meaning. Besides, there is nowhere under the law where it was required that the phrase in the Act should be quoted verbatim.

The second issue is whether the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is ousted for non-joinder of necessary parties to the petition. Respondents contended that Mimiko failed to join specific INEC officials accused of misconduct during the election along with INEC as legal entities in their official capacity to answer the allegation of misconduct leveled against them, based on the principle of audi alterem partem, meaning, hear the other side, or no person should be condemned without a fair hearing.

The Respondents further contended that the Petitioner is not entitled to lead evidence in proof of averments directed against statutory persons who are not joined as parties. Whereas the Respondents based their arguments on authorities of cases decided under the 2002 Electoral Act, the 2006 Electoral Act, which is a clear departure from the 2002 Act, is clear on the issue. Section 144(2) of the 2006 Act provides thus:

“The person whose election is complained of is in this Act referred to as 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 necessary party, PROVIDED that where such officer or person is shown to 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.”

What is so clear from this provision is that the entity on trial is INEC and not necessarily its officials. Since the Petitioner already joined INEC, it is incumbent on INEC to invite the relevant officials as necessary witnesses in defense of its case. This provision in the 2006 Act privileges substantial justice and it is, therefore, in line with the Justices’ ruling on the first issue.

The third issue is whether the Petitioner has proved his case sufficiently enough under the law to entitle him to the relief sought, namely, nullification of results in certain disputed areas and declaring him the winner based on the number of LAWFUL votes cast at the said election, provided that the necessary provisions in the 2006 Election Act were fulfilled.

The universally acknowledged standard of proof in civil cases is “preponderance of evidence” even if the allegations are criminal in nature. The highest standard of proof, “beyond any reasonable doubts,” is only employed in criminal prosecutions. This is why, for example, O.J. Simpson was acquitted in the criminal court but found liable in civil court, based on the same facts. The standard of proof has more to do with penalty applicable in a particular type of adjudication rather than the allegation itself.

The Petitioner in the present case only needed to prove “corrupt practices or non compliance” by preponderance of evidence. This burden of proof falls into three categories: (a) the burden of production or evidentiary burden, which requires the Petitioner to establish a prima facie case; (b) the burden of persuasion, which rests on all parties to a case; and (c) the tactical burden, which requires either party to a case to prevent the court from making particular inferences from any evidence presented by providing evidence to the contrary. The Petitioner met the burden of proof in all three categories, whereas the Respondents failed to do so.

The oral evidence presented by both parties negated each other on several occasions. This led the Honorable Justices to use the documentary evidence as corroborative materials, and the documentary evidence could not be more revealing.

The documents showed incredible discrepancies, illegal voter registration cards, illegal signatories or no signatories where required, multiple voting, over-voting, falsified figures, fake election results forms, and other flagrant abuses of electoral laws that left the judges with no choice than to conclude that no credible elections could have taken place in many of the disputed areas, which are concentrated in the Southern Senatorial District, where Agagu hails from.

INEC’s figures, which were falsified by documentary evidence, indicated that the total number of votes returned from the Southern District alone was more than double the total number of votes in the Central and Northern Senatorial Districts put together. Yet the vast majority of the voters in the state reside in the latter two Districts.

The table on page 615 of the Tribunal’s judgment is the outcome of a painstaking sorting of evidence tendered before the Tribunal. The table shows no results for Ilaje and Irele local governments. They were nullified along with the results of various wards in other local governments at issue because of overwhelming evidence of substantial “corrupt practice or non-compliance with provisions of the Electoral Act.”

The post-verdict claim by the Respondents that the Honorable Justices only nullified elections in places that Agagu purportedly won is true but misleading. The truth is that those were the areas at issue in this case, and they happen to be areas where massive irregularities were proven and where illegal votes were recorded for Agagu. The cancellation of these votes affirms a legal principle-that no one should be allowed to profit from illegal acts.

Throughout the proceedings, the Respondents never contested election results in areas won by Mimiko, which opened only the areas purportedly won by Agagu to litigation. In their zeal to prove that credible elections took place throughout the state, the Respondents even ironically presented witnesses to the effect that the election in some of the units won by the Petitioner was free and fair. This is a strategy the Respondents might have regretted.

However, the Court of Appeal will only deal with issues of law. No new evidence not adduced at the trial court may be presented on appeal. Any unbiased observer, who has carefully read the Tribunal’s 620-page judgment in this case, would easily conclude that the case before the Court of Appeal is straightforward enough. Clearly, the public, particularly the people of Ondo State, would be well served if the Court of Appeal could consolidate the gains of the Election Petition Tribunal decision by assuring the public that the light at the end of the tunnel is not an oncoming train.

Prof. Akinnaso teaches Anthropology and Linguistics at Temple University, Philadelphia, United States; Turton is a USA-based Attorney, admitted to the practice of law in both Nigeria and America.

Nigba wo ni maku o ni ku. Asiko Oluwa lo ju.

Our governor Elect, your eminent excellency Dr Mimiko, see this not as a wait but as a blessing for ~God has a time for all good things and in Him alone we trust.

Seems frustrating but Godly patience will win the day. By the way, who is this “new” Agagu lawyer and what happened to the old one? Just want to know. Peace oh, my Sunshine State. It is well.