At the Osun State Election Petition Tribunal hearing on Tuesday, November 1, the counsel of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Paul Ananaba (SAN), declined consent to documents issued as Certified True Copies (CTC).
Among the documents admitted in evidence that Ananaba declined are the INEC’s Regulation and Guideline for the election, Manual for Electoral Officials, and Forms EC8As (election results for Osogbo, Ede North, and Ede South local governments).
This is as counsel for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Paul Ananaba (SAN), declined consent to documents issued as Certified True Copies (CTC) by the Commission.
At the tribunal’s hearing on Tuesday, counsel for Oyetola, Chief Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), informed the tribunal that the documentary evidence sought to be tendered had been cross-checked by the respondents, and they all agreed that it should be tendered from the bar.
He then sought to tender the documents listed on the schedule already submitted to the tribunal, including the regulations and guidelines issued by INEC for the election.
INEC’s counsel, Ananaba, subsequently objected to all the documents that had already been certified by the Commission.
Surprised by the objection, one of the judges queried, “You are objecting even to your regulations?”
Ananaba insisted on objecting to all the documents as listed in the schedule and hinted that he would give reasons for his objection in the final written address.
Counsel for Adeleke, Onyeachi Ikpeazu (SAN), and the PDP, Alex Izinyon (SAN), also objected to the admissibility of the evidence and indicated that they would give reasons in their final addresses.
Responding to their objections, Fagbemi sought to tender another piece of evidence that contained the ‘Schedule of the Documents’ to be tendered. Still, Ananaba again objected because it was never pleaded.
Surprised again, the tribunal chairman, Justice Tertsea Kume, queried the INEC counsel and referred to his record, in which the counsel informed the court that he had cross-checked the schedule of documents and had no objection.
In his ruling, the tribunal admitted in evidence all the documents tendered and marked them as exhibits.
After the ruling, the petitioners’ counsel informed the tribunal that the tendering of other documents would be continued, as the list of documents to be tendered in the next sitting had been given to the respondents’ counsel to cross-check.
