Appeal Court restores Ladi Adebutu, PDP’s vote buying allegation suit against Abiodun, APC

On Monday, 19 June 2023, Justice H. N. Kanuza of the Ogun State Governorship Tribunal issued a ruling on the issue of vote buying during the March 18th Governorship Election in Ogun State.

On Wednesday, 16 August 2023, the appeal court sitting in Abuja issued its ruling on the appeal filed by Hon. Oladipupo Adebutu and the Peoples Democratic Party.

Since Petitioners (Ladi Adebutu & PDP) cannot raise new issue in their response to the Reply of the 2nd Respondent, Ogun State Governorship Tribunal Chairman Justice H. N. Kunaza has ruled on a motion filed by the 2nd Respondent, Dapo Abiodun asking the Tribunal to strike out the Petitioners’ Reply to the 2nd Respondent’s Reply to the petition.

Chief Gordy Uche, SAN, counsel for the petitioners, stated before the tribunal that the petitioners had not added any new issues to the case by filing a reply, but rather had just responded to a new matter that had been added by the second respondent. The Tribunal agreed with Prof. Taiwo Osipitan, SAN, the 2nd Respondent’s counsel, and decided in favor of the 2nd Respondent, striking out the petitioner’s reply to the 2nd Respondent’s reply to the petition.

Judgment was handed down on August 16, 2023, following a hearing on August 3, 2023, in Abuja regarding the Appeal No. CA/IB/EPT/ GOV/OG/03/2023 filed by Oladipupo Adebutu and the PDP on July 6, 2023.

The Appeal Court upheld the petitioners’ arguments in paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, and 18 of their response to the 2nd respondent’s petition in a decision written by Justice M. B. Idris and read by Justice Aliyu Waziri.

The petitioners’ allegations of vote buying, violence at polling places, and the submission of a forged certificate to the first respondent (INEC) are all discussed in the paragraphs of their rebuttal that were upheld.

The petitioners’ response to the charge of vote-buying made by the second respondent in his response is included in the paragraphs that were upheld.

Here are the specifics of the extended paragraphs:

P2. The Petitioners disagree with the Second Respondent’s assertions in paragraph 4 of his Reply and insist that the Second Respondent’s submission of a forged certificate to the First Respondent with his Form EC9 can be lawfully challenged before this Honourable Tribunal in accordance with Section 134 (1) (a) of the Electoral Act, 2022.

P4 The Petitioners, in response to the above paragraphs, claim that it was the agents of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents who were caught on tape distributing cash in Ogun State Government envelopes to voters before and during the election. Access the recording at https:///youtu.be/CN19pKa3DVg; it went viral on social media and was broadcast on Arise News Channel on February 19, 2023. Petitioners will use footage and reports from the media showing the 2nd and 3rd Respondents buying votes as evidence at trial.

P5 The Second and Third Respondents took advantage of the debate over the redesign of the Naira and the current cash constraint to offer voters Naira in cash. When several recipients of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ old Naira notes expressed concern, their agents reassured them that the 2nd Respondent, the Governor, would force the banks to accept them. Photographs and videos showing operatives of the 2nd Respondent handing out Naira currency notes to voters are being presented as evidence by the Petitioners.

P6. Again, on March 18, 2023, when Governorship and House of Assembly Elections were held across Ogun State, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents caused to be distributed to the electorate preloaded top-up gift cards of A5,000 and N10,000 to buy the votes of the electorate to financially influence the 2nd Respondent to win the governorship election. You can load money onto your phone by dialing *979*PIN# or withdraw money from an existing account by entering the following information: *979*SPID* ACCOUNT NUMBER* PIN#. Votes were bought using these, and they were used in large quantities on Election Day. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙨 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙣 𝙀𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝘿𝙖𝙮 𝙗𝙮 𝘼𝙋𝘾 𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙖𝙡𝙨𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙋𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙎𝙖𝙡𝙚 (𝙋𝙊𝙎) 𝙈𝙖𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙪𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙚𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙗𝙪𝙮 𝙖𝙞𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙖, 𝙘𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙝, 𝙤𝙧 𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙢𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙤𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙫𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙨’ 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙨. At the hearing on this case, the Petitioners will present and rely on these preloaded cards.

P7 The Petitioners assert that the 1st Petitioner’s Family only distributed endowment cards at the burial ceremonies as burial ceremonial souvenirs of his generous and kind mother, the late Chief Mrs. Caroline Oladunni Adebutu, who had established and used Endowment Schemes during her lifetime. The 1st Petitioner’s father, Chief Kessington Adebukunola Adebutu, was buried, and the 2nd Respondent was present since he was a guest of the family. The aforementioned cards had zero bearing on the election and had nothing to do with any attempts to buy votes or convince voters to support the Petitioners.

P11 The election in the polling units listed in paragraph 9 of the 2nd Respondent’s Reply to the Petition was cancelled not as a result of willful disruption of election materials and resistance to the use of BVAS nor any act of the Petitioners, but as a result of violent disruptions by the agents of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents when the envisaged that the 2nd Respondent was not likely to win in those polling units and also due to over voting. The Petitioners argue that the Respondents’ claim that some voters deliberately tampered with ballots and refused to utilize BVAS is baseless and an afterthought.

No agents of the Petitioners were detained by law enforcement for any offenses during or after the conduct of the election, and the Petitioners deny the allegations made in paragraph 30 of the 2nd Respondent’s Reply that they were involved in the procurement or distribution of customized pre-paid Verve ATM Cards. In response to the 2nd Respondent’s malicious allegations, the Petitioners insist unequivocally that none of the Petitioners’ agents could have made any statement to law enforcement agents suggesting that the Petitioners instructed, knew, or consented to any act of vote buying.

P15 The Petitioners add that because they never participated in vote buying, no voter could have benefited from their actions, and no voter could have testified to law enforcement that the Petitioners instructed, knew, or consented to any vote buying scheme.

P16 The Petitioners assert that the 2nd Respondent invented and fabricated any remarks purportedly made to law enforcement authorities by individuals purporting to be representatives of the Petitioners or voters. During the trial, the Petitioners will hold the Second Respondent to the highest standard of proof regarding the veracity of the allegations and the existence of the statements in question.

Although the list of PVCs collected was not used for accreditation and voting on election day, the Petitioners argue that it is crucial in determining whether individuals without PVCs were allowed to vote in a polling unit because it contains the total number of PVCs collected by voters in each polling unit of Ogun State. The list in question accurately reflects the maximum number of registered voters for each polling place.

The Appeal Court’s ruling makes it quite clear that the second and third respondents have allegations of vote-buying and other misconduct to address from the petitioner.