OYETOLA V. I.N.E.C. (2023)

Background

This appeal arose from the Osun State governorship election conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission on 16 July 2022. Adeg boyega Isiaka Oyetola contested for governor under the platform of the All Progressives Congress, while Ademola Adeleke contested under the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party. INEC declared Adeleke the winner on the basis that he obtained the majority of lawful votes cast.

Oyetola and the APC filed a petition before the Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal. They alleged, among other things, that Adeleke was not qualified to contest, that documents submitted to INEC were forged, and that the election was invalid because of widespread non-accreditation, improper accreditation, over-voting and other breaches of the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s Regulations and Guidelines. The petition challenged results from 744 polling units across 10 local government areas.

The tribunal granted the petition and held that Oyetola, rather than Adeleke, had won the election. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision, restored Adeleke’s election and held that the petitioners had failed to prove their allegations. Oyetola and the APC appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the tribunal had determined the respondents’ preliminary objections on their merits.
2. Whether Adeleke was disqualified by reason of alleged forged educational documents.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal properly considered the admissibility and sufficiency of the appellants’ evidence.
4. Whether the appellants proved non-accreditation, improper accreditation, over-voting and substantial non-compliance.
5. Whether the INEC back-end database or National Electronic Register of Election Results was the legally relevant record for determining accreditation.
6. Whether the tribunal’s treatment of the preliminary objections violated fair hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the primary burden rested on the appellants to prove the facts pleaded in their petition. That burden did not shift to the respondents merely because allegations had been made; it shifted only after credible evidence established a prima facie case.

For allegations of non-accreditation, improper accreditation and over-voting, the relevant evidence consisted principally of the BVAS records, the voters’ register and the polling-unit result in Form EC8A. Over-voting occurs where the number of votes cast exceeds the number of accredited voters. The Court held that the BVAS device used at the polling unit was the primary source of accreditation data. The appellants did not tender the BVAS machines, certified records obtained from their physical inspection, or the voters’ registers for the disputed polling units.

Exhibit BVR, which was a report based on information transmitted to INEC’s back-end server, was insufficient. The back-end database was not itself part of the accreditation process and could contain only data successfully transmitted from the BVAS. Transmission could be affected by network failure, battery problems or failure to press the submission button. It therefore could not displace the direct records in the BVAS machines or establish the number of voters accredited at the polling units.

The Court further held that section 137 of the Electoral Act 2022 dispenses with oral evidence only where original or certified documents manifestly disclose the alleged non-compliance. Since the appellants’ documents did not manifestly establish the breaches alleged, witnesses with direct knowledge were still required. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 was either inadmissible opinion evidence, hearsay or evidence from persons lacking personal knowledge of events at the disputed polling units. PW1 was also interested in the proceedings, having been associated with the APC and engaged to prepare the report in contemplation of the petition.

Court Findings

On Adeleke’s qualification, the Court held that an earlier Court of Appeal judgment concerning his educational records was a judgment in rem. It determined the status and authenticity of the relevant testimonial and statement of result and bound the world, including persons who were not parties to the earlier proceedings. The tribunal was required to take judicial notice of the judgment under section 122(2)(m) of the Evidence Act and was bound by it through stare decisis and estoppel per rem judicatam. The allegations of forgery concerning other certificates also failed because the issuing institutions did not disclaim the certificates. Mere suspicion, hearsay and speculation could not prove forgery.

The Court also agreed that the tribunal had violated fair hearing by lumping several preliminary objections together and dismissing them without separately considering the arguments and issues raised. A judgment has no fixed style, but it must identify the nature of the case, address the issues, consider the parties’ submissions and applicable law, make findings and provide reasons. A decision that simply announces dismissal without genuine consideration is not a valid determination. The failure rendered the tribunal’s proceedings and judgment a nullity.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed for want of merit, with no order as to costs. The judgment of the Court of Appeal restoring Adeleke’s election as Governor of Osun State was affirmed. The cross-appeal was struck out as academic, and the decision was made applicable to the related appeals numbered SC/CV/509/2023, SC/CV/510/2023 and SC/CV/511/2023.

Significance

The decision provides important guidance on election litigation under the Electoral Act 2022. It confirms that BVAS is central to proving accreditation and over-voting, but that an electronic back-end report is not automatically a substitute for the original polling-unit accreditation record. Petitioners must plead specific breaches, produce the legally relevant electoral materials and present admissible evidence capable of linking the alleged irregularities to the result. The decision also reinforces the binding force of judgments in rem, the need to prove forgery through credible institutional evidence, and the constitutional importance of reasoned decisions and fair hearing.