there was no proper accreditation of voters before the election, as shown by multiple coloured ink used on the accreditation papers as against the blue pen specified by the electoral guideline.
The appellant had brought the appeal on September 15, 2008 and it was consequently filed on September 16 same year.
The Appellant cited 'stare Decisis,' a sacred principle of common law by which precedents are authoritative and binding, and must be followed by the court making the order of inferior courts of record.
According to the tribunal, allegations of electoral fraud in election petitions fall under crime, requiring a criminal procedure to thrash.
Therefore, the onus lies on he who has alleged to proof his case beyond reasonable doubt. Besides, such an issue could only succeed if it was established that the accused person or his agent was the one who authorised it.
Citing Amechi Vs Orkar, the presiding judge said there was no evidence given to support the claim by the appellant in this respect as he resolved the issue in favour of the respondent.
On the allegation of falsification of votes in 10 of the councils during the election, Muhammed said all the allegations were criminal in nature, and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The tribunal, cited Nwobodo Vs Onoh and ruled that the appellant failed to proof his case beyond the probability of doubt. Accordingly, he resolved in favour of the respondent.
He averred: "The matter is resolved against the appellant. The discharge of prove lies with he who alleged on wrongful evaluation of the allegations as moved in the lower tribunal."
The appellant had called 77 witnesses, including some electoral officers in respect of the election in the councils under contention.
"The question to answer on this issue was whether or not the appellant led credible evidence in proof of the allegation. Jimoh Oke among others were mentioned as PDP agents who unlawfully kept away the needed electoral materials during the election.
"They gave evidence and testified against it. The electoral officers too gave evidence saying that the election was credible and that they did not record the results to favour any party. The appellant must be reminded of sections 131-136 of the Electoral Act. The appellant did not give enough credible evidence."
Similarly, the tribunal resolved the issue on the fact that the evidence given by the experts was not relied upon by the lower tribunal against the appellant.
Citing Ajayi Vs Ajibola, he added: "We are persuaded by the argument of the counsel to the respondent that the appellant did not sufficiently prove the allegation of non-compliance with the Electoral Act during the conduct of the election."
On the issue that led to the quashing of the results of the election in the specified councils, Muhammed said the issue of accreditation of voters before election the was germane.
Besides, he observed that failure to observe this would make the result of the election to be voided 'ab initio.'
He noted: "We have looked at some of the forms. Some were stamped and not signed. Some were signed but not stamped. The duties of the electoral officers in election at this juncture must be examined.
"If the electoral officers could not say how accreditation of voters were carried out in the contested areas, who would? We observed various inks but the tribunal was unable to determine whether the number of votes cast complied with the accreditation.
Muhammed added: "It was a matter of approbation and reprobation. See Modibo Vs Haruna. The electoral manual directed that blue biro be used for accreditation. A breach of the manual can be fatal.
"The signature of accreditation in election remains relevant. A person cannot vote until accredited. Unlike other species of non-compliance, the issue of non-accreditation of voters is very fundamental.
"You must have lawful votes before you can talk of the results. Therefore the election is void ab initio without accreditation. Any election without accreditation is a complete nullity. Section 137 of the Evidence Act must be emphasised. The appellant in line with Section 149 (b) Evidence Act is entitled to judgment. The use of other biros is not permissible."
He cited INEC Vs Oshiomohole and the decision of Justice Umaru Abdullahi, the Presiding Justice in the case where it was stated that documentary evidence was better than oral evidence.
"I resolve this issue in favour of the appellant. Elections in Gboyin, Ekiti-East, Ise-Orun, Ijero, Ido-Osi, Oye, Ekiti West Ekiti. South, Ilole and Ileje-Meje are held to be vitiated, by non-compliance. The appeal is allowed.
"The first respondent is to vacate his office to the Speaker immediately until the elections are concluded in the 10 councils. The results in the six uncontested councils will remain as released by the INEC and be added to the election to be conducted. I award a cost of N30,000 to the appellants."
Reacting to the judgement Oni described the re-run of elections in some local governments in the state as a chance to further demonstrate the incontrovertible superiority to the AC, adding that the re-run would afford PDP the opportunity of trouncing the AC and its candidate totally.
Oni, who spoke with journalists in Ado Ekiti after the judgment said what happened in Ilorin yesterday was not a victory for the AC, adding that the party also won in some of the wards where the election was cancelled.
"Ekiti people should remain jubilant, because from the judgment, we have not lost anything.
"Today's judgment is not a victory for the AC and I believe they know this. The party also won in some of the wards where election was cancelled. Out of the 177 wards in the state, election was cancelled in 64 while that of 113 wards was upheld and we are sure of victory in the re-run election.
"As I speak now, we are ready to embark on vigorous campaigns and I have just one message for the AC. The message is that if we beat them in the last election, this time around, we are going to trounce and pummel them totally.
"We now have an opportunity to further demonstrate the incontrovertible superiority to the AC..."
Former Lagos State Governor, Bola Tinubu, on his part also hailed the judiciary for a job well done but called on other institutions of state to rally to save Nigeria's democracy.
"This is justice transparently done," Tinubu declared. "The clichˇ says justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. This Court of Appeal verdict demonstrates that very clearly."
Calling the verdict a partial victory for the Action Congress (AC), since the party had been able to prove Oni's purported tenure was illegitimate, he said he regarded it nevertheless as a victory for democracy, and congratulated the Ekiti people in the light of the development.
Also, the National Vice Chairman South-West Zone, of the PDP Alhaji Tajudeen Oladipo, has described the tribunal's judgment as "a blessing in disguise."
Oladipo who spoke with The Guardian yesterday in Ilorin shortly after the Judgment believed that "the good works done by Oni in the past two years would make the people of the state to again vote him to power."
He re-affirmed his belief in the entrenchment of the rule of law in the nation's democracy.
"We believe in entrenchment of the rule of law in Nigeria and whether or not it affects us we stand by it."
Adeniyi Adenipekun (SAN), who was the lead counsel to Oni, the first respondent, said his client would be bound by the decision of the court.
According to him, "As lawyers, the Court of Appeal is the last court on this issue and since the judgment has been given, we are bound by it. The justices have done their best the way they could."
Hundreds of Fayemi's supporters who trooped into the vicinity of the court went hilarious, singing lyrics usually rendered at political rallies.
Oni's supporters, accepted their fate cooly. Despite the crowd at the venue, there was no violence.
