 Welcome back. It's still the run-up on Plus TV Africa. The Oshun State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal on Friday sat at Demola Adeleke as governor of the state. And there have been mixed reactions since trailing the news of that judgment with discussion of the matter-making waves. What is the implication of the judgment? Can INAG issue a certificate of return to Oyatollah? And joining me to discuss this is Tunji Abdul Hamid, a member, Quaristate PDP presidential and state campaign council. Tunji, welcome to the run-up. Thank you very much. Good morning. Okay. You are a PDP member and a member of the presidential campaign council and the state campaign council. But you heard the news of Oshun. How did you take the news of the dethronement, if I may say, of Adeleke in favor of Oyatollah? It's not good news, as far as I'm concerned, because I would not expect my party member to lose election. So it's not a good news for me in that regard because the judgment is not going in favor of my candidates. But what if it was some other candidate that is not your candidate? Would you have thought the judgment was good enough? Because what elements of that judgment do you not like, apart from the fact that it's affected your party member? I have neither condemned the judgment nor accept that judgment is okay. I have not said that. I only said that it's painful to me. It's sad that the judgment is not going before my preferred candidates. That's why I just said that not condemn or accept that judgment was okay or not okay. So please take that correction. Okay. So let's just see if you're looking into the future. Do you think that there is a chance that Adeleke can be reinstalled? And if you do think that way, what gives you some kind of confidence to be able to say so? Yeah, I think looking at the argument of both parties, the APC and the PDP and the Adeleke, as well as INEC, I think there's a chance for me. Now we stand here. I'm not preempting the AP. I'm not talking about the AP itself. I'm not trying to give evidence based on what happened there. I'm just talking about based on what happened at the tribunal. What is the basis of the judgment of the court at the tribunal? The basis was that there was an over-forting based on the satisfactory copy of the results given to APC by INEC. So and they discovered that there was an over-forting. So and the position of PDP was that, look, there was no over-forting because it was close to INEC. INEC and PDP, they were on the same page. To say that, look, there was no over-forting in terms of any wrongdoing from their own side because, you know, if you recall, the election was aired on the 16th and then on the 17th, the APC applied for a satisfactory copy of the results and to which one was given to them. But thereafter, INEC, when looking into the system, discovered that there was an error. Now that what I'm saying directly for those who don't understand is that the CTC, the LIOPOM by APC, was that from the back end. And the one very LIOPOM by the PDP is a real beaver itself. So in other words, there's a conflict between the results at the back end and the one from the beaver itself. In other words, probably something has happened. Maybe there has been manipulation or that an error of operation or whatever that happened in that regard. That is the issue we're talking about. The argument is that, look, if you are relying on beavers, which is the primary evidence, then the primary evidence is not, there's no conflict regarding over-forting. So there should be no need to say there's an over-forting here. If you're looking at the secondary evidence, which is secondary evidence in law for lawyers, in army lawyers as well, for lawyers, you rely on secondary evidence when the primary evidence is not available. So the primary evidence in this instance is a beaver itself. The secondary evidence is the back end or at the server, which is the one the APC relied on to get what they got. So based on that, I have the confidence that the court may, that the APC court may think and say, look, you can't rely on secondary evidence when there is a primary evidence of the results. To that extent, I have the confidence that it may be overtone. There were reports that even the INEC official, also who was testifying, apart from the other one who has affiliation with PDP, the INEC official that was testifying accepted that there was error. And the other witness that was also testifying said that the over-voting, it was not that there was no over-voting, but that the over-voting was done in only seven polling units instead of the seven, over 700 polling units that the APC said. So in all these witnesses, there was one thing that was agreed, that there was a problem. Whether you are calling it over-voting, whether you're calling it anything, there was a problem. But based on the fact that there was a problem, no matter the amount of polling units that those kind of things happened, do you really think, do you still think that if it is looked into, the documents are looked into, your principal, okay, your party man, because it's not your principal directly, your party man will still stand a chance, knowing that there was, as Nigerians will put it, some kind of magoo magoo in the electoral process? You see, the way it works in court is not easy. The witness only asks a question based on what is put to him. And in this instance, if you have a document that shows contradiction, and the document is showed to him to confirm whether, based on the documents in your hand, is there any over-voting, will you do a certain to say otherwise? You won't say otherwise because it's clear from the document. So if the document is, there's not this put here, there's a conflict between the result from the beefers and the one from the side at the back end, that's a conflict, that's an increase, that's over-voting, evidence for that is that. So the witness is not expected to say otherwise, he needs to confirm based on the document, because the lawyer will ask him, if so, look at the documents and confirm whether or not from the face of the document, that's an over-voting. Definitely he will say there is, because that's what's on the document. So that's not an issue. On what basis did he say so? So the one who should be looking at, how did they arrive at those documents? Which of the documents did we do rely on? Is it the primary evidence or secondary evidence? To me as a lawyer, the best evidence as far as we are concerned evidence is the primary evidence. So if you rely on secondary evidence against the primary evidence, then you are doing the wrong thing, and that's what I'm saying here. So I will not say because the evidence, as the witness says there's an over-voting, he has admitted that. It will definitely admit because the document put before him shows that. So he will confirm what is in the document. And that's what probably he has done in that instance. He will merely confirm the document put to him. Look at these documents. From this document, did you see anything? What is the result here? What is the result here? It doesn't say we will confirm. There's an over-voting. So that's not a, for me, that's not a big deal. Okay. Well, Bayo, I leave him to you. At the Mola Delike, they have declared that he didn't win the election, and they should withdraw, and actually withdraw the certificate of return. And maybe give it to Yatola, or I don't know how that is going to play out. But the floor is yours, Bayo. Well, I mean, it's nice to have Mr. Abdul Hamid again today. And I always enjoy the, you know, the perspectives that he shares. I'm just wondering, Mr. Abdul Hamid, the fact is that this judgment that has been given in our legal system, because some people will need this, you'll need a clarification on this, if you can please provide it. The governor, in the status quo right now, which is the governor, the Mola Delike's governor, although the court has ruled against him, if he decides to appeal, he remains in office until their appeal process is exhausted. Would that be correct? You are correct, sir. He has 21 days between which to decide whether to appeal or not to appeal. And if he does appeal, within that period, he has the court of appeal, we have 60 days to determine the appeal. And if any of them is not satisfied, they also have the right to go to the Supreme Court. They have 160 days for the Supreme Court to determine whether or not who is right, who is wrong, or who is the winner. So it will still remain in office, depending on when those processes will be concluded. Okay, so I'm therefore wondering why, if you see the media reportage, it's like Mr Delike has left Governor Hans, you know, Shobu. Given the way the story has been reported, is that just trying to sell the newspapers or what exactly is going on, you know, because that led to a lot of debate, you know, over the weekend. One is to sell the papers. Two is that they are not lawyers, so they won't know the implication of what they are saying. You know, they will just rely on what the court says. Court says, can you hear me? They are by fact, as the governor. So they were expecting that. Yes, yes. Go ahead. Go ahead. Bio wasn't sure whether you could hear him, but go ahead. I was, I was, I heard him well. Okay. I said that, look, I would not, the judge, it may be probably to sell paper. And secondly, because there are not lawyers, and they don't know the implication of the judgment or the consequences of the judgment itself. The law is clear. In the local law, it's clear, it's clear to say that once a candidate is set, that candidate will remain in his position, depending on when the appeal will be determined. It's automatic, except if there's no appeal. If there's no appeal, then automatically it goes. But if there's no appeal, it will have to remain until the appeal is determined. So the, the, the press are trying to sell paper. Secondly, some of them are not, are, are mysterious because they are probably totally, they are not aware of the position of the law regarding the tax accounts. But what's the mind of PDP at this point? Because you said the governor has the right to appeal, or a delicacy has the right to appeal, and he has 50 days window to do that. But we haven't heard so far that he has gone to the court already. So what's the mind of PDP? Let's have an insight to that. What does the party intend to do? What does the governor intend to do? What do we need to know as the next step? Appeal, appeal is a process, and I'm sure the lawyers are putting up their papers. It's not something we just say, I am appealing. No, you must put up paper together. You must look at the judgments, look at the grant under which you want to appeal. So you must study the judgment first, look as I bring out the grants, then draw out the papers for you to say you are appealing. It's not something, once you appeal process, not to appeal is 40, then the entire appeal is gone. So you have to be careful in doing it. It's not something we just brought. They are 21 days and they are still doing it. So I'm very sure they are working on it. They are night to ensure that it's done. By me, why, you know, this issue we are talking about here, I think INEC is the main culprit here. They are the main culprit. And I think polishing a delicacy for the offense of INEC would be injustice, a certain concern. Okay, Bio, can you still hear? Yes, sure, I can hear you. I hope you can hear me also. Yes, we can hear you. Yeah, Barista, Muhammad, the role of Divas has been further signposted, if you like, by this ocean election and the verdict of which I view now. Is it a complicated machine or is it a simple machine? I asked this question, given the fact that a majority of our people who would vote may not be, let me not say majority, some of those who will vote may not be that technologically savvy. Okay, so if that machine is complicated, it could be a problem. And even those who will be technologically savvy may not be patient enough, you know, on the day of the election. And the other factors that we can consider. So in your view, is this a very simple process, the use of the Divas, or do you think it could be a complicated process? Yeah, I cannot completely answer that question, yes or no, because I have not voted when the Divas was introduced, and I have not seen them use it. So to me, it should not be a complicated, from what I've been seeing, it should not be a complicated machine, but you must have the knowledge of operating it. If you don't have the knowledge, probably that issue can happen, because you cannot have a particular number on the Divas itself, and you have another number at the back end. So it shows that something is wrong, probably those who operate it do not understand how to operate, or probably they deliberately want to sabotage the effort, or they want to compromise. Those are the two things that are there. So it's sad that Divas are giving everybody hope that our election will not be free and fair, because of Divas. There is a lot of fear in town now, regarding the Divas, because people now realize that too. So I'd love that Divas can be manipulated, because that's what I'm telling you. If you are saying the result from the Divas is even from the one at the back end, then you are saying that something is wrong there. Probably the two things likely to happen is that those who operated it do not understand how to operate it, or there's manipulation somewhere, there's great manipulation somewhere. So if that's the position, you are giving room for people who is aware that look, once they say that they're for voting somewhere, that election will be cancelled. They can go there and not manipulate, and I'm not even told, I'm not even worried that we are told that look, there's no way you can vote without Divas' accusation. So how can we now get over 40? That means people are quoted, even without accusation, or you are saying they're quoted, without even the voter's card. That is the meaning, because you said, what we have been told that you can't vote without being accusated by Divas. So how do we now get it? That is the position. How do we get over 40? So it's either those who are engaged to undo it, do not understand how to undo it, or deliberately manipulated the system to favor a particular person. So and in this case, we don't know who and who have done the damage. So you cannot now say, because the error was on the person who was supposed to conduct the election, and then you now fixated the punishment on the candidate. I think to me it's unfair. Now, the... That's a final one, Bio. That's a final one. Okay, so if it's a final one, then let me just say, INEC is going to test wrong Divas, so to speak, before the 2023 elections. I think they identified two states where they are going to do a test run and all that. What would be your advice? What should INEC actually, particularly focus on in this test phase, mock election, sorry, they call it the mock election trial. So what would you like INEC to focus on? Sorry, in the light of the experience with your election now, so what would you want INEC to focus on? Yeah, I want them to focus on the people and then the Divas. The most, the most whether or not they know how to undo it or they don't know how to undo it. Because I, unofficially, before the petition was filed, I heard that upon the, when the, when the APC obtained the satisfactory copy on the second day of the election, which shows that there was an opportunity, the inquiry we made, what was made to understand was that there was an error by those who are printing it, that when you fold, they need to do something. We don't do it, you'll be sending messages out on T, you press what you are supposed to press. So what it means, as you are, this one will be reading 10, it will be sending messages to other area, that is back end, and then there will be coffee, there's no, so I wanted to focus on those who are handling the machine to see whether or not they know how this is, how to operate. And to also focus on people who have been used as mock voters to be able to know whether or not they are voting correctly or not correctly. And to see whether or not it is possible to bypass, bypass, bypass, bypass, to bypass BFAS and votes without having been obtained. So I think we just have a little focus on that. Sorry, Angul, just added to this, what about the party agents in each of the police stations, what should those party agents be focusing on regarding the utilization of BFAS, also in the light of this experience? Yeah, I think apart from training the operator, the agents should also be able to understand how the machine operates, so that whenever they are being used wrongly, they will raise alarm in that regard. So the party agents should also be feeling like, whether or not the machine has been used the way it should be used or they are not being used in that regard. So what it means, there must be proper training for those agents as well, either by the party or by whoever that will do it, I don't know, but there must be proper, that would be possible to the party to ensure that, look, the agent understands how the thing works. So the in-ex should be looking at, why in-ex is looking at their staff or ad-op staff or whatever, to see whether or not they know how to operate it very well. The party should also be concerned about the agent, whether or not they will be able to monitor properly or not on how the machine is being used or functioned. All right, thank you very much, Tunji. Tunji Abdul Hamid is a member, choir state PDP presidential and state campaign council. Thank you so much for being a part of this show this morning, Tunji. Thank you very much. Okay, we'll take a short break now and when we return, we'll be talking on other matters, especially as it concerns the Naira swap. Stay with us.