PDP witnesses admit having multiple signatures, as Ogun Tribunal continues proceedings
OGUN TRIBUNAL– Proceedings at the governorship election petition tribunal, sitting in Abeokuta, the Ogun State capital took another dimension on Wednesday, as some of the witnesses called by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) confessed to have used different signatures in their witness statements, other than the one they used regularly on daily basis.
One of the witnesses, Ademola Adewale, after admitting to using a different signature in his witness statement also denied a part of his statement to the effect that he saw many voters at his Polling Unit ready and willing to vote but were disenfranchised.
In the same vein, Alhaji Abiodun Sotinwa, another PDP witness and a businessman from Iperu, in Ikenne Local Government, also admitted to having used a signature different from his regular signature for daily activities. He was later caught to have lied about his membership of the PDP when being crossed examined.
In another development, a witness invited by the PDP, Olufunmilola Desalu, a fashion designer also from Iperu expressed surprise that her statement was the same as that of Sotinwa, although, she claimed not to have authored the witness statement.
The two statements were discovered to be word for word, presentation for presentation after counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) thoroughly scrutinized the statements.
When further grilled by the INEC counsel on the reason for the similarities, she simply responded: “I think my lawyer is in a better position to answer that question.”
Also, a trader, Ariyo Adeola, from Iperu, whose statement did not contain necessary details came to testify in favour of PDP, as she admitted to being the wife of the Chairman of PDP in Ikenne LGA.
She, however, denied being the ward woman leader of the party.
Going further on the proceedings, Mr Rafiu Hakeem Aro, from Iperu, a trader, was also called by the PDP as a witness. Meanwhile, after being cross-examined, he told the tribunal that his witness statement was not written by him.
After a series of contradictions and inconsistencies on the part of all the witnesses, their counsel was compelled to beg for adjournment.
