Ordinarily, we would not have dignified the rather watery statement credited to Akin Olowe II concerning the recent judgment in the Benue APC primary election case with a response, particularly because the statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts, circumstances and legal issues involved.However, for the benefit of members of the public who may be misled by such a superficial comparison, it has become necessary to put the records straight.Let it be unequivocally stated that the Benue case cannot be conveniently imported as a yardstick, precedent or determinant of the outcome of the ongoing case involving Hon. Dr. Abiola Makinde, Dr. Michael Akintomide Ajilo and the APC National Working Committee (NWC).Cases are determined on the basis of their peculiar facts, pleadings, evidence, issues submitted for determination and the applicable law, and not by political analogies, social-media narratives or wishful interpretations.If Akin Olowe II is indeed as conversant with the proceedings as his statement suggests, he ought to understand that the substance of the Ondo case goes far beyond the simplistic narrative he has attempted to construct around the Benue judgment.Hon. Dr. Abiola Makinde has placed before the court substantial documentary and testimonial evidence which, according to his case, establishes that he emerged with the highest number of votes at the APC primary election. Conversely, the purported result being relied upon by the opposing side is specifically being challenged before the court, including issues relating to its authenticity, verifiability and the circumstances surrounding its emergence and submission.Therefore, attempting to equate the two matters merely because they both concern APC primary elections amounts to nothing more than a false equivalence.More importantly, Hon. Dr. Abiola Makinde did not approach the court merely to make a political assertion about a mandate. His case raises substantive issues requiring judicial determination concerning the alleged alteration, fabrication or use of documents, as well as the processes through which the disputed result was allegedly produced and relied upon.These are matters to be established or disproved by evidence and determined by the court, and not matters to be settled through political propaganda, conjecture or social-media commentary.Akin Olowe II and his co-travellers should therefore resist the temptation to celebrate prematurely on the strength of a judgment arising from a different state, different contestants, different evidence and different circumstances.
We are sufficiently informed about the proceedings concerning the Ondo East and West Federal Constituency and are not dependent on conjecture, hearsay or politically convenient interpretations of proceedings elsewhere.The court will ultimately determine the matter on its merits and on the evidence presented before it. The mandate arising from the primary election remains the central issue.The legal process is ongoing, and HAM Volunteers Movement remains confident that, in due course, Hon. Dr. Abiola Makinde will reclaim his mandate and be affirmed as the rightful APC candidate for Ondo East and West Federal Constituency in the 2027 National Assembly election.No amount of political propaganda can substitute for evidence. No judgment arising from another case can automatically determine the outcome of this one. Every case must stand or fall on its own facts, evidence and applicable law.The court will speak, and when it does, we believe the truth will prevail.
Signed:Ayorinde ADETULA (Richblaq)Media Manager,HAM Volunteers Movement
