In a split decision of 2:1, the Osun State elections petition tribunal declared Adeleke the winner of Osun State election governorship election held last year.

The two tribunal members in their lead judgement held that INEC was wrong to have declared the election inconclusive and a such there was no need for the supplementary election.

However it is my respected view that the tribunal erred in declaring the supplementary election null and void. This is because inec's power to declare an election inconclusive and also conduct a supplementary election has been upheld in the Supreme Court judgement between James Faleke and INEC 2016.

Part of the judgement is reproduced below:

According to Justice KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

It is evident that a declaration as to who received the highest number of votes cast and who should be declared elected is to be made by the appropriate Returning Officer after the results have been ascertained by counting the votes cast for each candidate.

Section 133(1) of the Electoral Act also provides that the only venue to ventilate a complaint of undue election or undue return at an election is before a competent Court or Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution or Act.

In effect, I agree with the finding of the court below that contrary to the submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant, Sections 179(2) and 181(1) of the Constitution are not self-executing. There must be a declaration or return of a candidate as the winner of an election before the sections become applicable. I agree entirely with learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent that to hold otherwise would lead to a situation where anyone could declare himself as the deemed winner of an election, which would certainly lead to anarchy. The electorate is also entitled to have the results of the election formally declared by an unbiased umpire.

This brings me to the next consideration, which is, whether the appellant and the late Prince Audu met the requirements of Section 179(2) of the Constitution. The lower court found, and I entirely agree that there was no declaration or return of any of the candidates who participated in the election of 21/11/2015 as winners having regard to the declaration of INEC that the election was inconclusive.

That declaration was made based on the provisions of Chapter 3 paragraph 3.11, step 14 of INEC’s Manual for Election Officials. The argument of learned senior counsel for the appellant is that the provisions of the Manual cannot be employed to amend or augment the provisions of the Constitution. It is not disputed that pursuant to Section 160(1) of the Constitution, INEC has the constitutional power to regulate its own procedure or confer powers and impose duties on its Officers for the purpose of discharging its functions. Sections 73 and 153 of the Electoral Act contain similar provisions to ensure the proper discharge of its functions. Section 73 empowers the Commission to publish in the Gazette, guidelines for elections "which shall make provisions for the step by step recording of the poll in the electoral forms as may be prescribed.... "while Section 153 empowers the Commission to issue regulations, guidelines or manuals for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Electoral Act and for its administration. I agree with the finding of the lower court at page 1608 of the record that the above provisions give statutory backing to the Manual as a subsidiary legislation and that where it is found to be relevant, its provisions must be invoked, applied and enforced.

The relevance of INEC's Manual for Electoral Officers in the proper conduct of elections was acknowledged by this Court in the case of C.P.C Vs INEC (2011) LPELR – 8257 (SC) AT PAGES 54 – 55 F – B per Adekeye, JSC thus:

"By force of law the Independent National Electoral Commission has the duty of conducting elections. Besides the constitutional provisions, it is guided by the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and the Election Guidelines and Manual issued for its officials in accordance with the Act. These documents embody all steps to comply with in the conduct of a free, fair and hitch free election."

(Emphasis mine)

Having discovered electoral malpractices in 91 polling units in the State, it was proper for the 1st respondent to consult and apply the provisions of its Manual to determine the next course of action in the circumstances. I do not agree with Chief Olanipekun, SAN, with due respect that resort to its manual in the circumstances amounted to a flagrant disregard of the supremacy of the constitutional provisions as contained in Section 179(2).

Chapter 3 paragraph 3.11, step 14 of the Manual for Election Officials (updated version) at page 325 of Volume 1 of the record provides:

3.11: Final Collation and Declaration of Governorship Election Results at State Level:

The State Collation/Returning Officer for the Governorship shall:

Step 14: "Where the margin of win between the two leading candidates is not in excess of the total number of registered voters of the polling unit(s) where elections were cancelled or not held, decline to make a return until another poll has taken place in the affected polling unit(s) and the results incorporated into a new Form EC8D and subsequently recorded into a new form EC8E for Declaration and Return." (Emphasis mine)

The provision is clear and straight forward and did not require a foray into any other provisions in the Manual for it to be effected. There is no dispute as to the fact that the margin between the votes scored by the late Prince Audu and the appellant on the one hand and Capt. Wada and Arch. Awoniyi, on the other was 41,619, which was less than the total number of registered voters in the 91 polling units where votes were cancelled.

I therefore agree with the court below that the 1st respondent was correct to have declared the election inconclusive on the basis of the number of registered voters in the 91 affected polling units. Having regard to the clear provisions of the Election Manual, it would have been wrong for any electoral official to base his decision on any other consideration, such as the number of registered voters who had collected their PVCs,or the geographical spread of the votes already cast.

Clear and unambiguous provisions must be given their natural and ordinary meaning. Neither the court nor learned counsel is entitled to read into a provision what it does not contain.


https://nigerialii.org/ng/judgment/supreme-court/2016/84

As a new APC supporter, the pain is too Sofia.
Akant take it.

I love Buhari but Atiku might use Dancing Governor's formula, that's my pain, I mean OUR pain.

Remember us in your prayer, PDP supporters. Thank u

kahal29:
In a split decision of 2:1, the Osun State elections petition tribunal declared Adeleke the winner of Osun State election governorship election held last year.

The two tribunal members in their lead judgement based held that INEC was wrong to have declared the election inconclusive and a such there was no need for the supplementary election.

However it is my respected view that the tribunal erred in declaring the supplementary election null and void. This is because inec's power to declare an election inconclusive and also conduct a supplementary election has been upheld in the Supreme Court judgement between James Faleke and INEC 2016.

According to Justice KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

It is evident that a declaration as to who received the highest number of votes cast and who should be declared elected is to be made by the appropriate Returning Officer after the results have been ascertained by counting the votes cast for each candidate.

Section 133(1) of the Electoral Act also provides that the only venue to ventilate a complaint of undue election or undue return at an election is before a competent Court or Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution or Act.

In effect, I agree with the finding of the court below that contrary to the submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant, Sections 179(2) and 181(1) of the Constitution are not self-executing. There must be a declaration or return of a candidate as the winner of an election before the sections become applicable. I agree entirely with learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent that to hold otherwise would lead to a situation where anyone could declare himself as the deemed winner of an election, which would certainly lead to anarchy. The electorate is also entitled to have the results of the election formally declared by an unbiased umpire.

This brings me to the next consideration, which is, whether the appellant and the late Prince Audu met the requirements of Section 179(2) of the Constitution. The lower court found, and I entirely agree that there was no declaration or return of any of the candidates who participated in the election of 21/11/2015 as winners having regard to the declaration of INEC that the election was inconclusive.

That declaration was made based on the provisions of Chapter 3 paragraph 3.11, step 14 of INEC’s Manual for Election Officials. The argument of learned senior counsel for the appellant is that the provisions of the Manual cannot be employed to amend or augment the provisions of the Constitution. It is not disputed that pursuant to Section 160(1) of the Constitution, INEC has the constitutional power to regulate its own procedure or confer powers and impose duties on its Officers for the purpose of discharging its functions. Sections 73 and 153 of the Electoral Act contain similar provisions to ensure the proper discharge of its functions. Section 73 empowers the Commission to publish in the Gazette, guidelines for elections "which shall make provisions for the step by step recording of the poll in the electoral forms as may be prescribed.... "while Section 153 empowers the Commission to issue regulations, guidelines or manuals for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Electoral Act and for its administration. I agree with the finding of the lower court at page 1608 of the record that the above provisions give statutory backing to the Manual as a subsidiary legislation and that where it is found to be relevant, its provisions must be invoked, applied and enforced.

The relevance of INEC's Manual for Electoral Officers in the proper conduct of elections was acknowledged by this Court in the case of C.P.C Vs INEC (2011) LPELR – 8257 (SC) AT PAGES 54 – 55 F – B per Adekeye, JSC thus:

"By force of law the Independent National Electoral Commission has the duty of conducting elections. Besides the constitutional provisions, it is guided by the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and the Election Guidelines and Manual issued for its officials in accordance with the Act. These documents embody all steps to comply with in the conduct of a free, fair and hitch free election."

(Emphasis mine)

Having discovered electoral malpractices in 91 polling units in the State, it was proper for the 1st respondent to consult and apply the provisions of its Manual to determine the next course of action in the circumstances. I do not agree with Chief Olanipekun, SAN, with due respect that resort to its manual in the circumstances amounted to a flagrant disregard of the supremacy of the constitutional provisions as contained in Section 179(2).

Chapter 3 paragraph 3.11, step 14 of the Manual for Election Officials (updated version) at page 325 of Volume 1 of the record provides:

3.11: Final Collation and Declaration of Governorship Election Results at State Level:

The State Collation/Returning Officer for the Governorship shall:

Step 14: "Where the margin of win between the two leading candidates is not in excess of the total number of registered voters of the polling unit(s) where elections were cancelled or not held, decline to make a return until another poll has taken place in the affected polling unit(s) and the results incorporated into a new Form EC8D and subsequently recorded into a new form EC8E for Declaration and Return." (Emphasis mine)

The provision is clear and straight forward and did not require a foray into any other provisions in the Manual for it to be effected. There is no dispute as to the fact that the margin between the votes scored by the late Prince Audu and the appellant on the one hand and Capt. Wada and Arch. Awoniyi, on the other was 41,619, which was less than the total number of registered voters in the 91 polling units where votes were cancelled.

I therefore agree with the court below that the 1st respondent was correct to have declared the election inconclusive on the basis of the number of registered voters in the 91 affected polling units. Having regard to the clear provisions of the Election Manual, it would have been wrong for any electoral official to base his decision on any other consideration, such as the number of registered voters who had collected their PVCs,or the geographical spread of the votes already cast.

Clear and unambiguous provisions must be given their natural and ordinary meaning. Neither the court nor learned counsel is entitled to read into a provision what it does not contain.


https://nigerialii.org/ng/judgment/supreme-court/2016/84

bla bla bla bla bla.... You should be flogged. Go and wear wig and judge's gown and pass your own judgment since you know better than judges... Severe pains
Many of you should be placed on suicide watch starting from Tinubu.

OP, thanks for consoling yourself. Adeleke has hard facts which is glaring for everybody to see. Even if the case is taken to world court, I'm confident he'd still win

If the facts were the same, an ordinary election petition Tribunal wouldn't have gone against judicial precedence of a superior court.

Stop giving yourself and APC hope that doesn't exist.

Las las you go dey alright shaa

BUMKUM

Forget political sentiments Adeleke/PDP won the Osun election This is just the lamentation of a pained zombie

Ibo people are dreaming if they think Yoruba people will allow a fat guy with no WAEC result rule them. This can never happen. The upper court will give APC victory . We don't want PDP and not the fat guy with no secondary school result.

Thankfully Atiku called the court, the common man last hope. Hope he will hold on to that ideology when a superior court upturns this charade

If I recall, the tribunal in its judgement stated that their was no basis to declare the election inconclusive. Also rejected the result alterations for the LGA in question.

Naijaguy12345:
Ibo people are dreaming if they think Yoruba people will allow a fat guy with no WAEC result rule them. This can never happen. The upper court will give APC victory . We don't want PDP and not the fat guy with no secondary school result.

What do Igbos have to do with it? This obsession is turning into madness!

Paperwhite:
Forget political sentiments Adeleke/PDP won the Osun election This is just the lamentation of a pained zombie

kahal29:
In a split decision of 2:1, the Osun State elections petition tribunal declared Adeleke the winner of Osun State election governorship election held last year.

The two tribunal members in their lead judgement held that INEC was wrong to have declared the election inconclusive and a such there was no need for the supplementary election.

However it is my respected view that the tribunal erred in declaring the supplementary election null and void. This is because inec's power to declare an election inconclusive and also conduct a supplementary election has been upheld in the Supreme Court judgement between James Faleke and INEC 2016.

Part of the judgement is reproduced below:

According to Justice KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

It is evident that a declaration as to who received the highest number of votes cast and who should be declared elected is to be made by the appropriate Returning Officer after the results have been ascertained by counting the votes cast for each candidate.

Section 133(1) of the Electoral Act also provides that the only venue to ventilate a complaint of undue election or undue return at an election is before a competent Court or Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution or Act.

In effect, I agree with the finding of the court below that contrary to the submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant, Sections 179(2) and 181(1) of the Constitution are not self-executing. There must be a declaration or return of a candidate as the winner of an election before the sections become applicable. I agree entirely with learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent that to hold otherwise would lead to a situation where anyone could declare himself as the deemed winner of an election, which would certainly lead to anarchy. The electorate is also entitled to have the results of the election formally declared by an unbiased umpire.

This brings me to the next consideration, which is, whether the appellant and the late Prince Audu met the requirements of Section 179(2) of the Constitution. The lower court found, and I entirely agree that there was no declaration or return of any of the candidates who participated in the election of 21/11/2015 as winners having regard to the declaration of INEC that the election was inconclusive.

That declaration was made based on the provisions of Chapter 3 paragraph 3.11, step 14 of INEC’s Manual for Election Officials. The argument of learned senior counsel for the appellant is that the provisions of the Manual cannot be employed to amend or augment the provisions of the Constitution. It is not disputed that pursuant to Section 160(1) of the Constitution, INEC has the constitutional power to regulate its own procedure or confer powers and impose duties on its Officers for the purpose of discharging its functions. Sections 73 and 153 of the Electoral Act contain similar provisions to ensure the proper discharge of its functions. Section 73 empowers the Commission to publish in the Gazette, guidelines for elections "which shall make provisions for the step by step recording of the poll in the electoral forms as may be prescribed.... "while Section 153 empowers the Commission to issue regulations, guidelines or manuals for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Electoral Act and for its administration. I agree with the finding of the lower court at page 1608 of the record that the above provisions give statutory backing to the Manual as a subsidiary legislation and that where it is found to be relevant, its provisions must be invoked, applied and enforced.

The relevance of INEC's Manual for Electoral Officers in the proper conduct of elections was acknowledged by this Court in the case of C.P.C Vs INEC (2011) LPELR – 8257 (SC) AT PAGES 54 – 55 F – B per Adekeye, JSC thus:

"By force of law the Independent National Electoral Commission has the duty of conducting elections. Besides the constitutional provisions, it is guided by the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and the Election Guidelines and Manual issued for its officials in accordance with the Act. These documents embody all steps to comply with in the conduct of a free, fair and hitch free election."

(Emphasis mine)

Having discovered electoral malpractices in 91 polling units in the State, it was proper for the 1st respondent to consult and apply the provisions of its Manual to determine the next course of action in the circumstances. I do not agree with Chief Olanipekun, SAN, with due respect that resort to its manual in the circumstances amounted to a flagrant disregard of the supremacy of the constitutional provisions as contained in Section 179(2).

Chapter 3 paragraph 3.11, step 14 of the Manual for Election Officials (updated version) at page 325 of Volume 1 of the record provides:

3.11: Final Collation and Declaration of Governorship Election Results at State Level:

The State Collation/Returning Officer for the Governorship shall:

Step 14: "Where the margin of win between the two leading candidates is not in excess of the total number of registered voters of the polling unit(s) where elections were cancelled or not held, decline to make a return until another poll has taken place in the affected polling unit(s) and the results incorporated into a new Form EC8D and subsequently recorded into a new form EC8E for Declaration and Return." (Emphasis mine)

The provision is clear and straight forward and did not require a foray into any other provisions in the Manual for it to be effected. There is no dispute as to the fact that the margin between the votes scored by the late Prince Audu and the appellant on the one hand and Capt. Wada and Arch. Awoniyi, on the other was 41,619, which was less than the total number of registered voters in the 91 polling units where votes were cancelled.

I therefore agree with the court below that the 1st respondent was correct to have declared the election inconclusive on the basis of the number of registered voters in the 91 affected polling units. Having regard to the clear provisions of the Election Manual, it would have been wrong for any electoral official to base his decision on any other consideration, such as the number of registered voters who had collected their PVCs,or the geographical spread of the votes already cast.

Clear and unambiguous provisions must be given their natural and ordinary meaning. Neither the court nor learned counsel is entitled to read into a provision what it does not contain.


https://nigerialii.org/ng/judgment/supreme-court/2016/84

Sifia Pain.


1. It was wrong for RO to cancel polling unit result.

2. It was wrong to manipulate for ec8 with consent of parties involves



You did not see those one abi.

Sorry ghennnn

Sifia pain

Myd44 will soon push this one to the front page just like Adeleke objection strikes out thread

Naijaguy12345:
Ibo people are dreaming if they think Yoruba people will allow a fat guy with no WAEC result rule them. This can never happen. The upper court will give APC victory . We don't want PDP and not the fat guy with no secondary school result.

Wat brought ibo into diz matter, stop talking and thinking like a fool....

What the kangaroo tribular is saying, is that, you can rigged election and inec can not cancelled such manipulated result. and the idiotic pigs are jubilating for the illegal judgement.

kahal29:
In a split decision of 2:1, the Osun State elections petition tribunal declared Adeleke the winner of Osun State election governorship election held last year.

The two tribunal members in their lead judgement held that INEC was wrong to have declared the election inconclusive and a such there was no need for the supplementary election.

However it is my respected view that the tribunal erred in declaring the supplementary election null and void. This is because inec's power to declare an election inconclusive and also conduct a supplementary election has been upheld in the Supreme Court judgement between James Faleke and INEC 2016.

Part of the judgement is reproduced below:

According to Justice KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

It is evident that a declaration as to who received the highest number of votes cast and who should be declared elected is to be made by the appropriate Returning Officer after the results have been ascertained by counting the votes cast for each candidate.

Section 133(1) of the Electoral Act also provides that the only venue to ventilate a complaint of undue election or undue return at an election is before a competent Court or Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution or Act.

In effect, I agree with the finding of the court below that contrary to the submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant, Sections 179(2) and 181(1) of the Constitution are not self-executing. There must be a declaration or return of a candidate as the winner of an election before the sections become applicable. I agree entirely with learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent that to hold otherwise would lead to a situation where anyone could declare himself as the deemed winner of an election, which would certainly lead to anarchy. The electorate is also entitled to have the results of the election formally declared by an unbiased umpire.

This brings me to the next consideration, which is, whether the appellant and the late Prince Audu met the requirements of Section 179(2) of the Constitution. The lower court found, and I entirely agree that there was no declaration or return of any of the candidates who participated in the election of 21/11/2015 as winners having regard to the declaration of INEC that the election was inconclusive.

That declaration was made based on the provisions of Chapter 3 paragraph 3.11, step 14 of INEC’s Manual for Election Officials. The argument of learned senior counsel for the appellant is that the provisions of the Manual cannot be employed to amend or augment the provisions of the Constitution. It is not disputed that pursuant to Section 160(1) of the Constitution, INEC has the constitutional power to regulate its own procedure or confer powers and impose duties on its Officers for the purpose of discharging its functions. Sections 73 and 153 of the Electoral Act contain similar provisions to ensure the proper discharge of its functions. Section 73 empowers the Commission to publish in the Gazette, guidelines for elections "which shall make provisions for the step by step recording of the poll in the electoral forms as may be prescribed.... "while Section 153 empowers the Commission to issue regulations, guidelines or manuals for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Electoral Act and for its administration. I agree with the finding of the lower court at page 1608 of the record that the above provisions give statutory backing to the Manual as a subsidiary legislation and that where it is found to be relevant, its provisions must be invoked, applied and enforced.

The relevance of INEC's Manual for Electoral Officers in the proper conduct of elections was acknowledged by this Court in the case of C.P.C Vs INEC (2011) LPELR – 8257 (SC) AT PAGES 54 – 55 F – B per Adekeye, JSC thus:

"By force of law the Independent National Electoral Commission has the duty of conducting elections. Besides the constitutional provisions, it is guided by the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and the Election Guidelines and Manual issued for its officials in accordance with the Act. These documents embody all steps to comply with in the conduct of a free, fair and hitch free election."

(Emphasis mine)

Having discovered electoral malpractices in 91 polling units in the State, it was proper for the 1st respondent to consult and apply the provisions of its Manual to determine the next course of action in the circumstances. I do not agree with Chief Olanipekun, SAN, with due respect that resort to its manual in the circumstances amounted to a flagrant disregard of the supremacy of the constitutional provisions as contained in Section 179(2).

Chapter 3 paragraph 3.11, step 14 of the Manual for Election Officials (updated version) at page 325 of Volume 1 of the record provides:

3.11: Final Collation and Declaration of Governorship Election Results at State Level:

The State Collation/Returning Officer for the Governorship shall:

Step 14: "Where the margin of win between the two leading candidates is not in excess of the total number of registered voters of the polling unit(s) where elections were cancelled or not held, decline to make a return until another poll has taken place in the affected polling unit(s) and the results incorporated into a new Form EC8D and subsequently recorded into a new form EC8E for Declaration and Return." (Emphasis mine)

The provision is clear and straight forward and did not require a foray into any other provisions in the Manual for it to be effected. There is no dispute as to the fact that the margin between the votes scored by the late Prince Audu and the appellant on the one hand and Capt. Wada and Arch. Awoniyi, on the other was 41,619, which was less than the total number of registered voters in the 91 polling units where votes were cancelled.

I therefore agree with the court below that the 1st respondent was correct to have declared the election inconclusive on the basis of the number of registered voters in the 91 affected polling units. Having regard to the clear provisions of the Election Manual, it would have been wrong for any electoral official to base his decision on any other consideration, such as the number of registered voters who had collected their PVCs,or the geographical spread of the votes already cast.

Clear and unambiguous provisions must be given their natural and ordinary meaning. Neither the court nor learned counsel is entitled to read into a provision what it does not contain.


https://nigerialii.org/ng/judgment/supreme-court/2016/84

The worst thing that will happen to a man that claimed he knows more that everybody is for him to be wallowing in self deceit.
One question to clear your half-baked brain ,
Between Nigeria Constitution on electoral matters and INEC sub Constitution which is superior ?

Instead of blaming INEC, Yoruba moslems are busy blaming Igbos.
Una go still lose Ondo

ChristianNorth:
Instead of blaming INEC, Yoruba moslems are busy blaming Igbos.

Una go still lose Ondo

Yorubas Muslim have been tormenting this one since time immemorial

awelekiti:
OP, thanks for consoling yourself. Adeleke has hard facts which is glaring for everybody to see. Even if the case is taken to world court, I'm confident he'd still win

By tomorrow, or which ever day, when the Appeal court rules otherwise, hope it will not be a case of democracy is on fire?

Afamed:

By tomorrow, or which ever day, when the Appeal court rules otherwise, hope it will not be a case of democracy is on fire?

Even those living overseas knew adeleke was robbed as they cried foul.
The judgement is hard to be overruled. If the apc likes, they should go to the Hague, adeleke would still win. It's very clear

BillGoldberg:
OP, I have only two words for you: USELESS MAN!

ChristianNorth:
Instead of blaming INEC, Yoruba moslems are busy blaming Igbos.

Una go still lose Ondo

Wetin yoruba Muslim do you bro . Abeg take am eazi na. To be honest, the only detribalised and truly national party is the pdp. Its unfortunate they messed up during Jonathan era and it was the fault of obj that nominated him. Donald Duke would have been a better candidate if president must come from the south south to compensate them for the oil which Nigerians have derived great fortune from since independence in pdp, there's no Christian, Muslim, yoruba, hausa or igbo. Everybody is treated equally and the party cuts across every region. Unfortunately, those who messed the party up are now the saints in the APC. I hope they've learned enough lesson though. PDP will surely win Ondo un the next guber , no doubt

Naijaguy12345:
Ibo people are dreaming if they think Yoruba people will allow a fat guy with no WAEC result rule them. This can never happen. The upper court will give APC victory . We don't want PDP and not the fat guy with no secondary school result.

Na Igbos be Osun indigenes? No be ur people vote Adeleke? If u like insult his physical appearance, na for your own pocket. Continue calling Igbos, u may yet become as resourceful and blessed as they are.

CHECK OUT, SUBSCRIBE AND ENJOY THE LATEST

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpBTcnilLZ4AJjy-n262Hng