Appeal Court Reserves Judgement in LP, PDP Petitions against Sanwo-Olu, Hamzat

Wale Igbintade

The State and National Assembly Appeal Court sitting in Lagos has reserved judgement in two separate appeals filed by Labour Party candidate, Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour and his Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) counterpart, Olajide Adediran, (also known as Jandor) challenging the victory of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu in the March 18 governorship election.

The three-member panel of the Appellate Court presided over by Justice Yargata Nimpar, yesterday, reserved the two appeals for judgement after hearing submissions from Counsels to all the parties.

Justice Nimpar stated that the date for judgement in the two appeals will be communicated to all the parties.

Other members of the panel are Justice Samuel Bola and Justice Justice Paul Bassi.

The Lagos Governorship Election Petition Tribunal had on September 25, 2023 dismissed the petitions filed by the PDP candidate Olajide Adediran and that of the Labour Party against the election of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu and his deputy, Dr. Obafemi Hamzat.

The tribunal presided over by Justice Arum Ashom, in its unanimous decision, held that all the issues raised by the petitioners are pre-election matters of which the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain.

Dissatisfied, PDP candidate Olajide Adediran, through his lawyer, Clement Onwuenwunor SAN, filed a 38-page document dated October 13, with 34 grounds of appeal.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Gov Babajide Sanwo-Olu, his deputy, Obafemi Hamzat, the All Progressive Congress (APC), the Labour Party and its Candidate, Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour were all listed as respondents in the notice of appeal.

Also the governorship candidate of the Labour Party in Lagos State, Gbadebo-Rhodes Vivour (GRV) in his Notice of Appeal challenged the decision of the State Governorship Tribunal which upheld the return of Gov. Babajide Sanwo-Olu.

At the hearing of the appeal yesterday, lead counsel of the Labour Party, Olagbade Benson, urged the court to allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the tribunal and grant the reliefs sought.

He urged the court to interpret Section 182 (1) (a) of the Constitution and its implication to the qualification of 2nd and 3rd respondents.

Benson argued that the tribunal failed to disqualify Sanwo-Olu and his deputy having found that Hamzat is a naturalised US citizen who made a declaration of allegiance to that country.

He stated that the case of the appellant was substantially that the 3rd Respondent made a declaration of allegiance to the United States America and voluntarily acquired the citizenship of that country.

Benson argued that Section 177 of the 1999 Constitution states that only a Nigerian citizen by birth is qualified to contest for the office of Governor and Deputy Governor of a State.

In his response counsel to governor Sanwo-olu and his Deputy, Hamzat (2nd and 3rd respondents), Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), urged the court to dismiss the appeal.

He contended that the dual citizenship argued by the appellant was never presented before the Tribunal.

He stated that after a total decapitation of the remnant of the Appellant’s case before it in accordance with laid down rules and procedure from factual and evidential perspectives, the lower Tribunal still took its time to consider the relevant provisions relating to non-qualification of the Appellant and decided on the merit, out of abundance of caution and, not being a final court, whether the case of the Appellant had any hope ab initio.

Olanipekun submitted  “for the sake of argument, assuming without conceding that the Appellant successfully proved his case that the 3rd Respondent indeed took an oath of allegiance to the United States of America, our vehement submission is that the 3rd Respondent, by virtue of his being a Nigerian citizen by birth, and in the absence of any evidence of renunciation of same in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, would still not have been disqualified from contesting election into the office of Deputy Governor of Lagos State, and that the lower Tribunal was on a strong legal footing when it so held after a detailed and painstaking consideration of all applicable provisions of the Constitution as well as applicable judicial decisions”.

He argued that the original case of the Appellant was that the 3rd Respondent has lost his Nigerian citizenship by birth, having acquired the citizenship of the United States of America and taken a declaration of allegiance to the United States.

He argued that, “The explanation for the use of the word ‘original’ in describing the case of the Appellant is that in his final written address before the lower Tribunal, Appellant subsequently attempted to shift the goal post and make another case different from what he made in his pleadings as rightly found by the lower Tribunal. 

“The lower Tribunal took a holistic view of sections 28, 182 (1)(a) and 187 of the 1999 Constitution, and came to the inescapable conclusion that, in so far as a Nigerian citizen by birth retains his citizenship and does not renounce same in the manner prescribed by the Constitution, he is entitled to and not disqualified from contesting and holding elective office.

“What that means is that a Nigerian Citizen by birth cannot be disqualified from contesting election by the dint of the fact of dual citizenship or declaration of oath of allegiance.

“A community reading of Sections 28,29,30, 65 and 66 of the Constitution shows without a doubt that there is a huge difference between a citizen of Nigeria by birth and one by naturalization or registration. A citizen of Nigeria by birth is not subject to any disqualifications, not even as a result of Oath of Allegiance to another country.”

He urged the court to dismiss the appeal.

In the appeal of the PDP governorship candidate, Azeez Adediran, dated October 13, 2023, Adediran expressed dissatisfaction with the judgment of the lower court, and described the verdict as a miscarriage of Law.

He asked the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment of the tribunal.

He stated that the Tribunal erred in law and thereby reached a wrong conclusion when it dismissed the petition he lodged to challenge the qualification of Sanwo-Olu who was announced as the winner of the election.

The appellant also faulted the tribunal for striking out from his petition, Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour, saying since he also alleged that the sponsorship of Rhodes-Vivour, was also invalid, the Tribunal must also invalidate his candidacy.

However, Jandor urged the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the Tribunal, disqualify the APC and LP candidates while declaring their votes wasted.

In his reply, counsel to Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat, Mr. Bode Olanipekun (SAN) submitted that the reliefs sought by the Appellants are such that they must succeed on the strength of their petition and not on the weakness of the respondents’ defence.

He argued that the Appellants did not prove anything before the lower Tribunal and no burden shifted to the Respondents to disprove any fact.

“In the instant case, the petitioner tendered the alleged false document (Exhibit P36) from the bar, the petitioners could not produce before the Court the Original document from which exhibit P36 was counterfeit.

“It is trite law that where oral evidence and documentary evidence tendered by a party in proof of a fact says different, that party cannot be said to have led credible and cogent evidence in proof of that fact,” Olanipekun said.