Lagos poll: How tribunal resolved eligibility, nationality, other issues

IN this report, it was examined how the Lagos State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal processed the issues of the winners' eligibility to contest and nationality, among others raised by the candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Olajide Adediran, and the Labour Party, LP, Mr. Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour.

Five months after it began sitting, the Lagos State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal on September 25 upheld the victory of Mr. Babajide Sanwo-Olu as the validly elected winner of the March 18 election for the Office of the Governor of Lagos State. The three-man panel of justices unanimously rejected the challenge to Sanwo-Olu and his deputy, Obafemi Hamzat’s eligibility to contest, the issues of certificate forgery, nationality and oath declaration, among others alleged by the defeated candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Mr. Olajide Adediran, and the Labour Party, LP, Mr. Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour.

The election

The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, on Saturday, March 18, 2023 conducted an election for the Office of the Governor of Lagos State. The frontrunners were Sanwo-Olu, Rhodes Vivour and Adediran popularly known as Jandor. Other political parties also sponsored candidates.

At the conclusion of the poll, the electoral umpire on March 20, 2023 announced the results. It declared and returned the incumbent, Sanwo-Olu as winner, having scored 762,134 votes to beat his closest rival, Rhodes Vivour who polled 312,329 votes. Adediran was a distant third with 62,499 votes. Dissatisfied, Rhodes Vivour and Adediran filed separate petitions challenging the election result and INEC’s declaration. 

Adediran’s petition

Adediran and the PDP listed INEC, Sanwo-Olu and Lagos State Deputy Governor, Obafemi Hamzat as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents in the petition. He further joined Rhodes-Vivour as the fourth.

They asked the tribunal to annul Sanwo-Olu’s election and Rhodes-Vivour’s votes and hinged their prayers on the APC’s alleged substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Law as well as the guidelines of INEC, when nominating Sanwo-Olu and Lagos State Deputy Governor, Obafemi Hamzat.

They also claimed that Sanwo-Olu failed to attach a copy of the GCE O/Level result he claimed to have sat for in 1981 along with his form EC9 as required by the Electoral Act 2022.

Rhodes-Vivour’s petition

In his petition filed on April 9, Rhodes-Vivour of the LP listed INEC, Sanwo-Olu, Hamzat and the APC as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, respondents. The petition was predicated on the grounds that Sanwo-Olu “was, at the time of the Election, not qualified to contest the election; was “invalid by reasons of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 and Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and was not duly elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the election. 

Sanwo-Olu, Hamzat’s replies

But Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat in their replies objected to the Petitioners’ assertions of their lack of qualification to contest the election, saying that the argument was false and baseless.

They also noted that they polled a minimum of 63 per cent of the valid votes cast, while their nearest challenger, Rhodes-Vivour, scored less than 30 per cent of the valid votes cast at the election.

The 2nd and 3rd Respondents also contended that their nomination forms, contrary to the allegations of the petitioners, were submitted within the time prescribed by INEC pursuant to section 29 (7) of the Electoral Act, 2022.

They also denied the petitioner’s allegations that Hamzat renounced and abjured his Nigerian Citizenship. They sought several reliefs including praying the tribunal to strike out and/or dismiss the petitions “for being incompetent, fundamentally defective, and vesting no jurisdiction on this Tribunal to adjudicate thereon.”

Tribunal’s verdict: Adediran’s petition dead on arrival

In a unanimous judgment read by Justice Mikail Abdullahi on behalf of the three-man panel, the tribunal described the PDP and Adediran’s petition as “dead on arrival” and “deserving of a befitting burial”.

It held that the petition lacked merit and was accordingly dismissed.

In reaching the verdict, the tribunal first dwelt on the preliminary objections raised by the respondents before considering the issues raised for determination. The tribunal entertained the question of whether it had the competence and jurisdiction to hear the petition.

Justice Abdullahi answered this question in the affirmative and held that this issue had already been resolved at the preliminary objection stage. The second issue for the tribunal’s determination was whether Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat were validly nominated by their party – APC – to contest the polls.

The tribunal cited relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Electoral Act and a plethora of decided cases to the effect that this was a pre-election issue that did not relate to the conduct of the polls being challenged.

On the issue of the alleged forged certificate of Community Grammar School, Ijebu-Ife, the tribunal noted amongst others that Adediran testified that the principal of the school was still alive. 

The tribunal wondered why he didn’t call as a witness, the principal of the school, or any of the staff to testify about the certificate.

Why Rhodes-Vivour’s petition failed —Tribunal

Just like it did with the PDP, the tribunal dismissed Rhodes-Vivour’s petition.

Justice Arum Ashom, who read the unanimous judgment, held that the petition was devoid of merit.

The tribunal first dwelt on the preliminary objections filed by the parties. It reiterated its earlier judgment that the issue of nomination of candidates was a pre-election issue with jurisdiction on same vested in only the Federal High Court.

The tribunal therefore dismissed this ground of Rhodes-Vivour’s petition and held that there were no sufficient facts put forward by the petitioner to support his ground that Sanwo-Olu’s election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act.

Relying on the judgment of the Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC in the petition of Peter Obi & 3 others, the court discountenanced the oral evidence of four subpoenaed witnesses called by Rhodes-Vivour in the instant case.

The tribunal, however, ruled in favour of Rhodes-Vivour when it held that he had the locus to file the petition but noted that the petition survived on only one ground.

The tribunal particularly took note of Section 182 (1) (a) of the Constitution which was the foundation laid by the petitioners for the disqualification of the 3rd Respondent.

The tribunal rejected the witness statement and evidence of a US Immigration lawyer, Mrs. Olubusayo Fasidi, on the ground that her testimony was misconceived.

“Since he is a Nigerian by birth, his becoming American citizen does not extinguish his citizen of Nigeria. Declaration of oath of allegiance does not tantamount to taking citizenship. It is merely a condition precedent,” the tribunal held.

The tribunal added: “It has been argued that aside from taking the citizenship of the United States, the 3rd Respondent has also declared allegiance to the United States as admitted by him in Exhibits PE393 - PE404.

“Declaration or Oath of allegiance to the United States is not different from taking United States citizenship; rather, it is a — precursor to it. As a matter of fact, the United States Oath of Allegiance is a sworn declaration that all United States applicants for citizenship by naturalization must solemnly swear to during a formal naturalization ceremony in order to formally complete the Naturalization process.

“That is to say, declaration of allegiance is a condition precedent to acquiring the United States’ citizenship. An applicant for US citizenship must subscribe to the oath of allegiance before he is conferred with the citizenship. The petitioner seems to assume that making a declaration or swearing to an oath of allegiance is distinct and carries a higher obligation and more binding than acquiring United States’ citizenship.

“He assumes that by swearing to an oath of allegiance to the United States, the 3rd Respondent has forfeited, mortgaged, compromised and renounced his allegiance to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. That is far from the law. The United States Constitution and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, all recognised and permitted dual citizenship. 

“Whether one was born an American citizen or he naturalized, if he has dual citizenship, he will be considered as owing allegiance both to the United States and the other country. “

IN the case of the 3rd Respondent, a Nigerian by birth, his subscription to an oath or declaration of allegiance to the United States cannot and does not strip him of his Nigerian citizenship, attaining and or holding public offices. Subscribing to an Oath of Allegiance to a foreign country is not as specifically listed as one of the inhibiting factors with a disqualifying effect.

“Having so resolved the issue for determination, this Petition with No: EPT/LAG/GOV/04/2023 is clearly devoid of merit and consequently dismissed. I affirm the declaration and return of BABAJIDE OLUSOLA SANWO-OLU by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the duly elected Governor of Lagos State of Nigeria. Parties to bear their cost.”

Culled from Vanguard