The Court of Appeal in Lagos has scheduled Wednesday, November 15, for the announcement of its judgment on the appeals filed by Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour, the Labour Party’s gubernatorial candidate, and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) along with its candidate, Abdulazeez Olajide Adediran. The appeals contest the re-election of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu.
The court has notified the involved parties that the judgment in the appeal will be pronounced tomorrow at 3 pm.
Exactly one week ago, on November 7th, the Court of Appeal panel, presided over by Justice Yargata Nimpar, had reserved judgment in the two appeals following the presentation of arguments by the parties.
The panel also includes Justice Samuel Bola and Justice Paul Bassi.
The court stated that it would inform the parties of the judgment date.
On September 25, the Election Petitions Tribunal, in a unanimous decision, dismissed both petitions, affirming the re-election of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu and Deputy Governor Obafemi Hamzat.
During the appeal hearing on November 7th, the three-member panel, led by Justice Yargata Nimpar, reserved judgment after hearing arguments from the involved parties.
In his presentation before the justices, the lead counsel for Rhodes-Vivour, Olagbade Benson, requested the court to uphold the appeal, grant the requested reliefs, and overturn the Tribunal’s decision delivered on September 25th.
He also requested the court to interpret the implications of Section 182 (1) (a) of the Constitution on the qualification of the 2nd and 3rd respondents.
On October 7th, Gbadebo-Rhodes Vivour submitted his notice of appeal, outlining 21 grounds challenging the State Governorship Tribunal’s decision that upheld Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu’s victory.
The appeal contended, among other things, that the tribunal made a legal error by relying on the Court of Appeal’s decision in the petition of Mr. Peter Gregory Obi & Anor. Vs. INEC & Ors. to dismiss the evidence presented by all of his subpoenaed witnesses.
In Grounds 2 & 3, the appellants, focusing on the matter of their subpoenaed witnesses, also asserted that the Tribunal made a legal error by determining that the three witnesses—PW7, PW8, and PW9—did not belong to the category of witnesses that could be subpoenaed. Consequently, the Tribunal disregarded their oral testimony and documents on the basis that they were not listed as witnesses, and their sworn statements did not accompany the Petition and documents frontloaded in accordance with the Electoral Act 2022.
In Grounds 4 & 5, Rhodes-Vivour argued that the Tribunal made a legal mistake in concluding that the burden of proving the specific Oath of Allegiance subscribed to by the Deputy Governor, as well as the evidence of his renounced citizenship, lies with the Appellant. The appeal also contended that exhibits presented to the tribunal on this matter were unjustly considered abandoned.
Furthermore, it stated that the tribunal neglected to disqualify Sanwo-Olu and his deputy, despite acknowledging that Hamzat is a naturalized United States of America citizen who declared allegiance to that country.
Additional aspects of the petition addressed the tribunal’s failure to disqualify Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu and his deputy, considering that Dr. Obafemi Hamzat is a naturalized citizen of the United States of America who pledged allegiance to that country.
Rhodes-Vivour asserted that according to Section 177 of the 1999 Constitution, only a Nigerian citizen by birth is eligible to run for the positions of Governor and Deputy Governor of a State.
In response to the appeal, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Wole Olanipekun, representing Governor Sanwo-Olu and Dr. Obafemi Hamzat, urged the court to reject the appeal. He argued that the appellant’s claim of dual citizenship was not presented to the tribunal.
“They are now presenting a case of dual citizenship, they believe that this is a trial court. The tribunal found out that the purported oath of allegiance to a foreign country was not before it so it ruled it out. We urge your Lordship to dismiss this appeal,” he said.
The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and its gubernatorial candidate, Azeez Olajide Adediran, commonly known as Jandor, have submitted an appeal comprising 34 grounds against the Tribunal’s decision that affirmed Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu as the victor in the election.
In the grounds of appeal, Jandor says “Contrary to the misleading conclusion of the Tribunal, the issue of disqualification of the winner of an election, is both a pre and post-election dispute, and it was highly erroneous of the Tribunal to treat it as merely a pre-election issue”.
The candidate and his party reasserted the requests outlined in their petitions, seeking the disqualification of candidates from both the APC and Labour Party.
Jandor also criticized the tribunal for dismissing the Labour Party and its candidate from his petition, particularly given the numerous allegations of infractions against Rhodes-Vivour. He emphasized that the law recognizes the inclusion of anyone accused in such legal actions.
In his appeal, the PDP candidate argued that he had the right to raise concerns about Governor Sanwo-Olu’s tertiary qualifications, which he asserted were based on fraudulent A Level WAEC Certificates, as indicated in some of the exhibits presented to the court.
Among other requests, he urged the Court of Appeal to declare that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction in determining that the various names in the certificates presented by Sanwo-Olu belonged to the same individual.
During the Governorship Election on Saturday, March 18, 2023, Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat were ineligible to participate.
All votes cast for both candidates and the APC in that election were deemed ineffective due to the disqualification of the 2nd and 3rd candidates from taking part.
Jandor, having secured the third-highest number of votes in the election and meeting the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022, is the rightful candidate to be declared the winner.
In response, counsel for Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Bode Olanipekun, argued that the appellants’ requested remedies should hinge on the strength of their petition rather than the weakness of the respondent’s defense.
He contended that the appellants failed to substantiate any claims before the lower tribunal, and therefore, no burden was placed on the respondents to refute any facts.
“In the instant case, the petitioner tendered the alleged false A Level WAEC Certificates from the bar, and could not produce before the Court the Original document from which the exhibit 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.
He subsequently urged the court to dismiss the appeal.