Lagos State Governor, Babajide Sanwo-Olu and his deputy, Dr. Obafemi Hamzat, have urged the Lagos State Governorship Election Tribunal to reject the petition filed by the Governorship Candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour. They argue that he lacks evidence to substantiate his claims.
In the March 18 governorship elections, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC declared Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat winners after they garnered 762,134 votes, the majority of lawful votes cast across all polling units, wards, and local governments in Lagos state, meeting the constitutional geographical spread requirement.
The petitioner, Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour, secured 312,329 votes, placing second in the polls, which is less than half of the votes obtained by the declared winners and approximately 27 percent of the total valid votes in the elections.
He sought the court’s intervention on April 9 to challenge the election outcome, citing “sundry trumped up grounds,” including alleged non-qualification, corrupt practices, and non-compliance with the Electoral Act of 2022.
Rhodes-Vivour urged the Tribunal to nullify Sanwo-Olu’s return and declare himself as the election winner, as the candidate with the second-highest number of lawful votes cast.
In their 43-page final written address filed on July 22, Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat asked the tribunal to take note of the petitioner’s lack of seriousness for the petition, as he neither submitted a witness statement nor appeared in person to prove his case.
Sanwo-Olu also argued that no evidence had been presented to the Justice Arum Ashom panel to prove that the votes cast for the APC governor were unlawful or that the election was conducted not in substantial compliance with the relevant laws.
“The petitioner called nine witnesses in relation to the ground of non-compliance spanning 20 local governments and over 13,000 polling units in Lagos and one subpoenaed pseudo expert witness for the ground of non-qualification. In all, the petitioner called only one polling unit agent who had to be compelled to give evidence by subpoena.”
“To show the non-participation of the Labour Party in this petition, the petitioner had to apply for a subpoena to be issued on PW 9 who gave evidence as the party secretary and stated that he did not attend the tribunal to give evidence voluntarily and would not have attended proceedings but for the subpoena.”
Through their lawyers, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), leading Adesegun Ajibola (SAN), Muiz Banire (SAN), Bode Olanipekun (SAN), Said Sanusi (SAN) and seven others, Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat asserted;
“Considering the evidence led at the trial of this petition vis-a-viz constitutional and statutory provisions regarding assumption and occupation of the office of Governor of Lagos State, whether this petition presents any valid justification to alter/upturn the return made by INEC at the election of the office of Governor of Lagos State held on 18th March, 2023.”
They contended that “since the reliefs sought in an election petition are declaratory in nature, it will amount to reiterating the obvious that the quantum and quality of evidence must be of such a gradient that will be sufficiently compelling to impel a tribunal to displace the presumption of regularity because declaratory reliefs cannot be granted on the strength of mere admission by an adversary and such admission does not excuse a petitioner from satisfying/discharging the enormous burden of proof. “
Sanwo-Olu and his deputy, in their final written address, urged the Tribunal to recognize that none of the 10 witnesses called by the petitioner requested for the relief or any other reliefs made by Rhodes-Vivour, indicating “the abandonment of the reliefs.”
“To demonstrate the level of seriousness which the petitioner ascribes to this petition, he did not have any witness statement or written deposition front-loaded with his petition neither did he deem it fit to come and testify before the Tribunal.”
The petitioner is the ultimate intended beneficiary of the petition and would have been in the best position to make a request for the reliefs by way of evidence. It is not a responsibility he can delegate, more so that the political party on whose platform he contested is not partnering or supporting him in the current adventure of more appropriately put, misadventure, with respect to prosecuting this petition. In any event, no such witness to which the petitioner delegated the responsibility gave evidence.
The Tribunal, like every other court of law, cannot do for the party what the said party ought to do for himself since that will be abandoning its impartial adjudicator’s role”.
Concerning the alleged non-qualification of Governor Sanwo-Olu, and for the petitioner to be declared the winner, the parties argued that a petitioner cannot succeed on such a claim if he does not prove that he is still a member of the sponsoring political party.
They also pointed out that since LP was not a co-petitioner to confirm or infer the sole petitioner’s continued membership of the party as of the election date, and considering no evidence was presented to demonstrate or prove his continued party membership, the petitioner recused himself from any relief on the alleged disqualification ground.
Regarding the alleged non-qualification of the deputy governor, Obafemi Hamzat, on account of naturalizing as a US citizen, the respondents highlighted the testimony of a subpoenaed witness, PW 8, who claimed to be an expert in US Immigration Law.
They noted the absence of her alleged educational certificates, CV, research, or successful litigation on immigration or electoral law in the USA before the Tribunal, casting doubt on her expertise.
The respondents also emphasized that the witness admitted she was not an expert in electoral law in Nigeria, discrediting her testimony as “false and slippery,” lacking credibility.
“PW 8 is not a witness of truth. She stated under oath as an expert that she denounced Nigerian citizenship when she naturalized as a US Citizen. However, under cross-examination, she admitted to having a Nigerian passport and entering Nigeria without a visa. Only Nigerian citizens can hold a Nigerian passport, and it is a criminal offense for a non-Nigerian to do so. Therefore, PW 8 was either confessing to criminality while giving evidence or telling a blatant lie to implicate the 3rd Respondent, Obafemi Hamzat”.
“The petitioner bears the burden of tendering the deputy governor’s renunciation of citizenship, if it exists, and demonstrating the Presidential assent for it by presenting the registration document to the tribunal”.
