Appeal Court Affirms Sanwo-Olu’s Re-election

The Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal has  dismissed the appeals filed by the governorship candidates of the Labour Party (LP), Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olajide Adediran, popularly known as Jandor against the victory of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu.

The three-man panel of the appellate court presided over by Justice Yargata Nimpar in a unanimous judgment dismissed the appeals for lacking in merit.

The court held that the appellants failed to prove their allegations of forgery and non-qualification against the governor and his deputy Dr. Obafemi Hamzat.

Justice Nimpar, who read the judgment held that Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat were qualified to contest the March 18, 2023, governorship election in the state under section 177 of the Constitution.

He also held, “Even though they were all pre-election matters, the appellants (PDP and Adeniran) still failed to prove them. The appellants came empty-handed and left empty-handed. They merely enjoyed their day in court. Their petition is dismissed.

“No case of renunciation of citizenship has been established by the LP and Gbadebo against the third respondent (Hamzat) in accordance with the constitution.

“No evidence of oath of allegiance to the United States and renunciation of Nigerian citizenship was placed before the tribunal by  Rhodes-Vivour.

“No document to prove that the third respondent was no longer a citizen of Nigeria. It is incumbent on the appellants to prove their claim.”

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

In their separate appeals, Rhodes-Vivour and Jandor had urged the court to dismiss the judgment of the Lagos State Governorship Election Tribunal that upheld the election of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu and declare them the winner of the election held on March 18 2023.

The Governorship Election Petition Tribunal had, on September 25, 2023, affirmed the re-election of Governor Sanwo-Olu and his deputy Obafemi Hamzat as the duly elected governor of the state.

The Respondents in Rhodes-Vivour’s appeals are the Independent National Electoral Commission, Governor Sanwo-Olu, his deputy, Obafemi Hamzat and the All Progressives Congress (APC).

While Jandor and the PDP listed Sanwo-Olu, Hamzat, APC, Rhodes-Vivour and the Labour Party as respondents in his own appeal.

While adopting his client processes, Rhodes-Vivour’s lawyer, Olagbade Benson had urged the court to interpret Section 182 (1) (a) of the Constitution and its implication to the qualification of the governor and his deputy Benson had also argued that the Tribunal erred in law when it held that the burden of proof of the specific oath of allegiance subscribed to by Hamzat and the evidence of his renounced citizenship rests on the appellant.

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.

But counsel to Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), had urged the court to dismiss the appeal, contending that the issue of dual citizenship was never presented before the Tribunal.

He stated that what was argued before the Tribunal was an allegation that Hamzat placed an allegiance to a foreign country. However, they are now presenting a case of dual citizenship; they believe this is a trial court.

“We urge your Lordship to dismiss this appeal,” he said.

The PDP and Jandor, on their part, filed 34 grounds of appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal in which they expressed dissatisfaction with the decision of the lower court and described the verdict as a miscarriage of justice.

They claimed 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 against Rhodes-Vivour, stating that since they alleged that the sponsorship of the LP candidate was also invalid, the Tribunal ought to have invalidated his candidacy.

In his response on behalf of Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat, 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 respondent’s defence.

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