Lagos Tribunal Reserves Judgment In Rhodes–Vivour, Jandor’s Petitions

The Lagos State Governorship Election Tribunal on Saturday Reserved judgment on the petition filed by the Governorship Candidates of the Labour Party (LP), Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour and that of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olajide Adediran, popularly known as Jandor.

The three-person panel presided over by Justice Arum Ashom adjourned judgment to a date to be communicated to parties in the matter after they adopted their final written addresses.

Both Rhodes-Vivour and Jandor, who contested the March 18 governorship elections in Lagos State alongside Governor Babjide SanwoOlu, filed the petitions to challenge the outcome of the polls.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Sanwo-Olu, his deputy, Obafemi Hamzat and the All Progressives Congress (APC) were listed as the respondents in Rhodes-Vivour’s Petition.

Counsel to INEC, Charles Edosonwan (SAN), while adopting his final written address, asked the Tribunal to dismiss Rhodes-Viviour’s petition for lack of evidence.

Edosonwan submitted, “One of the issues raised by the petitioner is whether the election was conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act.

“On this issue, we say they have provided no proof to show it wasn’t. A petition erected on such an allegation was sought to be proven by ten witnesses in a state that has 13,325 polling units. The petition is materially challenged.

“The petitioner dumped an avalanche of documents before the Tribunal without speaking to them. The Tribunal should therefore dismiss the petition,” he stated.

Counsel to the Sanwo-Olu and his deputy, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), in his final written address, told the Tribunal that the petitioner “abandoned” his petition in his last written speeches.

Olanipekun noted that there was no reference to the second respondent, Babajide SanwoOlu, in their address, but instead, the talk focused on the third respondent.

He maintained that “they have abandoned their petition and any issues against the second respondent.

“The petition borders on non-qualification, and the written address borders on disqualification. There is a jurisprudential difference. The petitioner also put some exhibits before the tribunal regarding the third respondent. The shows have no name and no signature. The purported oath of allegiance is of Mr Nobody. It’s omnibus.

“Election Petitions are different from election expeditions. It’s not a cruise. What the petitioner has embarked upon is a frivolous expedition. They are walking on banana peels, and the petition has to fail.  If wishes were horses, the petitioner may, in future, become governor. We urge the court not to accede to their request as it’s not the tribunal’s duty to assist the petitioner in resuscitating their case, which has been abandoned.”