.jpeg)
The Lagos State Governorship Election Tribunal, Ikeja, presided over by Justice Arum Ashom on Saturday reserved for judgment in the petition initiated against the governor of the state, Babajide Sanwo-Olu.
The Tribunal decided after entertaining the final written arguments of parties in the two petitions.
Rhodes-Vivour and Jandor are attacking the return of the All Progressives Congress (APC)’s governorship candidate, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, as well as his deputy, Obafemi Hamzat by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in the March 18 governorship elections in Lagos State.
Though the petitioners were not present in court, the third respondent (Hamzat) was present in court on Saturday.
The electoral body is the first respondent in the petition, while Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat are listed as the second and third respondents respectively, while the APC is listed as the fourth respondent.
Adopting his final written address, the lawyer for the INEC, and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Charles Edosonwan, asked the Tribunal to dismiss Rhodes-Viviour’s petition for lack of evidence.
The SAN stated, “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 that they have provided no scintilla of proof to show it wasn’t.
“A petition erected on such an allegation was sought to be proven by 10 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”.
On his part, the lawyer for the second and third respondents, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), told the Tribunal that the petitioner “abandoned” his petition in his final written addresses.
The senior lawyer, who noted that there was no reference to the second respondent but instead the address dwelt on the third respondent, added, “They have abandoned their petition and also abandoned 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 in respect of the third respondent. The exhibits 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 duty of the Tribunal to assist the petitioner to resuscitate their case which has been abandoned.
"No witness came before the court to ask for anything. The petitioner didn’t come, nobody asked for anything, and nobody adopted any witness statement, so why are we here?
“The petition is frivolous. This is the turf of law, and it’s what is presented here that counts. We do law here, not on social media”.
For counsel to the third respondent, Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN), “Two issues were formulated. One is about the effect of his oath of allegiance, the second is about Mr Governor putting him forward.
“So, it’s all about a person who was not sold to the electorate. So it relieves the court of the burden of dealing with other irrelevancies.
“It’s important that the court has a chance to demonstrate whether Nigerians who remit money back home are second-class citizens.
“The third respondent got a PhD abroad in 1991 in the US, and he was headhunted back to Nigeria. Are we saying Nigerians abroad cannot come back to deploy the wealth of knowledge and experience they have garnered abroad?
“In any case, we thought we were coming here to defend the elections, but we ended up turning this to an immigration court. Thirty (30) pages of their address were devoted to this-the future of Nigerians to hold office once they acquire foreign nationality!
“Clause 14 of the American passport states that your being granted citizenship does not relieve you of your obligation to your country of birth. His allegiance to the US does not void his allegiance to his country of birth”.
The petitioner's counsel, Folagbade Benson, in his arguments, cited Section 182(1-5) of the Constitution, which he said disqualifies certain individuals from holding certain political offices irrespective of their place of birth.
“Has there been proof that the third respondent is caught by the provisions of Section 182(1a)? We say we have proven those facts.
“Counsel for the 4th respondent has even admitted in open court that the 3rd respondent made an oath of allegiance to the US, and it binds his client,” Benson posited.
All rights reserved. This material and other digital volumes on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from THE NEWS ACCELERATOR NETWORK.
For advert placement, please contact thenewsacceleratornetwork@gmail.com or 08033599492.
إرسال تعليق