Akin Kuponiyi
The State and National Assembly Appeal Court sitting in Lagos, today affirmed the judgment of the Lagos State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, Ikeja, which affirmed the re-elction of Babajide Sanwo-Olu and Dr Obafemi Hamzat as the Governor and Deputy Governor of the state respectively.
In a unanimous decision of the State and National Assembly Appeal Court delivered by Justices Yargata Nimpa, Samuel Bola and Paul Bassey, the Appeal Court panel dismissed the appeal of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for lack of merit.
The PDP and its candidate, Olajide Adediran, had challenged the victory of Sanwo-Olu as the validly elected winner of the March 18 governorship election in the state.
However the three-man panel affirmed the decision of the lower Tribunal, which on September 25 affirmed the victory of Sanwo-Olu and Dr Hamzat.
The Court of Appeal held that the appellants failed to prove their allegations of forgery and non-qualification against Sanwo-Olu and his deputy Dr Hamzat.
The justices declared: “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.
It would be recalled that on November 7, the Court of Appeal, presided over by Justice Yargata Nimpar, reserved judgment in the appeals after entertaining arguments from the parties.
Specifically, the Tribunal on September 25, in a unanimous judgment, dismissed the petitions and upheld the re-election of Sanwo-Olu and Dr Hamzat.
During the hearing of the appeals on November 7, the lead counsel for Rhodes-Vivour, Olagbade Benson, urged the court to allow the appeal, grant the reliefs sought and set aside the decision of the Tribunal delivered on September 25,2023
Benson had also prayed the court to interpret Section 182 (1) (a) of the Constitution and its implication to the qualification of the 2nd and 3rd respondents.
Rhodes-Vivour, on October 7, filed his notice of appeal containing 21 grounds of appeal, challenging the decision of the State Governorship Tribunal, which upheld the return of Governor Sanwo-Olu.
Rhodes-Vivour’s appeal had contended that the Tribunal erred in law when it relied on the Court of Appeal’s decision in the petition of Mr Peter Gregory Obi & Anor. Vs. INEC & Ors. to strike out the evidence of all his subpoenaed witnesses.
Responding to Rhodes-Vivour’s appeal, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), the lawyer for Sanwo-Olu and Dr Hamzat, prayed to the Appeal Court panel to dismiss the appeal.
Chief Olanipekun, argued that the dual citizenship argued by the appellant was never presented before the Tribunal.
In the appeal filed by the PDP and its governorship candidate, Azeez Olajide (Jandor), he initiated 34 grounds of appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal which declared Sanwo-Olu as the winner of the election.
Jandor, in his grounds of appeal, posited that “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.”
Jandor alongside his party,PDP equally faulted the Tribunal for striking out the Labour Party and its candidate from his petition, especially as he had made several allegations of infractions against Rhodes-Vivour.
He noted that the law acknowledges that everyone against whom an allegation is made, must be made a party in such an action.
Jandor maintained that he deserved to raise issues in the tertiary qualifications of Governor Sanwo-Olu which were built on false A Level WAEC Certificates as demonstrated in some of the exhibits he placed before the court.
He, therefore, wants the court to hold that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hold that the different names in the different certificates presented by Sanwo-Olu belong to the same person.
In responding, Bode Olanipekun (SAN), counsel for Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat, submitted that the reliefs sought by the appellants are such that they must succeed based on their petition and not on the weakness of the respondent’s defence.
Bode argued that the appellants did not prove anything before the lower tribunal and no burden shifted to the respondents to disprove any fact.
He said, “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 counterfeited.
“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.”
Consequently Chief Olanipekun (SAN) prayed the court to dismiss the appeal.