Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour, the Labour Party’s (LP) candidate for governor, referred to his petition as a “litmus test” for whether or not the constitution’s tenets trump all other laws or enactments
Rhodes-Vivour stated to the Lagos State Governorship Election Tribunal that “to dismiss his petition would amount to an endorsement of unconstitutionality and the possibility of opening every state in Nigeria to having persons with sworn loyalty to foreign entities liable to be conscripted,” citing Sections 182 (1)(a) and 187 (1) and (2) of the Constitution on the declaration of allegiance to another country and failure to nominate a deputy governorship candidate, respectively.
In his final written response to Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat’s final address, who were declared by INEC as the winners of the March 18 Governorship elections in Lagos State, he made the submission through his attorney Olumide Ayeni (SAN), along with 12 other people.
The petitioner claims that because Sanwo-Olu nominated Hamzat, who broke the terms of Sections 182 (1)(a) and 187 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Sanwo-Olu was not legitimately elected to the office of Governor.
Sanwo-Olu did not receive the greatest number of valid votes cast in that election, according to his argument.
He also claimed that the election as it was conducted by INEC was marred by violence, overvoting, disenfranchisement, thuggery, and electoral irregularities.
Rhodes-Vivour called 10 witnesses to testify in support of his petition, compared to just one each from Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat.
The petitioner raised a preliminary objection to the legality of Sanwo-Olu’s and Hamzat’s final written addresses in his final written address, which was filed on July 28. He developed a single question for the assessment:.
“Whether, in light of the unambiguous provisions of paragraphs 5(a), 5(c), and 5(d) of the Election Judicial Proceedings Practice Directions, 2022, and the ruling of the Honourable Tribunal delivered on July 6, 2023 in Petition No. Between Dr. Azeez Olajide Adediran and Anor, file number EPT/LAG/GOV/01/2023. The final written address from INEC and Ors, the second and third respondents, dated July 22, 2023, is void.
The petitioner claimed that SanwoOlu and Hamzat filed a Final Written Address that was 43 pages long rather than the 40 pages allowed by paragraph 5(a), “in gross violation and in abuse of the clear provisions of paragraphs 5(a), 5(c), and 5(d) of the Election Judicial Proceedings Practice Directions, 2022.”. Additionally, rather than using the 14 font size specified in paragraph 5(c), they prepared their Final Written Address in Times New Roman in 12 font size. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents used 1.15 line spacing in their Final Written Address rather than 1.5 line spacing, which is another violation of paragraph 5(c). “.
The petitioner pointed out that it is cliché and obvious that an election petition is sui generis (in a class of its own) with special rules, and because the second and third respondents’ final written address dated July 22, 2023, was invalid and in violation of paragraphs 5(a) and 5(c) of the Election Judicial Proceedings Practice Directions, 2022, he urged the tribunal to strike it out. “.
Additionally, Rhodes-Vivour reiterated a few of the points he made during the Pre-Hearing.
Regarding the matter of Hamzat having voluntarily sworn allegiance to the United States of America, the petitioner urged the Tribunal to rule that this barred him from being proposed as a candidate for the position of deputy governor.
merica, the petitioner requested that the tribunal rule that this prevented him from being nominated as a candidate for the position of deputy governor.
“It is noteworthy that Exhibits PE713–PE723 contain an Affidavit of Personal Particulars by the Third Respondent confirming the details of the.
information that was written by him and confirms that he has pledged his allegiance to the United States of America and will continue to do so. “.
The petitioner also requested that the tribunal take note of the fact that Hamzat made no denials or submissions to refute the allegations made against him regarding the signing of the declaration of allegiance in the United States, and that no witness was called to refute the substantial and factual evidence provided by the Exhibits.
The petitioner believes that the third respondent’s claim that his oath of allegiance was not offered “falls like a pack of cards” in the face of the exhibits offered and the expert witness’ testimony that the information is protected by the “US Privacy Act of 1974.”.
The third respondent is the only one who can access the oath of allegiance he took and signed under the US Privacy Act of 1974, according to the aforementioned uncontested evidence. With due respect, it would be extremely unfair for the law to require the petitioner to provide direct evidence in the form of a document that only the third respondent and no one else can evaluate. In fact, any attempt by anyone else to obtain the oath of allegiance given by the third respondent is illegal and punishable by law.
The petitioner claimed that the third respondent never asserted any exceptions by the National Assembly, citing Section 182 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
in the manner intended by the section as one of the exceptions. He urged the three-person panel “to uphold the sanctity of the Constitution regardless of whose is being gored and protect the sovereignty of the country from potential espionage by preventing any person who does not have a clear loyalty and allegiance to Nigeria alone from occupying executive and sensitive arms of government, such as the positions of Governor and Deputy Governor, respectively.
The third respondent did not stop being a citizen of Nigeria because he swore allegiance to the United States of America, as claimed in your petition. The third respondent did not lose his citizenship as a result of signing the declaration of allegiance. Because he made the illegal declaration of allegiance to the foreign nation, he was automatically disqualified from being eligible. The third respondent is ineligible to run for governor under Section 182 of the Constitution in the same way that an adjudicated bankrupt, an ex-convict, or a lunatic is, but he cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said to have lost his citizenship as a result of that ineligibility.
This has the significant implication that citizenship by birth does not exempt a candidate from disqualification if they have taken an oath of allegiance to any foreign nation. “.
When it comes to SanwoOlu’s disqualification, the petitioner claimed that since the third respondent is ineligible, the second respondent, who holds a joint ticket with the third respondent, is also ineligible (due to the third respondent’s non-eligibility).
In his final written speech, Rhodes-Vivour quoted Lord Denning’s buoyant and admonishment: “Justice must be rooted in confidence and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people leave thinking: “The judge was biased.
“We implore my Lords to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and safeguard the country’s territorial integrity by enforcing the explicit constitutional provisions that bar anyone who lacks loyalty to the nation from holding the number-two position in Lagos State, which automatically invalidates the joint ticket of the second and third respondents.
“After determining that the second and third respondents are ineligible, the appropriate decision to be made in this case is to declare the petitioner the winner of the governorship election held on March 18, 2023, based on who received the most valid votes.
