*LAGOS, Nigeria* – The Lagos Court of Appeal has announced that it has reserved its ruling in the appeals filed by the Labour Party and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) challenging the re-election of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu. The appeal was made by the Labour Party candidate, Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour, and Abdulazeez Adediran, also known as Jandor, of the PDP.
The challenge revolves around the ruling of the election tribunal on September 25, which upheld Governor Sanwo-Olu’s victory in the March 18 governorship election. The Court of Appeal panel, led by Yargata Nimpar, heard the arguments presented by the parties and indicated that the date for the judgment will be communicated to them.
The Labour Party’s counsel, Benson Olagbade, urged the court to grant the appeal and set aside the tribunal’s decision. He argued that the tribunal erred in law by placing the burden of proof regarding specific oaths of allegiance and renounced citizenship on the appellant. He called for a full interpretation of the law regarding the disqualification of Governor Sanwo-Olu and his deputy, Obafemi Hamzat, as per Section 182 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
Wole Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) representing Governor Sanwo-Olu and Deputy Governor Hamzat, requested that the court dismiss the appeal. He noted that the issue of dual citizenship presented by the appellant was not raised before the tribunal. Olanipekun argued that the appellant failed to prove their case, and no burden was shifted to the respondents to disprove any fact.
In the second case, the PDP filed its own appeal, seeking the disqualification of Governor Sanwo-Olu’s re-election. They also questioned the tribunal’s decision to strike out their petition against Rhodes-Vivour, the Labour Party candidate.
Adediran and the PDP emphasized that their petitions were based on the constitutional grounds for qualification and disqualification for the office of Governor in Nigeria, as outlined in Section 177(c) and 182(1)(j) of the Constitution. They also cited support from Section 134(1) and 134(3) of the Electoral Act 2022.
In response, Olanipekun argued that the appellants’ prayers hinged on the strength of their petition and not on the weakness of the respondents. He contended that the appellants failed to prove their case and that there was a discrepancy between oral and documentary evidence presented by the petitioners.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling will provide further clarity on this contentious issue, impacting the outcome of the governor’s re-election and the state’s political landscape.
