Election Tribunal fixes June 2 for ruling on competence of Rhodes Vivour’s Petition
By Jude-Ken Ojinnaka
The Lagos Governorship Election Petition Tribunal has fixed Friday June 2, for ruling on the application filed by the Labour Party (LP) governorship candidate Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour in the March 18 election.
The chairman of the tribunal, Justice Arum Igyen Ashom fixed the date after taking submissions from counsels in the matter.
Other members of the tribunal are Justice Mikail Abdullahi and Justice I.P. Braimoh.
The appellant, Rhodes-Vivour is seeking an order of the tribunal nullifying the election of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu and his deputy Dr Obafemi Hamzat on grounds that they were not qualified to contest the March 18 election.
He asked the Tribunal to disqualify the governor for “non-compliance” with the Electoral Act 2022 and the guidelines of INEC and declare him the winner of the election.
Rhodes-Vivour also argued that the governor was not duly elected by a majority of the lawful votes cast at the election.
The Independent National Electoral Commission ( INEC), Gov. Sanwo-Olu, Dr. Hamzat, and the All Progressives Congress (APC) are 1st to 4th respondents in the petition.
During proceedings, counsel to the petitioner, Dr Olumide Ayeni (SAN) sought leave of the tribunal to argue two out of nine applications which he said are ripe for hearing.
He said one of the applications dated May 26, 2023, is seeking two prayers including leave to file a list of additional witnesses while the second one is seeking consolidation of their applications with that of Olajide Adediran of the PDP.
He said they would have proceeded to argue the applications but counsels to 2nd and 3rd respondents, Dr Muiz Banire (SAN) and Bode Olanipeku (SAN) filed motion on notice asking the tribunal to strike out and reject their application.
In order to make progress, Dr. Ayeni urged the tribunal to take all applications and their responses together so that all matters could be dealt with expeditiously.
But in their various submissions, counsel to Respondents urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition of the petitioner for being incompetent and for lack of jurisdiction in some other application.
Counsel to 1st respondent, Dr Charles Edosomwan (SAN) told the tribunal that they filed a counter affidavit and written addresses in opposition to the two applications and written addresses filed by the petitioner.
Dr. Edosomwan also submitted the 1st respondent filed counter affidavit and written address dated May 22, 2023, against the petitioner.
“Our position is to discuss this petition on grounds that your Lordships have no jurisdiction to hear or entertain it.”
Dr. Edosomwan further told the tribunal that their application dated May 19 and filed May 22 for sundry prayers include a pre-trial hearing and striking out of some paragraphs in the petition of the petitioner on certain grounds.
He drew the attention of the tribunal to the application of the petitioner seeking to bring before the tribunal matters that should not come before it.
He said it raises weighty constitutional matters in which jurisdiction and competency lie elsewhere.
In his submissions Dr Banire further informed the tribunal that the 2nd and 3rd respondents filed an application dated May 30 in opposition to the motion for consolidation of applications by the petitioner, adding that they filed a motion on notice dated May 31 in response to the petitioner’s application.
He said they have three pending applications, in which they were requesting the tribunal to strike out the petitioner’s application on grounds of incompetency and lack of jurisdiction.
He submitted that the second application has four paragraphs seeking an order striking out all the averments and list of additional witnesses in the petitioner’s application.
According to Dr. Banire, their prayer was to ask the tribunal to halt the proceedings in the matter until the petitioners ensure due compliance with relevant provisions of the Electoral Act.
Counsel to the 4th respondent, Norrison Quakers (SAN) also informed the tribunal that they have filed counter affidavits to all the applications filed by the petitioner along with supportive affidavits and written addresses. He submitted that the 4th defendant also seek leave of the tribunal to strike out some paragraphs in the petitioner’s applications before the tribunal.
Responding, Dr. Ayeni said all applications are ripe for hearing except the one asking for leave to join additional witnesses.
He however drew the attention of the tribunal to the fact that one of the witnesses who the petitioner wanted to add was the candidate of the PDP in the March 18 elections, Olajide Adediran a.k.a Jandor.
He also drew the attention of the tribunal to the application of the 4th respondent challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal to hear the petition of the petitioner whom he argued lacked locus to institute the petition.
He said in response to the petition, they filed a counter affidavit and additional affidavit deposed to on May 23 and articulated their arguments on point of law.
He adopted all arguments and also urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition of the petitioner for being incompetent, adding that its grounds are not sustainable in law.
Dr Ayeni responded by drawing the attention of the tribunal to Section 134(1)(3) of the Electoral Act which he said specified grounds upon which election petitions can be brought.
All counsels to 2nd to the 4th respondents aligned with the submission of counsel to 1st respondent on new witnesses. They contended that PDP and its candidate are not in the petition before the tribunal to which they can respond. They stated their opposition to the application by the petitioner for consolidation of the application and to add new witnesses.
They all aligned with the submission of the counsel to 1st respondent on the issue.
After taking all submissions by counsels, the tribunal chairman, Justice Arum Igyen Ashom adjourned for ruling on issues raised by counsels.
