Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour, the Lagos state governorship candidate of the Labour Party (LP), asserted that should his petition regarding the 2023 state governorship election be dismissed, it would be marked as an endorsement of actions that defy the constitution.
Through his legal representative, Olumide Ayeni (SAN), along with twelve others, Rhodes-Vivour conveyed this in a written rejoinder to the submissions presented by Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu and Obafemi Hamzat. The latter two were officially proclaimed as victors of the March 18 Governorship elections in Lagos State by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Gbadebo said that his petition is a ‘litmus test’ of the supremacy of the provisions of the constitution over every other enactment or law.
With reference to Sections 182 (1)(a) and 187 (1) & (2) of the Constitution, which address the affirmation of allegiance to another country and the failure to put forth a candidate for deputy governorship, Rhodes-Vivour told 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 loyalties to foreign entities liable to be conscripted into the armed forces of that foreign entity possibly against the Nigerian state and Lagos in particular to take over the reins of power…’
Opposing the election’s legitimacy, the petitioner posits that Sanwo-Olu’s assumption of the Governor’s role is contentious, given his nomination of Hamzat, who purportedly transgressed the tenets provisions in Sections 182 (1)(a) and 187 (1) & (2) of the amended 1999 Constitution.
Furthermore, he argued that the election overseen by INEC was tainted by incidents of violence, overvoting, voter exclusion, acts of thuggery, and electoral anomalies, as it did not align with the fundamental tenets of the Electoral Act of 2022. He also claimed that Sanwo-Olu failed to secure the highest count of legitimate votes cast during that election.
To substantiate his petition, Rhodes-Vivour presented 10 witnesses, whereas Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat chose to call upon a single witness in support of their case.
In the last written submission submitted on July 28, the petitioner lodged a preliminary objection questioning the legitimacy of the final written addresses presented by Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat.
He formulated a single issue for the determination: ‘Whether, in view of the clear 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. EPT/LAG/GOV/01/2023 between Dr. Azeez Olajide Adediran and Anor vs. INEC and Ors, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ Final written Address dated 22nd July 2023 is invalid.’
The petitioner submitted that ‘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, SanwoOlu and Hamzat filed forty-three (43) pages Final Written Address as opposed to forty (40) pages provided in paragraph 5(a).’
‘They also prepared their Final Written Address in Times New Roman of 12 font size as opposed to 14 font size provided in paragraph 5(c). In further violation of paragraph 5(c), the 2nd and 3rd Respondents used 1.15 line spacing in their Final Written Address as opposed to 1.5 line spacing between the lines.’
The Petitioner said that It is trite and banal that Election Petition is sui generis (in a class of its own) with its special rules and for noncompliance with the rules, he nudged the Tribunal ‘to strike out the 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ Final Written Address dated 22nd July 2023 for being invalid and for contravening the provisions in paragraph 5(a) & 5(c) of the Election Judicial Proceedings Practice Directions, 2022.’
Furthermore, Rhodes-Vivour re-echoed certain concerns that he had previously voiced during the Pre-Hearing deliberations.
Concerning the matter of Hamzat’s self-declared allegiance to the United States of America, the Petitioner requested the Tribunal to establish that such an action disqualified him from being considered as the Deputy Governorship Candidate.