Lagos Guber: See What Rhodes-Vivour Did After Tribunal Verdict Affirming Sanwo-Olu’s Victory

Advertisement

 

The governorship candidate of the Labour Party in Lagos, Gbadebo-Rhodes Vivour, has approached the Court of Appeal, challenging the state governorship tribunal’s decision, which upheld Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu’s return.

The notice of appeal, which was settled by one of his lawyers, Olagbade Benson, on behalf of 12 others, was filed on Saturday, 7th October and has 21 grounds of appeal.

The 24-paged document has been served on the counsel to the Respondents, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the governor and his deputy, Obafemi Hamzat, and the All Progressives Congress (APC).

In ground 1, Rhodes-Vivour said 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 and Others to strike out the evidence of all his subpoenaed witnesses.

In grounds 2 and 3, the appellants sticking with the issue of its subpoenaed witnesses also claimed that the tribunal erred in law when it held that the three witnesses, PW7, PW8, and PW9, were not witnesses that fall within the category of witnesses that could be subpoenaed and subsequently discountenanced their oral evidence and documents on the premise that they were not listed as witnesses and their sworn statements did not accompany the petition and documents front-loaded in line with the Electoral Act 2022.

In grounds 4 & 5, Rhodes-Vivour contended that the tribunal erred in law when it held that the burden of proof of the specific Oath of Allegiance subscribed to by the Deputy Governor as well as the evidence of his renounced citizenship rests on the Appellant and that exhibits placed before the tribunal on this issue were deemed abandoned.

Other grounds of the petition touched on the failure of the tribunal to disqualify Sanwo-Olu and his deputy, having found that Hamzat is a naturalized United States of America citizen who made a declaration of allegiance to that country, as well as the failure of the tribunal to strike out the Final Written Address of both respondents which was allegedly filed in contravention of the provisions of Paragraphs 5(a), 5 (c) and 5(d) of the Election Judicial Proceedings Practice Directions 2022.

 

 

Advertisement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: