The Lagos State Governorship Election Tribunal has decided to reserve its judgment on the petitions filed by Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour of the Labour Party (LP) and Olajide Adediran, popularly known as Jandor, from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Presided over by Justice Arum Ashom, the three-member panel has postponed the delivery of its judgment to a future date, which will be communicated to all parties involved, subsequent to their final written submissions.
Rhodes-Vivour and Jandor, who both participated in the March 18 governorship elections in Lagos State alongside Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu, filed these petitions to challenge the election outcomes.
Rhodes-Vivour’s petition named the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Governor Sanwo-Olu, his deputy Obafemi Hamzat, and the All Progressives Congress (APC) as respondents.
During the presentation of final written addresses, Charles Edosonwan (SAN), representing INEC, called upon the Tribunal to dismiss Rhodes-Vivour’s petition due to insufficient evidence.
“One of the issues raised by the petitioner is whether the election was conducted in substantial compliance with the Electoral Act. Edosonwan noted.
“On this issue, we say they have provided no proof to show it wasn’t. A petition erected on such an allegation was sought to be proven by ten witnesses in a state that has 13,325 polling units. The petition is materially challenged.
“The petitioner dumped an avalanche of documents before the Tribunal without speaking to them. The Tribunal should therefore dismiss the petition,” he stated.
During his final written statement, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who is representing Sanwo-Olu and his deputy, pointed out to the Tribunal that the petitioner had effectively “abandoned” his case in his recent verbal submissions.
Olanipekun observed that there was no reference to the second respondent, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, in their address. Instead, the focus was solely directed towards the third respondent.
He emphasized that “they have essentially forsaken their petition and any claims against the second respondent.”
“The petition borders on non-qualification, and the written address borders on disqualification. There is a jurisprudential difference. The petitioner also put some exhibits before the tribunal regarding the third respondent. The shows have no name and no signature. The purported oath of allegiance is of Mr Nobody. It’s omnibus.
“Election Petitions are different from election expeditions. It’s not a cruise. What the petitioner has embarked upon is a frivolous expedition. They are walking on banana peels, and the petition has to fail. If wishes were horses, the petitioner may, in future, become governor. We urge the court not to accede to their request as it’s not the tribunal’s duty to assist the petitioner in resuscitating their case, which has been abandoned.”
