LAGOS GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION PETITION: PDP CLOSES CASE AS TRIBUNAL STRIKES OUT APPLICATION SEEKING FOR EXTENSION

Read Time:6 Minute, 51 Second

By Aishat Momoh. O.

The candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party in the Lagos State Governorship Elections, Dr Abdulazeez Adediran also addressed as Jandor, has officially drawn the curtain of his case against the All Progressives Congress Candidate, Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu and his Deputy, Obafemi Hamzat, after the tribunal struck out an application seeking for extension of days to enable him call in more witnesses in the matter, while also declining the petitioner’s application to access the backend server of the West African Examination Council.

Recall that on 4th of July, 2023, PDP had filed an application for extension of time.

In the application, Adediran prayed the tribunal to grant him more time to bring more witnesses in the interest of justice and fair hearing.

On the same day, the three-member tribunal headed by Justice Arum Ashom ordered Adediran’s counsel, Mr Clement Onwuenwunor (SAN), to serve processes to respondents.

The PDP candidate, is seeking the disqualification of the state governor on the grounds that he has presented a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), that the Deputy Governor did not include his oath declaration page in his Form EC9 and also, that APC did not comply with the electoral act when nominating Mr. Sanwo-Olu and his deputy when contesting.

As a result of this, Mr Jandor subpoenaed the West African Examination Council to present the original certificate of the state government, which the examination failed to tender at the court. Consequently, the petitioner applied to access the backend server of the examination body.

Earlier during the proceedings, the three-member tribunal stood down the matter, to enable the petitioner file responses to the counter affidavits and written addresses that was served by the first, second, third, fourth and from the party affected (WAEC).

He told the court, “I received a counter affidavit from the party affected (WAEC) and written addresses. I thought i would be able to attend to it until i got another again from the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The time was too short for me to have responded.

If my Lords can look at the chapter 5 of the counter affidavit of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, pages 1&2 particularly. Then we can have an assurance on how the petitioner can respond.”

When the tribunal resumed, the petitioner adopted the application submitted on behalf of his legal representative, Mr. Clement Onwuenwunor (SAN), noting that the application was made in the best interests of the justice and that obtaining the information would support their arguments against the state governor’s candidacy.

“We want to thank your lordships for the grace to make responses to the counter affidavit to the 2nd & 3rd respondents, party affected and others.

Subject to that, we are ready to adopt all processes.

I seek the indulgence of your lordship to disconscent the counter affidavit particularly that of the party affected. The written address is supporting the counter affidavit that violates the election process of 2023.

That written address is 14 pages, it should have been 10 pages. Paragraph 5 says every process like this is invalid. I quickly add that the 2&3 has no counter affidavit under the party election.

His excellency’s written address and that of the fourth respondent is also caught by virus. It has no counter affidavit. By these, this application is unopposed.”

Objecting to the application, the counsel to the Independent National Electoral Commission, the 1st respondent to the petition, Adetunji Oyedipo (SAN), in their counter affidavit stated that the petitioner was only fishing out the evidence for himself without a direction, adding that the result tendered by Mr Sanwo-Olu and WAEC is enough to enable the court to decide on the matter.

The senior counsel insisted that finding additional evidence in the case would be pointless because none of the evidence presented would be beneficial to the tribunal. He urged the court to discountenance the application filed before the tribunal.

“On behalf of the 1st respondent, we filed a counter affidavit dated 5th July, 2023. We also, have in opposition for the petitioner’s motion to file a written address of 7 pages both dated 5th day of July, 2023.

In urging your lordship to dismiss the petitioner applicant’s application which says that petitioner is merely fishing for evidence that will support his case. We submit respectfully that all the documents tendered and admitted by this honorable tribunal with respect to the 2nd respondent’s WAEC result are enough to enable your Lordships arrive at a decision on the issue, and so the application if granted, would not add anything useful. That’s where i would conclude,” he said.

Additionally, Mr. Sanwo-Olu and Dr. Hamzat’s top legal representative, Muiz Banire (SAN), opposed the application on the grounds that the petitioner’s requests had never been the subject of a prior application, which would have established the necessity of the current application. He also indicated that the petitioner is only seeking orders against a nonexistent party.

He concluded by maintaining that the tribunal does not have the legal standing to grant the application, urging the tribunal to ignore the motion moved by the petitioner to file such an application.

He said, “The counter affidavit was filed on the 5th day of July, 2023. We are adopting both counter and written addresses in opposition to the purported motion of the petitioner.

I said it because, there it no application before the tribunal as paragraph 5d that requires the petitioner to proof exceptional. The application is sick baked in content.

It is seeking consent against a non-existent party. The proper thing should have been to bring an application of joint junder. I rely on a case cited by him in his affidavit in paragraph 1.02”.

Mr Chukuwudi Ani (SAN), the legal representative for the All Progressive Congress, also argued against the petitioner’s application’s legality by informing the tribunal that Mrs. Debola Adegboye, a lawyer with Mr Clement Onwuenwunor’s legal team, signed the deposition, making the motion contentious. He claimed that a prior Supreme Court decision rendered such action irrelevant.

He also appealed to the court to dismiss the application for lack of merit, stating the document contained diverse arguments which do not have facts to support them.

“We rely on all paragraphs of the said affidavit. I will start by stating that, prayers 1,3 and 4 of the petitions are deemed abandoned. Reasons are far-fetched because they have not canvased any argument in their written addresses.

We urge your Lordships to dismiss the application of the petition in lacking merits”.

However, Olagbade Benson and Olalekan Ojo, the attorneys for the 5th and 6th respondents, Gbadebo Rhodes Vivour and Labour Party, respectively, concurred with the petitioner’s request to access the WAEC back-end server for the original certificate of the state governor.

Speaking on the contrary, Professor Taiwo Oshunpitan (SAN), the counsel to the West African Examination Council also added that the petitioner’s application is contentious, adding that the petitioner did not clarify if he would only inspect the back-end server or the infrastructure of the examination body.

Additionally, he stated that the issue is crucial because granting the petitioner access to the WAEC client-server will make everyone who has ever registered for the exam vulnerable, not just the second respondent. He continued by saying that it would expose the examination body’s staff to the general public, particularly given some sensitive information stored in the portal while adopting his written addresses.

He said, “I identify my processes in terms of a counter affidavit dated 5th July and also the written address filed on the same day. We would like to adopt our written addresses and also urge the court to dismiss the application of the petitioner.”

While giving his ruling, Justice Arum Ashom declined the petitioner’s application to access the WAEC back-end server based on the arguments of the respondents and the WAEC’s counsel and also struck out the application of extension for more days to call in witnesses while ordering the petitioner to close its case immediately.

He however, stated that, the decision was made in the best interest of Justice for the parties.