Tribunal declares APC candidate winner of Amuwo-Odofin II State HoA election, cancels LP win

ARINZE NWAFOR 

The Election Petition Tribunal has declared Olawale Rauf of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as the winner of the Lagos State House of Assembly, Amuwo-Odofin II Constituency election held on March 18, 2023.

The tribunal court sitting at the Tafawa Balewa Square (TBS), while delivering judgment on September 22, ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to present Rauf with the certificate of returns as the winner of the election.

The court held that the Electoral Act 2022 does not allow a candidate to be declared winner if the candidate did not fully participate in the election process.

The court held that the Labour Party (LP) candidate, Olukayode Doherty, to whom the INEC issued the certificate of return did not appear on the ballot, and noted that Tunde Fashina, who appeared on the ballot and got the majority of votes was not qualified to contest.

The APC candidate, Rauf, had filed a petition against INEC, the Labour Party, Tunde Fashina and Olukayode David Doherty as the first to fourth respondents respectively.

Earlier, the INEC presented the certificate of returns for the Amuwo-Odofin Constituency II to the fourth respondent,  Doherty.

The three-man panel headed by Justice Ashu Ewah held that Doherty did not appear on the ballot and that the LP candidate, Fashina, who appeared on the ballot and got the majority of votes was not qualified to contest.

Justices Abdullahi Ozegya and M. A. Sambo, members of the Tribunal, declared INEC’s presentation of the certificate of returns to Doherty null and void. 

The tribunal in its unanimous decision overturned the INEC result after considering the evidence presented by the petitioners and the respondents.

The tribunal held that the petitioners filed to disqualify Fashina for not presenting the minimum academic qualification to contest the office, that his candidacy was not sponsored by the LP, and that he did not win the number of majority votes in the polls held on March 18, 2023. 

The tribunal ruled that the second and third respondents, LP and Fashina, failed to provide an academic certificate to prove the LP candidate met the minimum academic requirement of a First School Leaving Certificate or its equivalent.

As a result, the tribunal held that “It is determined that all the votes recorded for the second and third respondents in House of Assembly, Amuwo-Odofin Constituency II election are wasted votes, invalid and void on the grounds of the non-qualification to participate in the election.”

However, the tribunal struck out the APC and Rauf’s ground of petition that the LP and its supported candidate, Doherty did not win the highest number of votes, for not sufficiently proving the claim. 

The petitioner’s counsel, Mr James Ogunyemi had presented 22 witnesses during the trial and in his final written address raised five issues for determination before the tribunal.

The respondents called four witnesses.

Ogunyemi prayed the tribunal to determine whether Fashina was qualified to contest, having not participated in all the sections of the election before the March 18 polls.

The petitioner also argued that INEC gave the certificate of returns to another LP member, Doherty, who did not participate in the election.

The tribunal therefore held that the second respondent (LP), admitted to the fact that the fourth respondent, Doherty did not participate in the elections, and truly fielded the third respondent, Fashina, and thus (the court) needed no further evidence.

“The Electoral Act 2022 does not allow for a candidate to be declared winner if the candidate did not fully participate in the election process,” the tribunal ruled.

According to the tribunal, counsel to the second respondent told the court that the LP decided to swap Fashina with Doherty following the “judgment in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2115/2022 and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Suit No. CA/ABJ/CV/253/2022.” 

The tribunal said it disagreed with the second respondent, as the Appeal Court decision it cited did not authorise for a swap or replacement of candidates, but directed the first respondent (INEC) to open its website and allow political parties to submit their candidates for the general election. 

The tribunal ruled, “The issue of swapping was never an issue before the Appellate Court and the Federal High Court. It will also be unfair to other candidates, particularly the petitioners if the fourth respondent who played no role in the election will be declared the winner of the election in which he actually did not participate.”

“The third respondent who participated in the election was not qualified to stand for election. It is like giving the second to fourth respondent a second buy into a cheque. This is unfair and it will result in clear injustice to other parties who participated in the election like the petitioner. I so hold,” the tribunal held.