• Thursday, June 13, 2024
businessday logo

BusinessDay

Tribunal dismisses APM, APP petitions against Sanwo-Olu

COPA 2024: Sanwo-Olu , Afolabi to lead conference on optimising laboratory analytics

The Lagos State governorship election petition tribunal has dismissed the petitions filed by the Allied Peoples’ Movement (APM) and Action Peoples Party (APP) against the election of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu and his deputy, Obafemi Hamzat.

Sanwo-Olu polled 762,134 votes to defeat his closest rival, Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour, who scored 312,329, while the PDP’s Jide Adediran, who came third, garnered 62,449 votes.

The candidate of APM, Funmilayo Kupoluyi scored 884 while the candidate of APP, Abiola Adeyemi scored 259, according to the results announced by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The parties had argued in their separate petitions that Sanwo-Olu and his deputy were not qualified to contest the election and that INEC failed to comply with the provisions of the Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution.

When the case was called, the lawyer to APM, Bello informed the Tribunal that the motion for withdrawal was predicated on four grounds supported by two affidavits sworn to by Yusuf Mamman Dantalle, the party’s National Chairman.

Our candidate has lost interest in the petition and has proceeded to congratulate the second respondent. We urge the tribunal to strike out this petition,” he said.

Read also: Tribunal dismisses petition against senator-elect Ipinsagba

Counsel to the APP also told the Tribunal that he had the directive of the Chairman of the party, Okey Nwosu, to withdraw the petition.

In his response, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, John Baiyeshe who represented INEC in the APM petition, did not oppose the application but asked the court to dismiss the petition rather than strike it out, because parties had joined issues.

While counsel to Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat, Ayuba Kawu and that of the APC, Abiodun Owonikoko, did not oppose the application for withdrawal, they also aligned themselves with Baiyeshe’s argument that the petition be dismissed.

Kawu said, “We have no objection to the application and no agreement or undertaking in relation to the withdrawal of the petition. We align that the appropriate order to make is dismissal.”

Owonikoko also submitted that it is trite law that the appropriate order is dismissal where pleadings have been joined. Once issues are joined and the time for filing a new petition has lapsed, the correct order is dismissal, not striking out.

In his ruling, Justice Ashom held that the sum effect of what the petitioners said is that the petition is withdrawn. The respondents have filed an affidavit of non-collusion and did not object.

“Considering the level at which the petition is and that pleadings have been closed, we order that the petition be dismissed,” he added.