The Labour Party governorship candidate in Lagos State, Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour, has reacted to the Supreme Court judgment which on Friday affirmed the victory of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu as the Lagos State governor.
The apex Court affirmed the election of Governor Sanwo-Olu as the Governor of Lagos State as earlier ruled by the election petition tribunal and the Court of Appeal in the state.
Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour of the Labour Party had challenged the election of Sanwo-Olu.
Rhodes-Vivour had on October 7, 2023, filed 21 grounds of appeal challenging the decision of the State Governorship Tribunal which upheld Sanwo-Olu’s reelection.
The Labour Party candidate in grounds 4 & 5 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.
But in a judgment delivered by a three-man panel – Justice Yargata Nimpa, Justice Samuel Bola, and Justice Paul Bassey, the Appeal Court affirmed the tribunal’s verdict on the re-election of Babajide Sanwo-Olu and Obafemi Hamzat as the Governor and Deputy Governor of Lagos State respectively.
Reacting to the Supreme Court judgment, Rhodes-Vivour said that the apex court has set a shocking precedent where a governor or president could have multiple allegiances to other countries other than Nigeria and still be the commander-in-chief of Lagos State.
He wrote on X (formerly Twitter), “Today, the Supreme Court set a precedent: a governor or president can have multiple allegiances to states other than Nigeria and still be the chief security officer of Lagos or Nigeria.
“While I submit to this shocking decision of the Supreme Court, I worry for what this precedent holds for future generations being led by leaders with conflict of interest and loyalty.
“There is no Liberal Democracy that will accept to be led by an individual who has sworn an oath of allegiance to another country.
“Citizens should not have to contemplate the loyalty of their commander in chief or the chief security officer of their state. That said, as the court pleases.”
