More troubles are brewing Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu at the Lagos state governorship election tribunal from his two closest challengers, Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour of the Labour Party and Olajide Oladiran of the Peoples Dmocratic Party as they daily haul allegations of wrong doings during the governorship election against him to upturn his victory.

While one of of the witnesses of the Labour Party accused the state governor, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, and his wife of breaking the electoral law by casting their votes during the elections with invalid permanent voter cards, another witness subpoenaed by the Peoples Democratic Party was invited to testify about Governor Sanwo-Olu’s school certificate result.

The Labour Party candidate who is seeking the upturning of the Mr Sanwo-Olu’s victory on the grounds that the All Progressives Congress candidate was not qualified to contest for the position he is currently holding, that the APC did not properly sponsor the governor for the elections, which contravenes the electoral act 2022, and that he was not duly elected by the majority presented his 9th and 10th witnesses at the tribunal on Monday.

In his petition, Mr. Gbadebo Rhodes filed his case against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Babajide Sanwo-Olu, Obafemi Hamzat, and The All Progressives Congress as the 1st to fourth respondents respectively.

Before the presentation of the 9th and 10th witnesses, the counsel, Dr Olumide Ayeni (SAN), tendered some additional results sheets of forms EC8A to EC8E as evidence to corroborate the witnesses’ testimonies. However, the counsels to 4 respondents objected to the admissibility of documents presented at the hearing, while the tribunal instructed them to present their grievances in the respective final written addresses.

Presenting his testimony, the witness, Israel Dayo, who served as a Labour Party agent at the governor’s polling unit; Polling Unit 15, Ward 6, Lagos Island local government, told the tribunal that he was nominated by the party to oversee the voting process and results collation at the unit.

Mr. Israel Dayo accused the members of the All Progressives Congress of violating the electoral guidelines on election day, stating that Mr. Sanwo-Olu and his wife influenced the staff of the Independent National Electoral Commission as the state governor to exercise his franchise despite the invalidity of their voter’s cards.

Mr. Dayo further narrated his ordeal to the tribunal, claiming that he and other party members were beaten by some thugs who were supporters of the ruling party. He added that the thugs threatened to attack any voter who was there to vote for another political party.

He concluded in his witness statement on oath dated 11 June 2023 that the election that was conducted in Sanwo-Olu’s polling unit was full of discrepancies and manipulations in favour of APC, insisting that the electoral commission failed to perform its duty neutrally.

During the cross-examination, Charles Edosomwan (SAN), the counsel to INEC asked the witness if the thugs who beat him on election day were wearing APC uniform, and he responded on the contrary. The senior advocate objected that since the thugs were not wearing any party’s uniform, it would be impossible for him to identify the thugs with any political party.

Responding to INEC counsel, the witness also added that he could ascertain the specific numbers of eligible voters in the polling unit. He also informed the tribunal that he is not a card-carrying member of the Labour Party.

While responding to Sanwo-Olu and Hamzat’s counsel, Mr Muiz Banire (SAN) Mr Dayo insisted that he was beaten by four hoodlums, which made him flee for his life at the polling unit. He however added that he went back to the polling units in the guise to observe the voting and results collation.

The senior learned advocate further asked the witness if the Bimodal Voters Accreditation System machine was used at the polling unit, and he answered affirmatively. The witness also informed the court of the result of the election at the polling units.

In his cross-examination, the counsel to the fourth respondent, APC, Abiodun Jelili Owonikoko (SAN) probed the testimony given by the witness by stating that documents of voters registration presented by the witness were generated on January 25th even though the election was conducted on March 18th, 2023.

The senior advocate also questioned the competence of the witness, asking if the witness was aware that BVAS was used to verify voters’ eligibility before voting. Mr Israel in response responded that he was aware of the functions of BVAS, adding that he was trained for the agent’s duty before the election day.

Another subpoenaed witness Mr Sam Emeka Okpara told the tribunal that he witnessed violence and voter suppression across the state on the day of the governorship election.

Mr Okpara who is the Lagos state secretary of the Labour Party said he acted as a supervisor on election day, he noted that that duty availed him the opportunity to transverse more than half of all polling units in the state. He told the court that many voters were forced out of their voting points by the supporters of the All Progressives Congress.

Under cross-examination, INEC lawyer, Charles Edosomwan questioned the position of the witness, noting that the witness is not competent to testify, given that he is the secretary of the party who did not deem it fit to testify on his own without being subpoenaedMr. Okpara responded that he would not have come as a witness if a subpoena wasn’t filed against him

In his response to Muiz Banire (SAN) the counsel to the 2nd and 3rd respondents, he noted that he moved around the state on election day from 9 am to 5 pm. He also testified that the BVAS functioned optimally on election day.

The 2nd and 3rd respondents further asked him to explain whether the witness was aware of the nomination process of his clients, but the witness claimed he saw their nomination form through INEC.

In another response to the counsel of the 4th respondent, Mr. Owonikoko (SAN), the witness explained the difference between the role of the party agents and supervisors on election day. He stated that the party agents report to the party supervisor, adding that all agents reported to him while the voting process was ongoing.

Asked if he signed any documents of the results, Mr Okpara states that he did not sign election result sheets, adding that it was not his jurisdiction to sign documents on elections day as he was busy performing a supervisory role

He also told the tribunal that the Labour Party didn’t need to file a petition against the outcome of the governorship election since its candidate, Mr Rhodes is already challenging the outcome of the election.

Similarly, the tribunal also admitted a representative of the West African Examination Council as a witness to testify with respect to the originality of the WAEC certificates submitted by the state governor when contesting in 2019.
Subpoenaed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate’s legal counsel, Abdulazeez Adediran Olajide, who is seeking the disqualification of the APC candidate on the grounds that he submitted fake secondary school results to the Independent National Electoral Commission during his registration process as a candidate.

The petitioner’s attorney, Clement Onwuenwunor, introduced Mr Adekanbi Olaolu to the tribunal and informed the court that the witness refused to disclose the details of his testimony and that he had only sworn one statement of oath out of the two that were provided.

The learned advocate requested that Mr Olaolu be treated as a hostile witness by the tribunal because the documents of the WAEC master list for the examination presented by the witness differed from what the petitioners had previously obtained. He also argued that he could not rely on the witness’s documents in that case and that he, like the respondents, should be allowed to cross-examine the witness.

He also objected that the witness failed to present the original and duplicate of the original certificate, resulting in a material conflict between what was expected from the examination body and what the petitioners had previously admitted as evidence for the hearing.

Responding to the petitioner’s requests, the first respondents’ counsel, Adetunji Oyepo urged the court to decline the petitioner’s prayer, with the reason that the fact that the witness did not present a piece of evidence to corroborate the petitioner’s claim does not mean he was a hostile witness; instead, the witness can be presented as a truthful witness to the hearing.

He also stated that the petitioner is only making a baseless point given that the witness has not made any statement, citing that exhibit P36 did not emanate from the WAEC but from Ijebu -Ife Grammar School, where the governor sat for his secondary school final examination.

The 2nd and 3rd respondents’ counsel, Muiz Banire, also agreed with the 1st respondent, adding that the petitioner failed to specifically indicate what he needed from the witness in the first place. They also accused the petitioner of going behind WAEC’s back to get the result in the first place. Citing Section 230 of the evidence act, he stated that the petitioner did not permit the witness to be treated as hostile witness “Exhibit P36 is a product of one Ijebu Ife Community Grammar School, not WAEC while exhibit b2 is a product of one Grandex Ventures Ltd, not WAEC. No one has led evidence to establish the authenticity of that portal so the attachment to it is totally unreliable. No witness has even testified on the said Grandex. Section 230 of the Evidence Act doesn’t give the petitioner the right to seek leave of court to declare the witness hostile”, he said.

Also, Mr Owonikoko, the lawyer to the All Progressives Congress said the petitioner was already done with his examination adding that the respondents be allowed to cross examined the witness.“A hostile witness isn’t the same as an unfavourable witness. This is a case of contrived hostility, he should sink or swim with his witness as only the Court can label a witness as hostile”, he said.

However, the counsel to the Labour Party Olalekan Ojo appealed to the tribunal to permit the petitioner to treat the witness as a hostile witness, and that all counsels should be allowed to cross-examine the witness.

However, Justice Arum Oshom of the tribunal refused to grant the petitioner’s request, stating that because the witness did not present two oath statements, he could not be indicted for material conflict. The judge also granted the order to cross-examine the witness to all counsel, including the petitioner’s lawyer.

During cross-examination, Mr Olaolu informed the tribunal that the examination body does not have a duplicate of any candidate’s original certificate. He went on to say that the council only uses the presented documents to cross-check the details of previously issued certificates.

The witness continued his testimony by stating that although the examination body did not have an online portal in 1981, the year the Governor took his exam, all of the earlier records had been uploaded to the website, indicating that the commission has a backend server where it maintains a record of all certificates issued.

When asked if the Master lists presented by the examination body can validate the authenticity of any candidate’s results, he replied affirmatively.

In response to the question of whether any certificate’s name contradicts the master list, he stated that if any information on a result of a candidate’s certificate contradicts the information on the WAEC master list, the result is most likely fake.

Meanwhile, when the petitioner’s counsel asked if the council has a backend server to back up the results, he stated that the council does.

The tribunal ordered the witness to present the details of the council’s backend server in the next sitting, which has been rescheduled for July 4th, 2023.