The Lagos State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal has dismissed the petition of the Peoples Democratic Party’s candidate, Olajide Adediran (Jandor), challenging the re-election of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu.

The tribunal also struck off the joinder between Jandor and Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour of the Labour Party (LP).

The Chairman of the tribunal, Justice Arum Ashom, announced that the court would deliver its judgment in the case of the PDP and its candidate before issuing its judgment in the petition of the Labour Party’s governorship candidate, Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour.

In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Mikail Abdullahi on behalf of the three-member panel on Monday, the Lagos State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal determined that the petition brought by the PDP and its gubernatorial candidate, Adediran, lacked merit.

The first argument brought forward was whether the third respondent, Obafemi Hamzat, Deputy Governor of Lagos, should be considered a distinct candidate from the second respondent, Babajide Sanwo-Olu. Additionally, the tribunal decided whether the deputy governor could be included as a respondent in the case.

On the joinder, citing a series of previous rulings, the panel agreed that a petition should be filed between the winner and loser of an election, not between two individuals who both lost.

Consequently, the tribunal upheld the preliminary objection and subsequently removed the name of the 5th respondent, Rhodes-Vivour, from Jandor’s petition. Furthermore, the tribunal eliminated all exhibits presented in evidence by Rhodes-Vivour in Jandor’s petition from its records.

The panel also clarified that Rhodes-Vivour would not be able to appeal any aspect of the Jandor’s petition judgment later, or he would be regarded as an unwarranted intervenor.

Similarly, the Tribunal determined that the 6th respondent, the Labour Party, should not have been included as a respondent in Jandor and the PDP’s case.

The party’s name was subsequently removed for being improperly joined, and all evidence and exhibits related to the party were also expunged from the tribunal’s records.

The tribunal held that it dismissed the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner because they failed to adhere to the regulations outlined in the Electoral Act, which necessitate the deposit of security as a cost requirement.

On the second matter, which focused on whether Governor Sanwo-Olu and his deputy, Obafemi Hamzat, received valid nominations from their party, the APC, to participate in the elections, the tribunal held that it’s a pre-election matter.

The tribunal reached this conclusion referencing relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Electoral Act, as well as previous legal precedents. It held that the matter is unrelated to the conduct of the contested polls.

Furthermore, the tribunal determined that the petitioners were not affiliated with the 4th respondent, the APC, and therefore lacked the legal standing to challenge the party’s primary elections that selected both candidates.

Regarding the allegation of a forged certificate presented by Governor Sanwo-Olu, the tribunal took note of several factors, including the petitioner, Jandor’s testimony stating that Sanwo-Olu did not attend Community Grammar School, Ijebu-Ife, the institution from which the certificate originated. Notably, the petitioner also mentioned that the school’s principal was still alive.

The tribunal raised questions about why the petitioner did not summon the school’s principal or any staff members as witnesses to testify regarding the authenticity of the certificate.

The tribunal therefore held, “that the petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

However, the tribunal’s (pre-election matter) ruling on the second issue, which has to do with the APC’s primary election, has added a fresh stale to the series of inconsistencies following election tribunal judgments in Nigeria.

In May, A Federal High Court sitting in Kano nullified the candidature of Abia State governor-elect, Dr. Alex Otti, and other candidates who ran for electoral office under the Labour Party in both Abia and Kano states.

The annulment was based on the argument that the Labour Party failed to submit the names of its members in the 35 states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in both hard and soft copies to INEC, 30 days before the primaries as stipulated by the Electoral Act.

Lawyers who criticized the judgment said it is a pre-election matter, and under the Electoral Act, 2022, only an aspirant who actually participated in the primaries can challenge the candidate of any party.

In my previous article, after the Inauguration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, I strongly recommended that the new and substantive commander in chief of the Nigerian federation should prioritize public good and diplomacy as the most potent mechanisms to deal with vested interest which his administration is liable to. Vested interest is a political reality; it is inevitable especially in a multicultural country like Nigeria.

We often see governance as entirely resting on the leadership or the government. However, the followers or the citizens too have critical roles to play in nation building. The least the citizens could do to enable the government they have instituted to achieve its purpose is to invest more patient capital in the government while they also extend trust and moral support to it. More often than not, impatience on the part of the people does a lot of harm to the progress of the nation; it makes the people subject to the whim and caprices of the opportunists in government; this promotes scattered quick fixes and political instability.

When the citizens do not trust their government or the government’s programmes, what follows are confusion, tension and further degeneration.

It is understandable how direly Nigerians want a significant improvement in the status of the nation and the standard of living of every average person in the country. However, it is important to understand that the change we so much desire is not as simple as it is often thought.

Unfortunately, those who should understand better the philosophy of change often appear to be the ones that stand in the way of effecting positive change in the country, especially when they profit from the old system. They do everything within their power to maintain the status quo. They furtively build encumbrance against any government whose aim is to institute a new order.

Ironically, the retrograde are mostly well-informed and connected. They are the off-stage players. They have many tools in their possession, part of which is the media and the union. They use these tools to spur negative sentiments in the masses and cause distractions for the on-stage or real players.

The organised labour has recently threatened an indefinite strike to ground the entire economic activities of the country over the fuel-subsidy removal. This is a lofty example of business as usual; when a government policy or programme seems not to meet our short term needs or the interest of some group, a disruption is orchestrated forcing the government to jettison the plan. And the cycle keeps repeating itself. If the union continues to see strike action as the only means to hold the government responsible, not exploring possible alternatives, it is not insulated from becoming paraphernalia for partisan politics.

In a society where corruption has become so endemic, effective change can’t be hurried. Effective change should be gradual. At its build up stage, change flow with its temporary pains. Corruption in a society is like a wound on the skin whose healing process may first of all induce a feeling of pain. Thus, change should be gradual and effectively planned for the sake of posterity.

If we all agree with the aphorism that what is built within many years of hard labour may be destroyed in just a day, change should be embraced as a gradual thing. To have a long-term economic benefit, the change process must be given much time and patients and trust.

Several decades of problems of the country cannot be resolved in four years. However, with the political will to ensure program continuity and smooth transitioning on the part of the government and the display of virtues such as patience, trust and empathy towards the government by the people, the change and renewed hope that we all desire will materialize in no distant time. Even if a subsisting government cannot achieve most or all of its manifestoes, the next administration in line can have what to build on if there is continuity in government programs and a corresponding trust, support and patience from the people. These are values that are missing in our government.