Lagos Tribunal Dismisses LP’s Petition Against Senator Eshinlokun–Sanni

The case submitted by Abiodun Dabiri, a candidate for the Labour Party (LP) in the election for the Lagos state Central senatorial district, against the elected senator Wasiu Eshinlokun-Sanni was denied by the National and State House of Assembly Election Tribunal in Lagos.

The petition was rejected by the Tribunal in a unanimous decision handed down by Justice Ashua Ewah on the grounds that it was incompetent and that the matter at hand was pre-election-related.

Justices Abdulahi Ozegya and Mohammed Sambo are additional tribunal members.

The All Progressives Congress (APC), Eshinlokun-Sanni, and Independent National Election Commission (INEC) are the petition’s respondents.
The Labour Party (LP) and Dabiri are the petitioners.

In their case, the petitioners requested that the Tribunal invalidate the Lagos Central Senatorial District election that was place on Saturday, February 25, 2023 due to a violation of the Electoral Act. This request was made through their attorney, Ikechukwu Nwana.
They claimed that the election was invalidated because the first respondent (INEC) failed to include the symbol chosen by the second petitioner, LP, or any other information pertaining to the second petitioner on the ballots utilized to carry out the said election.

However, during the pre-trial hearing, Eshinlokun, the second respondent, filed two preliminary objections via his attorney Wahab Shittu (SAN), requesting an order tostriking out the petitioner’s reply dated May 12 and filed May 13, 2023.

Read Also: Ondo Acting Governor, Aiyedatiwa, orders Council Chairmen, Councilors to vacate their offices

Because the first petitioner was not a candidate in the Lagos Central Senatorial District election that was held on February 25, 2023, the respondent based his applications on the argument that the petitioner lacked locus standi to present it.

Due to a violation of Section 133(1)(a) of the Electoral Act of 2022, Shittu also argued that the initial petitioner was not authorized to present the petition.

“Sponsorship and nomination of candidates are a pre-election matter, making the ground upon which the petition is based illegitimate and unrelated to the Electoral Act 2022.

“The second application, dated May 18, 2023, is predicated on the idea that the petitioner’s reply was an effort to expand the petition. Against the provisions of Articles 14(2)(a) and 16(1)(a) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act of 2022.

The learned silk said that the petitioners are forbidden from broadening or altering their petition through the use of their reply by Paragraph 16(1(a).