Tribunal: US Immigration lawyer testifies against Lagos Dep Gov Hamzat

A United States Immigration lawyer, Mrs. Olubusayo Fasidi, on Thursday, said that Lagos State Deputy Governor Obafemi Hamzat to the took oath of allegiance in the U.S. to renounce Nigerian citizenship. Fasidi, a Nigerian, testified before Lagos State Election Petition Tribunal. She was led in evidence by Dr Olumide Ayeni (SAN), counsel to the petitioner, Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour of the Labour Party. The witness told the tribunal that Hamzat, the third respondent in the petition, also applied for naturalisation as contained in Forms 8CFR/337 and N400. Ayeni tendered the documents to the three-man tribunal but counsel to all the respondents objected, saying that the reason for their objection would be included in their final written addresses. During cross-examination by counsel to Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mr Eric Ogiegor, the witness said that an individual could enjoy dual citizenship. She, however, said that she was not aware of the provision of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution that dealt with dual citizenship. She said that she was subpoenaed before the tribunal to explain U.S. law and not Nigeria’s Constitution. Mr. Bode Olanipekun (SAN), counsel to Hamzat and Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu, asked the witness to disclose the jurisdiction and date Hamzat applied for naturalisation but she said she would not, because the information was protected by the Privacy Act of 1974. The All Progressives Congress (APC) counsel, Mr Norris Quakers, asked the witness if she was aware that Hamzat disclosed his American citizenship. The witness replied in the affirmative, and Quakers thereafter argued that the witness addressed issues of law and not those of facts. The tribunal led by Justice Arum Ashom, while admitting all the documents in evidence, ordered counsel to the respondents to include their objections in their final written addresses. The other members of the tribunal are Justice Mikail Abdullahi and Justice l.P. Braimoh. The tribunal adjourned the case until June 26 for continuation of hearing. Earlier, Ayeni presented result sheet from polling units in nine local government areas of the state to establish differences in some areas, against what is recorded on INEC’s Form EC 40A. Counsel to INEC, Sanwo-Olu, Hamzat and APC objected to the admissibility of the Form EC 40A, reserving reasons until their final written addresses.

INEC Chairman evading our subpoena, Obi tells Tribunal

The Labour Party, LP and it’s presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, on Wednesday revealed that their attempt to serve the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Chairman, Prof Yakubu Mahmoud with a subpoena has been abortive. The Petitioners, through their Counsel, Livy Uzoukwu SAN, drew the attention of the court to the subpoena which was to furnish them with certain documents.  He added that he spoke to the lead counsel to INEC, Abubakar Mahmoud who promised to help out. He therefore, asked for an adjournment until tomorrow. “We have drawn the attention of Abubakar Mahmoud SAN on the failed attempt to subpoena INEC and the office of the INEC to produce certain documents despite efforts of the bailiff of the court. “He asked for a copy of the subpoena which I couldn’t produce at that time, but he suggested I give to any member of the team in court . “I am confident we will do the needful and we will continue tomorrow. Responding, Counsel to INEC, Kemi Pinhero, SAN, told the court that the petitioner’s counsel should stop using INEC as ‘a weeping boy.’ “It is not correct that the office of the INEC chairman refused to be served, but PDP served several documents and received replies,” she said. He added that it has become the habit of the petitioners each time they want an adjournment to find a blame on INEC. “It has become a habit, whenever they want an adjournment, they will look for someone to whip. I have no privy that he had any discussion with AB Mahmoud. “We have no ideal of subpoena served and the refusal. PDP served us, we received and file our reply. “Everytime the matter came up, they keep saying INEC is refusing a document.  “If they want an adjournment, they should ask for it and we will not be objecting. The reason on not accepting or refusing service is absolutely not correct. It is very uncharitable,” INEC defended. Other respondents’ counsel however, did not object to the prayer for adjournment. Meanwhile, the five-man panel led by Justice Haruna Tsammani adjourned until tomorrow (Thursday) for further hearing of the petition.