IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY THE 12 DAY OF JANUARY 2024         BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI IBRAHIM MUSA MOHAMMED SAULAWA ADAMU JAURO EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA Dauda Lawal AND  Bello Muhammad Matawale ALL PROGESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/CV/1165 / 2023 JUDGMENT(DELIVERED BY EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JSC) On 18-3-2023, the general election of Governor of Zamfara State held in Zamfara State and the result was declared by the 3°0 respondent on 21-3-23, stating that the appellant scored majority of lawful votes numbering 377,721 and that the 15 respondent scored lawful votes numbering 311,976. The 3rd respondent declared the appellant winner of the election and returned him elected as Governor of Zamfara State, having satisfied the two cumulative requirements prescribed in S.179(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (the 1999 Constitution) to be deemed duly elected as such Governor. The 15 respondent who had the second highest number of lawful vote disagreed with the declared result and on 10-4-2023 filed a petition in the Zamfara State Governorship Election Tribunal on the grounds that the 1 respondent to the petition (appellant herein) was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election and that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022. The petition states that the appellant did not score majority of lawful votes because the votes stated as scored by each candidate in the result of the election in each polling unit of Maradun Local Government Area of Zamfara State declared by the 3 respondent herein were not the actual votes scored by the appellant and the 15 respondent herein in that election as those votes were different from the votes stated in the agent duplicate copies of the polling unit result given by the presiding officer of each polling unit to their party agent in each polling unit, immediately after the signing of the result by the presiding officer, Police officer and Party agents as required by S.60(1)(2) and (3) of the Electoral Act 2022. In other words, that they were two versions of the result in Form ECSA for each polling unit in Maradun Local Government Area, namely, the INEC top original copy containing the votes declared as scored by the candidates and the duplicate copies of the polling unit result given by the presiding officer of each polling unit to their party agent in each polling unit, that the votes scored stated in the INEC copy of Form ECSA and declared is completely different from the votes Stated as scored by each candidate in the duplicate copies returned to the 1st and 2a respondent herein by their party agents at the polling unit, that the correct and actual votes scored in each polling unit in the wards of Maradun Local Government Area are the ones in the said duplicate copies and that the votes stated and declared by each candidate in the INEC copy are not correct. Paragraph 24 of the petition tabulated the alleged actual votes scored in each polling unit in all the wards of Maradun Local Government Area. Paragraph 28 states that the actual total votes scored by the 1 petitioner in Maradun Local Government Area is 98,506 as shown in the agent duplicate copy of Form ECSC and not the 24,858 declared by INEC in their copy, that the actual total votes scored by the appellant and his party PDP is 618 and not the 12,261 declared by INEC and that if the actual votes scored by the petitioners (1st and the 1st respondents herein) were recorded, collated and declared, the petitioners would score majority of lawful votes of 385,627 while the appellant herein would score 365,003 votes, that the 15 petitioner ( 15 respondent herein) was actually the winner of the election and that the actual accredited votes in Maradun Local Government Area as contained in agent duplicate copy of Form ECSC is 101,652 and not the 38,435 in the INEC copy of Form ECSC. The petitioners in paragraph 30 of the petition stated that thusly- “The petitioners avers that by the actual score of candidates at the Election as contained in the actual Form EC8A, EC8B and ECSC given to agents of the Petitioners during the conduct of Zamfara State Governorship Election, the petitioners would have won the election even without conducting elections in the four (4) registration areas of Birnin Magaji Local Government namely; Kiyawa, Dan Fami/Sabon Birnin/Dan Ali, Nasarawa Godeal East and Gora.” The other grounds for the petition are that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act in that elections did not hold or were cancelled in the polling units named and listed in tables in paragraphs 51-57 of the petition in Birnin Magaji, Anka, Gunmi Bukkuyum, Bungudu, Talatar Mafara, Shinkafi, Zurmi, Tsaffe and Maru Local Government Areas across the State, that the total number of registered voters in those polling units is 88,760 which is above the 67,750 votes margin of lead in the deciared results in Form ECSC, that therefore the election should have been declared inconclusive and a fresh election held in those polling units instead of declaring the appellant the winner of the election, that there was no accreditation of voters, over voting in many polingunits in the wards named in Bukkuyum, Shinkafi, Anka, Bungudu, Kaura Namoda, Birnin Magaji, Bakura, Tsafe and Gummi LocaL Government Areas, that the number of registered voters in polling units where there was over voting, no election and no accreditation is 121,137, which is far above the margin of lead between the declared winner of the election and the candidate with

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY,2024         BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO    UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.      HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU. EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM.    ADAMU JAURO.        JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA HIGH CHIEF IKECHI EMENIKE  ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC).   AND ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) APPELLANT   RESPONDENT SC/CV/1252/2023 JUDGMENT(Delivered by UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, JSC) The first Appellants petitioner was sponsored by his party, the second appellant and petitioner of All Progressive Congress (APC) to contest the Governorship Election of Abia State held on the 18th day of March, 2023. The first Respondent, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), conducted the election. The second Respondent, Labour Party, sponsored its candidate, the third Respondent, Dr Alex Chioma-Oti. The fourth respondent, People’s Democratic Party, sponsored its candidate the fifth Respondent, Ambrose Okechukwu Ahiwe. While the sixth Respondent, Young Progressive Party (YPP),  sponsored its candidate, the seventh Respondent, Hon. Enyinaya Nwafor.  There were 15 other political parties and their respective candidates that also participated in the election of the 18th day of March, 2023. At the conclusion of the election, the first Respondent (INEC), returned the third Respondent as duly elected with majority of lawful vote cast at the election. The Appellants, who came fourth in the election with 24,091 votes felt aggrieved with the declaration of the third Respondent as winner of the election by the first Respondent and challenged the declaration by filing a petition at the Registry of Tribunal on the 11th day of April, 2023, on two grounds. The hearing of petition started on the 25th day of July 2023, with the petitioners calling three witnesses, two of whom were subpoenaed witnesses. The first Respondent did not call any witness. The second and third Respondents called only one witness, so also the fourth and fifth Respondents. The sixth and seventh Respondents did not call any witness to testify. The tribunal delivered its judgments on the 6th day of October, 2023, where it upheld the objections of the Respondents that it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into nomination and memberships of the second Respondent and that Petitioners/Appellants lacked the locus standi to challenge same. It equally held that the Appellants failed to prove their second ground of the Petition to wit: that the third Respondent was not elected with majority of lawful votes cast at the Governorship Election held on the 18th day of March 2023, having failed to lead evidence on same. On appeal, The Court of Appeal after on the 15th day of November 2023 delivered its decision on 2nd December, 2023, dismissing the appeal and awarding 1,000,000 against the Appellants. Still dissatisfied, the Appellants have approached this court on appeal.     In accordance with practice direction of this court, the parties have exchanged their briefs of arguments with the replies thereof. Abubakar  Malami, SAN, the leading-learned silk to the Appellants filed the brief of argument on 24/12/2023, distilled these issues for determination: Was the lower court’s treatment of Appellants’ appeal on the threshold issue of competence that is, Locus Standi is correct. Did the Court of Appeal rightly endorse the trial tribunal’s finding that the 1st, 6th and 7th Respondents did not abandon their pleadings by not calling evidence? 3. Did the Court of Appeal rightly endorse the trial tribunal’s rejection of exhibits P14 and P14A on the grounds that these exhibits had been ‘dumped’ on the trial tribunal? Was the Court of Appeal right to conclude that the Petitioners did not establish that the 3rd, 5th, and 7th Respondents were not qualified to contest the election of 18/3/2023, under reference in this case?  Mrs. J.O. Adesina, leading the first Respondent’s legal team, filed their brief of argument on 5th January, 2024, wherein these issues were nominated for termination of this appeal: Was the lower Court right to have declined and ignored the four interlocutory appeals referring to them as cosmetics in spite of the holdings therein. Was the lower Court right to have upheld the decision of the Tribunal that the 1st, 6th and 7th Respondents did not abandon their pleadings. Was the lower Court right to have affirmed the decision of the tribunal rejecting Exhibit P14 and P14A on the ground of same having been dumped on the trial tribunal? Was the lower court right to have affirmed the decision of trial court that the petitioners did not establish that the 3rd, 5th, and 7th Respondents were not qualified to contest the Governorship Election of Abia State held on 18th March 2023. Dr. Onyechi, Ikpeazu, SAN, leading the second Respondent’s lawyers, filed a brief on 30th December 2023 and distilled these issues: Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that the striking out of portions of the pleadings of the Appellant by the Tribunal was not fatal to the case of the Appellants, as it was not the basis on which the petition was dismissed. Whether, having regard to the fact that the 1st, 6th, and 7th Respondents elicited evidence in cross-examination and the 1st Respondent additionally tendered Exhibits D1 and D2, the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that the 1st, 6th, and 7th Respondents did not abandon their pleadings. Whether, having regard to the fact that Exhibits 14 and 14A were tendered from the Bar and that PW2 and PW3 who identified them did not adopt competent witness Statements, the Court of Appeal was correct to affirm the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Exhibits 14 and 14A were dumped on the Tribunal. Whether having regard to pleadings and the evidence led, the Court of Appeal was correct to affirm the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Appellants failed to prove that the third, fifth, and seventh Respondents were not qualified to contest the election for the office of Governor of Abia

AND AND IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA 12′ DAY OF JANUARY, 2024         BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA ADAMU JAURO EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA BADEBO PATRICK RHODES-VIVIOUR AND INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) BABAJIDE OLUSOLA SANWO-OLU DR. KADIRI OBAFEMI HAMZAT ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/CV/1152/2023 JUDGMENT(Delivered by ADAMU JAURO, JSC) I have had the benefit of reading in advance the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Mohammed Lawal Garba, reached by him.SC, and I entirely agree with the reasoning and conclusions The Appellant’s Petition before the trial tribunal was essential contested only on the ground that the 2nd Respondent was at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election. The Appellant alleged, that the 2nd Respondent was not qualified by virtue of Section 182(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered), in that his running mate, the 3rd Respondent, had naturalized as a citizen of the USA and also swore to an Oath of Allegiance of the USA. Section 182(1)(a) of the Constitution is made subject to Section 28 of the Constitution. The words “subject to” is often used in statutes to introduce a condition, proviso, restriction or limitation. When a provision statutory or constitutional is made subject to another provision, it must be read subordinate to the provision it is made subject to. See OLUFEAGBA V. ABDUL-RAHEEM (2009) 18NWLR (PT. 1173) 384; FRN V. OSAHON & ORS (2006)LPELR – 3174 (SC); EBHOTA & ORS V. PLATEAU INVESTMENT AND PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD(2005) LPELR – 988 (SC). When Section 182(1)(a) of the Constitution is read in conjunction with Section 28 of theConstitution, bearing in mind that the former is rendered subordinate to the latter, the meaning that is clearly conveyed is that a person who is a citizen of Nigeria by birth does not lose his Nigerian citizenship, neither is he rendered unqualified to contest for the position of Governor or Deputy Governor of a State if he acquires the citizenship of another country or declares allegiance to such other country. By virtue of Section 28, such a person will only lose his citizenship and become unqualified if he renounces his Nigerian citizenship as prescribed in Section 29 of the Constitution. Hence, the 3rd Respondent who is a Nigerian citizen by birth neither lost his citizenship nor was he disqualified from contesting for the office of Governor or Deputy Governor.It is for this and the fuller reasons given in the lead judgment that I too find no merit in this appeal and I dismiss it. I abide by all the consequential orders made. ADAMU JAURO,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT APPEARANCES:MR. S. A. ARUWA, SAN, for the Appellant; with him, MRS.ADEBUSOLA SIJUADE IYAMU, ESQ; OLAGBADE BENSON, ESQ; MRS. OLUWAKEMI J. AFESOJAYE, ESQ and IHEANYICHUKWU C.UWA, ESQ.DR. CHARLES UWENSUYI-EDOSOMWAN, SAN for the 15 Respondent; with him, MR FRANKLIN EJEH, ESQ and IBISO A.AWOYESUKU, ESQ.CHIEF WOLE OLANIPEKUN, CFR, SAN; with him, MR.. BODE OLANIPEKUN, SAN; MR SAID SANUSI, SAN; OLUKUNLE OYEWOLE, ESQ and AYUBA KAWU, ESQ, for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.DR MUIZ BANIRE, SAN, OON, for the 4th Respondent; with him, TEJUMOLA ABIOLA-OLOKE, ESQ; OLAJIDE SALAMI, ESQi SIMILOLUWA FASHANU, ESQ and AYOMIDE OLANREWAJU, ESQ, for the 4th Respondent.

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIMJUSTICE SUPREME COURT EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIMJUSTICE SUPREME COURT EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIMJUSTICE SUPREME COURT EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIMJUSTICE SUPREME COURT EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIMJUSTICE SUPREME COURT EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIMJUSTICE SUPREME COURT AND AND AND AND IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA 12′ DAY OF JANUARY, 2024         BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA ADAMU JAURO EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA BADEBO PATRICK RHODES-VIVIOUR AND INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) BABAJIDE OLUSOLA SANWO-OLU DR. KADIRI OBAFEMI HAMZAT ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/CV/1152/2023 JUDGMENT(Delivered by EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM JSC) I had a preview of the Judgment delivered by my learned brother, Lord Justice, MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, JSC. I completely agree with the reasoning, conclusions, decisions therein. The 3rdrespondent being a Nigerian citizen by birth, his acquisition of the citizenship of United States of America (USA) and or declaration of allegiance to that country cannot strip or rob him of his right to contest election or disqualifying him for election as governor or any office in Nigeria by virtue of 5.28 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 to which S.182 (1) (a) of the same Constitution had subordinated itself. Therefore only persons who are not citizens of Nigeria by birth, such as citizens by registration or naturalization can suffer the disqualification for election to the office of governor of state prescribed in S.182 (1) (a) upon their acquisition of the citizenship of another country or declaration of allegiance to such other country. For these reasons and the fuller ones ably stated in the lead judgment by Lord Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, JSC, 1 dismiss this appeal. EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIMJUSTICE SUPREME COURT APPEARANCES:Pust A. Amuda-Kannike, SAN with D.D. Fiderikumo, Esa and A. O.Yusuf, Esq for the Appellant.K.O Balogun, Esq for the 1st RespondentRespondent

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA 12′ DAY OF JANUARY, 2024         BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA ADAMU JAURO EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA BADEBO PATRICK RHODES-VIVIOUR AND INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) BABAJIDE OLUSOLA SANWO-OLU DR. KADIRI OBAFEMI HAMZAT ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) APPELLANT       RESPONDENT SC/CV/1152/2023 JUDGMENT(Delivered by UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI JSC) The Lagos State Governorship election was conducted on 18th March, 2023, wherein the Respondents contested as incumbents under the sponsorship of the 4th Respondent alongside other candidates and their political parties, including the Appellant herein. At the conclusion of the said election, the 1st Respondent, INEC, declared the 2nd Respondent as the winner of the election, having scored themajority of lawful votes cast of 762,134 votes across all polling units, wards and local governments in Lagos State, while the Appellant second, having polled 312,329 votes. The Appellant instituted the petition before the trial Tribunal challenging the outcome of the election on alleged non-qualification of the Respondents, “corrupt practices or non-compliance” with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022, and non-election of the 2nd Respondent by majority of lawful votes cast. The Appellant eventually abandon the case on non-compliance and corrupt practices, thereby zeroing in on alleged disqualification of the 3rd Respondent on the basis of alleged renunciation of his Nigerian citizenship pursuant to his acquisition of the citizenship of the United States of America and taking an oath of allegiance to the United States. In a nutshell, the Appellant’s case in Ground (1) of the Petition was that the 2nd Respondent was not validly elected into the office of Governor of Lagos State having nominated the 3rd Respondent as his running mate who was disqualified by sections 182 (1) (a), 187(1) and (2) of Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended) (The Constitution). After the conclusion of the hearing of the petition, the trial tribunal found that the petition lacked merit, and dismissed same, which said dismissal was affirmed by the lower court on the ground that the Appellant failed to prove his against the Respondents, hence this appeal. The main grouse here is that the 3rd Respondent, Dr. Kadiri Obafemi Hamzat, having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of USA is disqualified from being the Deputy governor or running mate to the 2nd Respondent. It has not been disputed at all that the 3rd Respondent is a born or natural citizen of Nigeria by birth before he voluntarily acquired the citizenship of the USA. Our constitution, by sections 182(1)(a) and 28(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) have clearly not disqualified the 3rd Respondent since he is a Nigerian citizen by birth before the acquisition of the US citizenship. A similar case came up before the Court of Appeal, and with approval adopt same here, where on the interpretation of Sections 182 (1) (a) and 28 (1) of the 1999 Constitution as regards whether a citizen of Nigeria by birth who acquires the citizenship of another country loses his right to contest an election in Nigeria, was considered. The question here is whether or not the 3rd defendant/appellant, a Nigerian by birth and an American citizen can vie for an elective post in Nigeria. I hold therefore that from the clear provision of Section 182 (1) (a) of the 1999 Constitution, the 3rd Defendant who is an American citizen cannot in his present circumstance as a Nigerian by birth be qualified to contest an election to the post of a governor in any state in Nigeria. I consider it pertinent to reproduce Section 182 (1) (a)Section 182 (1) “No person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a state if Section 182 (a) “Subject to the provisions of Section 28 of this Constitution, he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a country other than Nigeria or, except in such cases as may be prescribed by the National Assembly, he has made a declaration of allegiance to such country or.” Equally I reproduce Section 28 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria referred to in Section 182 (1) (a) of the same Constitution. Section 28(1) “Subject to the other provisions of this Section, a person shall forfeit if, forthwith his Nigerian Citizenship not being a citizen of Nigeria by birth, he acquires or retains the citizenship or nationality of a country other than Nigeria, of which he is not a citizen by birth.” Section 28(2) “Any registration of a person as a citizen of Nigeria or the grant of a certificate of naturalization to a person who is a citizen of a country other than Nigeria at the time of such registration or grant shall, if he is not a citizen by birth of that other country, be conditional upon effective renunciation of the citizenship or nationality of that other country within a period of not more than twelve months from the date of such registration or grant.” It is trite that in interpreting the provision of the Constitution, the language of the Constitution, where clear and unambiguous must be given it plain and natural meaning. I do not agree with the finding of the trial Court disqualifying the 3rd appellant on the bases that he is an American citizen without recourse to his status in Nigeria whether by naturalization or registration or by birth. The simple interpretation that flows from the combine reading of Section 182 (1) (a) and Section 28 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 is that when a Nigerian by Naturalization or Registration acquires the citizenship of another country, he loses his right as a naturalized Nigeria. Such a person would not be able to contest any election into any elective office in Nigeria. However, a Nigerian

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA 12′ DAY OF JANUARY, 2024         BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA ADAMU JAURO EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA BADEBO PATRICK RHODES-VIVIOUR AND INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) BABAJIDE OLUSOLA SANWO-OLU DR. KADIRI OBAFEMI HAMZAT ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/CV/1152/2023 JUDGMENT(Delivered by John Inyang Okoro JSC) I had the advantage of reading, in draft, the leading judgment of my learned brother, Mohammed Lawal Garba, JSC, just delivered. I entirely agree with His Lordship as to the outcome of this appeal.In the instant appeal, the over-arching issue before this Court is whether the court below was right in holding that the second respondent has the right to be elected as Executive Governor of Lagos State, notwithstanding the third respondent’s purported disqualification.The argument which was put forward by the appellant is that the court below was wrong to have upheld the decisions of the trial Tribunal which held, inter alla, that since the third respondent is a citizen of Nigeria by birth, his subscription to an oath or declaration of allegiance to the United States of America cannot and does not strip him of his citizenship, and that the appellant had failed to produce the Oath of allegiance or any other document in order to prove that the third respondent had renounced his Nigerian citizenship. He further contended. that the disqualifying requirements under Section 182(1) (a) relates to two categories of citizens: (i) a citizen by birth who acquires the citizenship of another country; and (il) a citizen by bith who makes a declaration of allegiance to another country. Therefore, he posited, that citizenship by birth was not an immunity to the disqualifying factors under Section 182 (1) (a) of the Constitution. By virtue of Section 28 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered), a person shall forfeit forthwith his Nigerian citizenship if, not being a citizen by birth, he acquires or retains the citizenship or nationality of a country, other than Nigeria, of which he is not a citizen by birth. It then follows that, a person who holds a Nigerian citizenship by birth cannot be deprived of his rights and privileges as a Nigerian citizen merely because he acquires or retains the citizenship of another country. One of the rights and privileges of a citizen of Nigeria by birth, is the qualification  for  election to the office of Governor of a State, same being unambiguous expressed under Section 177 (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered). Thus, that a person is a Nigerian citizen by birth and is also a citizen of a foreign country, does not by itself disqualify him from contesting election to the office of Governor of a state in the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It should also be pointed out that the disqualifying factors under Section 182 (1) (a) are made subject to Section 28. By the rules of construction generalia specialibus non derogant, when a provision in a statute is made subject to another provision, that provision must be read subordinate to the provision it is made subject to See: SPDCN Ltd. v. Agbara [2016] 2 NWLR (Pt 1496) 353; Matari v. Dangaladima [1993] 3 NWLR (Pt 281) 266, 279; Idehen v. Idehen [1991] 6 NWLR (Pt 198) 382, 411. If the drafters of the grand norm had intended the interpretation of Section 182 (1) (a) as canvassed by the – appellant, they wouldn’t have made it “subject to” Section 28 of the Constitution. The linking words “subject to Section 28”, indicates that Section 28 is to take priority over Section 177 (1) (a) containing the back reference. Furthermore, the ordinary rules of construction of statutes dictate that the reading of the related provisions of the statute together, as well. as reading the whole Statute enables arriving at a construction of the objectives of the statute, the related sections and the intention of the law maker, Odutola Holdings Ltd. v. Ladejobi [2006] 12 NWLR (Pt 994) 321; Matari v. Dangaladima (supra). My Lords, it is a notorious fact that many Nigerians have acquired foreign citizenships, and many others are constantly in the process of seeking such status. If they choose to acquire such status from a distant, friendly,. accommodating country, it does not, and I dare say, should not deprive anyone with an overwhelming sense of national duty and commitment to contributing-to national development, all noble principles, the right to contest elections and represent their constituencies in various positions. This should be so, unless, as provided under Section 29 of the Constitution, there is a declaration in the prescribed manner, a renunciation of citizenship by birth and registration of same under subsection (2). The requirement of a declaration and registration of renunciation of citizenship in the prescribed manner is a constitutional requirement and, it did not constitute judicial legislation for the court below to require a proof of renunciation of the Nigerian citizenship of the third respondent, which the appellant could. Accordingly, it is not the owing of allegiance to the United States of America by virtue of being a citizen of that country that is a ground for disqualification from the office of Governor or Deputy Governor. It is rather, the renunciation of citizenship by a Nigerian citizen by birth that would be a sufficient ground for disqualification of the third respondent which was not proved at the courts below. For the above reasons, I concur with my learned brother and hold that this appeal, being devoid of merit, be dismissed. The judgment of lower court is hereby affirmed. I also abide by the order as to costs in the leading judgment. JOHN INYANG OKOROJUSTICE, SUPREME COURT COUNSEL:Prof. A. Amuda-Kannike, SAN, with D. D. Fiderikumo, Esq.,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA 12′ DAY OF JANUARY, 2024         BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA ADAMU JAURO EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA BADEBO PATRICK RHODES-VIVIOUR AND INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) BABAJIDE OLUSOLA SANWO-OLU DR. KADIRI OBAFEMI HAMZAT ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) APPELLANT       RESPONDENT SC/CV/1152/2023 JUDGMENT(Delivered by MOHAMM ED LA WAL GARBA, JSC)Appellant; sponsored by the Labor Party, and the 2nd and 3rd Respondents; sponsored by the 4″‘ Respondent; All Progressives congress(APC), as candidates, participated in the Governorship conducted by the 1″ Respondent on the 18″ March, 2023 for ate. At the end of the election, the 2″d Respondent who I the 3″ Respondent as Deputy Governorship candidate, was id returned as the winner who scored the highest majority Votes cast and satisfied the constitutional requirements for the election to the office of Governor. The Appellant came second (2d) in the election and being aggrieved with the declaration and return of the 2” Respondent, filed an election petition against same before the Lagos State Governorship Election Tribunal (Tribunal) – on the 9′” of April, 2023. As shown at page 9 of the Petition, it was predicated on three (3) grounds as follows:- “i) The 2″‘ Respondent was, at the time of Election, not qualifiedto contest the election.(ii) The election of the 2′ Respondent was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 and Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.(ii) The 2″ Respondent was not duly elected by majority of thelawful votes cast at the Election.”In the course of the trial and after calling evidence in respect of all the grounds of the petition, grounds (ii) and (iii) were abandoned and struck out thereby leaving the ground i) as the sole and only ground upon which the petition was prosecuted by the Appellant.In paragraphs 29 – 32 of the petition, particulars of facts in support of the sole ground were set out and are in brief, to the effect that the 2″d Respondent was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election for nominating the 3rd Respondent as the Deputy Governorship candidate, who at the material time, had renounced his allegiance to the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as a citizen and had taken deliberate step of naturalizing as a citizen of the United States of America (USA), contrary to the combined provisions of Sections 182(1) (a) and 187 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution (As altered). In proof of all the initial grounds of the petition, the Appellant called ten (10) witnesses and tendered some documents from the Bar as Exhibits. However, only the evidence of PW8; Olubusayo Fasidi, and the Exhibits PE 985 – 989 & PE 990 – 1033, tendered through her, related to the sole ground relied on ultimately, by the Appellant.At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal, in a judgment delivered on the 25″ September, 2023, dismissed the petition for failure to prove the facts of the disqualification of the 2″d and 3rd Respondents tocontest the election in question. The Appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division (courtbelow), was dismissed and the decision by the Tribunal affirmed in. the judgment delivered on the 15* November, 2023.Again, being aggrieved by that decision, the Appellant brought this appeal vide the Notice and Grounds. of Appeal filed on the 26h November, 2023, containing fourteen (14) grounds. In line with the requirements of Rules of practice in the Court, briefs of argument were filed by the Learned Counsel for the parties in • support of their respective positions in the appeal, thus:-1. Appellant’s Brief was filed on the 5″ December, 2023.2. The 15 Respondent’s Brief was filed on the 13th December, 2023.3. The 2nd and 3″” Respondents’ Brief was filed on the 15hDecember, 2023.4. The 4′”‘ Respondent’s Brief was filed on the 14″ December, 2023.5. The Appellant’s Reply Briefs to all the Respondents’ Briefs were filed on 16 December, 2023.At pages 2 – 3 of the Appellant’s Brief, the following sole issue is submitted for determination in the appeal:- “2.01 WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEAL WAS RIGHT WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL TO THE EFFECT THAT 3RD RESPONDENT WHO WAS SPONSORED AS THE DEPUTY GOVERNOSHIP CANDIDATE OF THE 4™ RESPONDENT HAVING ACQUIRED THE CITIZENSHIP OF UNITED STATE OF AMERICA AND MADE A DECLARATION OF ALLEGIANCE HAS NOT RENDERED THE 2ND RESPONDENT, AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION DISQUALIFIED TO CONTEST IN THE LAGOS STATE GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION HELD ON THE 18TH MARCH, 2023. (Distilled from Grounds 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Notice of Appeal.”For the 15 Respondent, two (2) issues were distilled for consideration by the court at page 4 of the 1″ Respondent’s Brief as follows:-“i Whether having regard to the relevant statutes, and the subsisting case laws, the Lower Appellate Court was right in upholding the decision of the Lower Trial Tribunaldiscountenancing the testimonies of PW7, PW8 and PW9, as well as the documents tendered through them? Grounds 1, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Whether or not the Lower Appellate Court rightly held that the Appellant failed to establish that the 2″ and 3″ Respondents were not qualified and/or were disqualified from contesting the Logos State Gubernatorial Election of 18′” March, 2023?Grounds 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.” Two (2) issues are also submitted for determination in the appeal at page 6 of the 2″ and 3′ Respondents’ Briefs in the following terms:- “In view of the state of pleadings and evidence before the trial tribunal viz-a-viz relevant and applicable provisions of the Constitution; whether the lower court was not right when it affirmed it affirmed the decision of the trial tribunal