BADEBO PATRICK RHODES-VIVIOUR VS INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC), JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY  UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, JSC IN SC/CV/1152/2023

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 the
majority 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 by birth who thereafter acquires the citizenship of another country i.e. America as in the instant case, does not lose his right to vie for any elective office in Nigeria being a citizen by birth and not by naturalization or registration. The 3rd appellant in this appeal is a Nigeria by birth. That fact has not been denied nor controverted.

Therefore, his becoming an American citizen thereafter does not extinguish his citizenship of Nigeria which is by birth. I accordingly so hold. See Per ONIYANGI, JCA, in LABOUR PARTY & ORS V. ISHOLA 8 ORS (2014) LPELR-24386(CA) (PP. 18-23, PARAS. F-A).

The appeal is without merit at all. I concur with the judgment of my learned brother, Mohammed Lawal Garba, JSC, just delivered. The concurrent judgments are hereby affirmed. Parties should bear their costs.

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI
JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

APPEARANCES:
Prof. A. Amuda-Kannike, SAN, with D. D. Fiderikumo, Esq. and A.O. Yusuf, Esq. for the Appellant.
K.O. Balogun, Esq. for the 1st Respondent.
B. Afilola, Esq. and O. O. Agbaje, Esq. for the 2* Respondent.

A. Mohammed, Esq. For the 3rd Respondent.