Rhodes-Vivour seeks Hamzat’s disqualification over alleged US allegiance

The eligibility of All Progressives Congress (APC) Lagos governorship candidate Obafemi Hamzat has come under renewed scrutiny after his African Democratic Congress (ADC) counterpart, Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour, revived allegations that the deputy governor swore an oath of allegiance to the United States.

Rhodes-Vivour, speaking during a television interview, argued that the alleged oath should disqualify Hamzat from contesting the 2027 Lagos governorship election.

The controversy is not new. It formed part of Rhodes-Vivour’s legal challenge to the 2023 Lagos governorship election, when a U.S.-based immigration lawyer, Olubusayo Fasidi, testified before the Lagos State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal that Hamzat had applied for U.S. naturalisation and taken an oath of allegiance.

Rhodes-Vivour has now returned to the issue, arguing that there is an important distinction between dual citizenship acquired by birth and citizenship obtained voluntarily as an adult.

According to him, a person born in a foreign country may acquire that country’s citizenship automatically without personally swearing an oath of allegiance. He argued that the situation is different where an adult voluntarily seeks naturalisation.

“When you come of age and you apply for yourself to become a citizen, you have to swear an oath of allegiance,” Rhodes-Vivour said.

He maintained that the alleged commitment to another country raises constitutional questions about a candidate seeking to become governor of Lagos State.

READ ALSO; Wike–APC governors’ rift exposes Tinubu’s 2027 power struggle

Nigeria’s Constitution does contain a relevant provision. Section 182(1)(a) states that a person is not qualified for election as governor if, subject to Section 28, the person has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of another country or, except in circumstances prescribed by the National Assembly, has made a declaration of allegiance to another country. Section 187 extends the relevant qualification and disqualification provisions to deputy governors.

However, the existence of that constitutional provision does not by itself establish that Hamzat is disqualified. The factual question of whether he actually made the alleged declaration of allegiance, and the legal effect of any such declaration, remain matters for the appropriate electoral or judicial authorities.

That distinction was central to the controversy in 2023.

During the tribunal proceedings, Fasidi testified about the U.S. naturalisation process. However, Hamzat’s media office disputed the allegation, saying the documents relied upon by the witness were blank naturalisation and oath forms downloaded from the U.S. Embassy website.

His media office also said the witness could not produce the actual document showing when or where Hamzat allegedly took the oath, and maintained that Hamzat had not renounced his Nigerian citizenship.

The issue therefore raises two separate questions ahead of 2027: whether Hamzat actually made a declaration of allegiance to the United States and, if so, what legal consequence that would have under Nigeria’s Constitution.

Rhodes-Vivour nevertheless maintains that the matter deserves renewed attention before the election.

He argued that Nigerians should scrutinise the allegiance and citizenship status of anyone seeking high public office, insisting that public officials must demonstrate their commitment to Nigeria.

The APC has pushed back against the renewed allegation. Lagos APC spokesman Seye Oladejo described the issue as one that had already featured in the 2023 litigation and challenged Rhodes-Vivour to substantiate his claim through the appropriate legal process.

The renewed controversy comes as the 2027 Lagos governorship contest takes shape, with Hamzat having secured the APC ticket and received the backing of President Bola Tinubu.

For the moment, the allegation remains contested. The political significance of the issue may be substantial, but whether it constitutes a constitutional disqualification is ultimately a question of evidence and law—not simply a claim made by either candidate.