Imo: Supreme Court Erred In Declaring Uzodinma Gov, Ihedioha Insists

The former Governor of Imo State, Hon Emeka Ihedioha, has opened up on his decision to return to the Supreme Court, seeking a reversal of the January 14, 2020 judgment.
He said he decided to return to the Supreme Court because a key component of the case before the apex court has not been dispensed with, which has to do with jurisdiction.
A source privy to the suit seeking a reversal of the Supreme Court judgement (who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the case) told newsmen in Abuja, that it was vital that Nigerians have confidence that they will get justice at the apex court.
He said: “We have the confidence that they would do justice and revisit and reverse the judgment that has not met the ends of justice. Justice is rooted in confidence, not confidence of the lawyers that appear in court; it’s the confidence of the common man.
“Anytime any court, especially the Supreme Court gives a judgement that the man on the street would look at and say; ‘Ah!’ and makes expressions and reacts in a way that Nigerians are reacting now, obviously shows loss of confidence in the Judiciary.
“They have a duty, to look at it (the judgment) again; to make sure that confidence is restored. As a matter of fact, I foresee a situation where we would be grateful to Ihedioha for having the courage to return to the Supreme Court; to ensure that this arm of government is not ridiculed.
“This judgment of the Supreme Court in the Imo governorship election, delivered on January 14, 2020, is a nullity. Out of nullity is nothing! A judgment that is a nullity cannot produce anything; it cannot produce a legitimate governor.
“The PDP and Ihedioha, at the trial, raised an objection to the competence of the petitioner, and prayed the trial tribunal, to strike out the petition, on grounds of non-joiner of certain parties that were not made parties to the petition, whose interests were at stake.
“The petitioner, Senator Hope Uzodinma, came from a fourth position and filed a petition that would involve the computation of votes, and if you are re-computing the votes, it would affect the interest of the person who came second and the person who came third. In the process of re-computation of votes, you discover, for instance, that, maybe somebody scored majority of lawful votes and did not satisfy the geographical spread, what would you do? Would you now push him from fourth position to second position; to start participating?
“He did not join Uche Nwosu, who came second; he did not join Senator Ifeanyi Araraume, who came third…
“The application was heard and dismissed by the tribunal whereupon the second applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal by way of Cross Appeal to which the first and second respondents replied.
“The cross appeal was heard and allowed by the court. In the words of Adah J.C.A., who delivered the lead judgment in the cross appeal:”The preliminary objection of the 1st Cross Respondent (sic) at the lower court is allowed, and I hold that the appropriate order of the trial tribunal would have been to have petition no EPT/GOV/IM/08/2019 struck out for being incompetent. I, therefore, order the petition struck out. No cost is awarded.”
“…The order of the Court of Appeal striking out the petition for being incompetent raises a jurisdictional issue which this honourable court ought to have resolved first before delving into the merits of the appeal.