A civil society organisation (CSO), Concerned Nigerians Group (CNG), yesterday, alleged that the Supreme Court was making moves to use same panel that gave the judgment on the Imo State Governorship Election in favour of the governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Senator Hope Uzodinma, to review the same judgment, tomorrow.
This alleged move by the apex court was contained in a statement signed by the Convener, CNG, Comrade Deji Adeyanju, who also called for holistic review of the judgment.
According to Adeyanju, “CNG berates the apex court for putting itself in a position where citizens would now have to question its judgment, making the revered institution to been seen by Nigerians as fallible”.
It would be recalled that Supreme Court had sacked the main opposition candidate, the PDP in the 2019 general election in Imo State, Hon Emeka Ihedioha, and replaced him with the ruling APC’s candidate, Senator Hope Uzodinma.
The statement reads in part, “We have been reliably informed that the Supreme Court is going to use the same panel that was used to carry out the injustice in the first place to review the judgment.
“They’ve decided to fix both Zamfara and Imo review on Tuesday so they can strike a political balance, and no amount of political correctness and expediency can solve the injustice done in Imo where the Supreme Court awarded votes that do not exist to the APC.
“How can the apex court explain how it awarded votes to Hope Uzodinma of APC beyond the number of registered voters and accredited voters in the election?
“The Supreme Court relied on the supposed fake result sheets that had only APC and PDP on the results sheets when 70 political parties contested the election.
“The attempt of the apex court to redeem its image by gifting the opposition in Bayelsa State will still not correct the injustice done in Imo. The irreducible minimum the Supreme Court can do in ensuring that justice is done in Imo is to ensure that the mistake done by the judges be corrected, especially as regards the numbers that are not adding up.”
According to the statement, Senator Hope Uzodinma, who came a distant fourth with 96,458 votes with no clear chances of being declared winner, was surprisingly declared winner by the Supreme Court.
“In the election, INEC had declared Emeka Ihedioha of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) winner with 273,404 votes, ahead of Uche Nwosu of the Action Alliance (AA) with 190,364, and Ifeanyi Araraume of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) with 114,676. In a distant fourth was Hope Uzodinma of the APC with 96,458”, it added.
However, the Imo State Governor, Senator Hope Uzodinma has filed a preliminary objection to challenge the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review its January 14 judgement that brought him to power.
In a motion he jointly filed with the All Progressives Congress (APC), Uzodinma, maintained that the apex court has lost its powers to hear and determine any application relating to the governorship election that held in Imo State on March 9, 2019.
Consequently, he urged the court to dismiss the fresh application that was filed by ousted governor of the state, Emeka Ihedioha and the PDP, which is seeking to set aside the judgement that declared him as the valid winner of the Imo governorship contest.
In the objection dated February 6, which Uzodinma filed through his team of lawyers led by Mr. Damian Dodo, SAN, he contended that Ihedioha’s application, “being a proceeding relating to or arising from election of a governor is barred by effluxion of time”.
According to him, “The application constitutes an invitation to the Supreme Court to sit on appeal over its final decision.”
Uzodimma and APC further argued that: “Having delivered its final decision on the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Appeal No. SC. 1462/2019 between Senator Hope Uzodinma & Anor v Rt. Hon. Emeka Ihedioha & 2 Ors, the Supreme Court has become fuctus officio and divested of jurisdiction over the same subject matter.
“Order 8 Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules 2014 prohibits this Honourable Court from reviewing its judgment once given and delivered, save to correct clerical mistakes or accidental slip.
“The judgment sought to be set aside having been given effect by the inauguration of the 1st Respondent/Objector as governor of Imo State; this Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to grant the prayer sought”.
Besides, Uzodimma stated that Ihedioha’s application “constitutes an abuse of court process” and “is against public policy”.
He insisted that the application seeking to restore Ihedioha amounts to an invitation for the Supreme Court to indulge in an academic exercise that was merely directed as gaining answers to hypothetical questions.
Uzodinma contended that the apex court ordered that a Certificate of Return should be issued to him forthwith and that he should be sworn-in immediately, stressing that the order had since been made effective by his inauguration as the governor of lmo State.
He, therefore, asked the court to invoke Section 6(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended and dismiss Ihedioha’s quest to invalidate the judgment that brought him to power.
Meanwhile, the apex court has fixed February 18 to hear the motion Ihedioha filed to set aside its judgement that removed him as Imo State governor.
A seven-man panel of Justices of the Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Tanko Muhammad, had in a unanimous decision, declared that Senator Hope Uzodinma of the APC was the bona-fide winner of the Imo governorship election.
The CJN-led panel, in its judgement, noted that valid votes that accrued to Uzodinma from 388 polling units were illegally excluded during the computation process.
It held that if the excluded votes were added, Uzodinma, who was the appellant, would have secured majority of valid votes cast at the governorship election.
Consequently, it ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which was the 1st Respondent in the matter, to immediately issue a fresh certificate of return to Uzodinma who initially came fourth in the governorship election.
Ihedioha, had in the five grounds he raised in his appeal, insisted that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to declare Uzodinma governor in the absence of any proof that votes ascribed to him met the mandatory geographical spread.
In his brief of argument, Ihedioha contended that: “This Honourable Court did not have the jurisdiction to declare the 1st Appellant/Respondent as elected in the absence of any proof that the votes ascribed to him met the mandatory geographical spread stipulated in Section 179 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
“This Honourable Court did not have the jurisdiction to declare that the 1st Appellant/Respondent met the constitutional geographical spread without providing in its judgment the reason(s) for that conclusion”.
He argued that the panel had no jurisdiction to hand victory to Uzodinma “in an election petition which was based on two inconsistent and mutually exclusive grounds”.
He drew attention of the apex court to the fact that one of the grounds of the petition Uzodinma lodged against the outcome of the Imo State governorship election, was that he (Ihedioha) was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election, “the implication of which is that the majority of votes cast at the election were valid”.
He said the second ground was that the election was invalid for non-compliance with the Electoral Act, “the implication of which is that the election be annulled”.
Besides, Ihedioha argued that the CJN-led panel failed to consider a subsisting judgement of the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal that dismissed Uzodinma’s petition.