The Supreme Court is due to review it’s judgement on the governorship election in Imo state on Monday, March 2nd. Ahead of that review however, the former governor of Imo state, Emeka Ihedioha, has told the court that the facts and circumstances of his application are different and distinguishable from the one filed by the All Progressives Congress (APC) and its candidate, David Lyon, with respect to the Bayelsa State governorship election. Recall that last week the Supreme Court had in a unanimous decision dismissed the APC’s request for a review of the February 13th judgement which sacked the governor elect of Bayelsa state, David Lyon over certificate forgery of his deputy. The attorneys were also fined N60M.
Many had suggested Ihedioha’s case would likely suffer the same fate. But in his further and better affidavit in support of his application dated February 28, Ihedioha insisted that his action is not an invitation of the apex court to sit on appeal over its judgment.
Rather, he explained that his application is seeking the court to set aside its January 14 judgement that removed him from office for being a nullity. He argued through his lead counsel and former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Kanu Agabi (SAN) that, “the application is not an academic exercise or an invitation to this honourable Court to answer hypothetical questions as the issue of nullity of the judgment of January 14, 2020, is neither academic nor hypothetical.
The former governor added that “contrary to the deposition by Governor Hope Uzodinma, he (Uzodinma) never stated the results of the other 68 candidates that participated in the election at the 388 polling units, as their scores were not indicated anywhere by the appellants. “Contrary to the depositions by the respondents, there is nowhere in the judgment of this honourable Court delivered on January 14, 2020, in which the decision of the lower court striking out the petition for incompetence was set aside or upturned. “On the contrary, the judgment of this honourable Court only set aside the judgment of the lower court affirming the judgment of the Governorship election tribunal. The order of the lower court striking out the petition was not an affirmation of any decision of the Governorship election tribunal.
That the failure to state the results of the other 68 candidates that participated in the election in the disputed 388 polling units and the 1st appellant/respondent’s (Uzodinma) admission under cross-examination of allocating to himself more votes than the total registered voters in the identified units are all manifest on the face of the record of the Supreme Court. “That no evidence was led as to how governor Uzodinma satisfied the mandatory spread required under section 179(2) of the 1999 constitution.” It added.