Ada Ozuruigbo Imo State 0


64 people have signed this petition. Add your name now!
Ada Ozuruigbo Imo State 0 Comments
64 people have signed. Add your voice!
Maxine K. signed just now
Adam B. signed just now

Ndi Imo seek Supreme Court’s review on judgement

Former Governor of Imo State, Rt. Honourable Emeka Ihedioha has officially approached the Supreme court of Nigeria, led my by Justice Tanko Muhammed to review a Judgement delivered against him and his party the People’s Democratic Party, PDP

The Immediate past Governor of Imo state approached the Supreme court seeking a review of the judgement that removed him from office and pronounced the current governor of the state, Hope Uzodinma winner of the 2019 gubernatorial election of the state.

The former governor told the Supreme Court that its January 14 judgment that sacked him and declared Hope Uzodinma of the All Progressives Congress the duly elected governor of the state was obtained by fraud or deceit. He added that the apex court was misled to give the judgment. Describing the judgment as a nullity, he asked the apex court to set it aside.

A seven-man panel of the apex court led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Tanko Muhammad, had on January 14 unanimously declared Uzodinma of the APC winner of the March 9, 2019 governorship election and the validly elected governor of the state.

Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, who read the lead judgment, ordered that the certificate of return issued to Ihedioha be immediately withdrawn. She directed that a fresh certificate of return should be issued to Uzodinma.

In alleging fraud, however, Ihedioha and the PDP claimed that Uzodinma and his party fraudulently misled the apex court into holding that 213,495 votes were unlawfully excluded from the votes they scored in the governorship election held on March 9, 2019.

They said Uzodinma admitted under cross examination that he was the person, and not the Independent National Electoral Commission, who computed the result that gave him the 213,495 votes alleged to have been excluded from his total votes in the election.

They added, “The fraudulent nature of the additional votes was demonstrated by the fact that the total votes cast as shown in the first appellant/respondent’s computation was more than the total number of voters accredited for the election and in some polling units more than the total number of registered voters.

“The fraud was also demonstrated by the fact that the result computed by the first appellant/respondent showed only the votes of the first applicant and the first appellant/respondent without specifying the votes scored by the other 68 candidates who participated in the election.”

They further argued that the judgment sought to be set aside was a nullity in that it was given per incuriam.

They said by Exhibit A1, the total number of voters accredited for the election was 823, 743 while the total valid votes cast was 731, 485.

The inclusion of 213, 695 votes for the first appellant/respondent, they argued, made the total number of votes cast at the election to be more than the total number of votes accredited for the election.

The applicants also, among other grounds, argued that the judgment of the Court of Appeal dismissing Uzodinma’s petition as incompetent continues to subsist as the appeal against that decision was not considered by the apex court.



Share for Success