Imo: Why my case is different from Bayelsa Review Application ― Ihedioha

Spread the love

Ahead of scheduled hearing of his application by the Supreme Court on Monday, sacked former governor of Imo state, Emeka Ihedioha, has maintained that facts and circumstances surrounding his case are different and distinguishable from the one the All Progressive Congress, APC, filed with respect to the Bayelsa State governorship election.


In a further and better affidavit he filed in support of his application dated February 28, Ihedioha, argued that his action was not an invitation of the apex court to sit on appeal over its judgment that ousted him from office on January 14.


He explained that his application is praying the court, “to set aside its January 14, 2020 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”.


According to Ihedioha, “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.


“That while Uzodinma and his APC claimed that “results from 388 polling units were excluded which this court-ordered to be added to him, PW54, whose evidence they relied upon, testified that he came to tender results of only 366 polling units.


“Under cross-examination, PW54 admitted that the result he tendered was even less than the number (366) he alleged he had come to tender.


“Even going by the number of 366 polling units stated by PW54, nothing in the judgment of this court explained the difference, particularly the number of votes in 22 polling units that the appellant/respondents misled this court to add to the 366 polling units to make up the 388 polling units”, he added.


It will be recalled that a seven-man panel of Justices of the apex court led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Tanko Muhammad, had on February 18, adjourned till Monday to hear the fresh application Ihedioha and the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, filed to set-aside the verdict that sacked him from office as Imo state governor and installed Hope Uzodinma of the All Progressive Congress, APC.


However, Ihedioha, in his fresh five grounds of appeal, contended 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.


He argued that the CJN-led panel failed to consider subsisting judgement of the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal that dismissed Uzodinma’s petition after it affirmed the verdict of the Imo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal. Meanwhile, Uzodinma had since filed a preliminary objection wherein he urged the Supreme Court to dismiss Ihedioha’s application.


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.


According to him, “The application constitutes an invitation to the Supreme Court to sit on appeal over its final decision.”


“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”, he added.



Click to Join Our Facebook Group

Call Bridget Edokwe Esq on 08060798767 or send your email to


Steps To Subscribe To the Court of Appeal Reports Nigeria

Win your Court cases today, Get Affordable Supreme Court Law Reports >> CLICK HERE

BESTSELLER: Get A-Z of contemporary laws of ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE in Nigeria By Alaba Omolaye-Ajileye. To ORDER, sms or call : +2347063666998, +2348159307051 or email

Alexander Payne: Get these Law books to aid your practice.

The Reports contain valuable and uncommon locus classicus for Legal research, opinion, and advocacy. Grab your copy now!!! Call 07044444777 or 08181999888. Visit our website:

1 Response

  1. Marcel Ritz says:

    Utter rubbish! It clearly amounts to asking the Supreme Court to sit on appeal over its previous decision. The apex court would never do such a thing! By the way, there is absolutely nothing jurisdictional about failure to state the entire scores of each participants in an election petition as long as the major scores are stated and the final result (EC8E ) was pleaded, tendered and admitted in evidence.
    The application for a review will be dismissed with punitive cost.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: