Kanu Agabi, counsel to ousted governor of Imo Sate, Emeka Ihedioha, says, with the application to review the controversial Imo judgment, the supreme court has been given a rare opportunity to redeem its image and prove that the institution is sacred.
Agabi’s view was contained in a written address that accompanied the application of the Ihedioha for review which was submitted on Wednesday.
In the application, Ihedioha said the decision should be set aside because the apex court was misled by Senator Hope Uzodinma.
Recall that in a January 14 decision that sparked protests across the nation and globally, the supreme had removed Ihedioha as governor and replaced him with Uzodinma of the All Progressives Congress (APC), who came a distant fourth in the March 9, 2019 governorship. Interestingly, his party APC dd not even win a single seat in the Imo State House of Assembly.
Ihedioha says the judgement was obtained by fraud and that it was not made on statutory provisions.
He said, “At this, of all times, our Supreme Court has been afforded this unique opportunity of allaying the fears of those who cast aspersions on the credibility of our courts,” he said.
“Those who mean well for the nation will agree that we have here an opportunity for the Supreme Court to mitigate public misgiving of our courts and to rehabilitate her reputation and restore the good name of the judiciary by setting aside this judgment which seems to us to be a nullity; we may be quite wrong. In that case, please, forgive us.
“Your verdict in this matter should match the solemn oath you have taken. Remember that every decision of this honourable court involves the good name of the judiciary. Prove to the world that this court is sacred. Let your verdict help to retain the good graces of our people.
“It is owed to the work of this supreme court that the nation continues to survive. it is that work that gives us the confidence to present this application. That you are willing to reconsider your decision gives you honour and glory.
“We come before you firmly convinced that you will act in aid of the cause of justice. In this application we appeal to you, we urge you, we beg you to preserve the glorious reputation of this court. We appeal to you to prove wrong all those who have an evil opinion of our judiciary. Here is a great opportunity for your Lordships to act.
“Free the judiciary from suspicion. Give no one cause to despise our courts. Prove to the World that you are the equals of the courts of other nations. Remember always that as you sit in judgment over us, so the nation sits in judgment over you. And you should worry, not just over the judgment of this generation, but also the judgment of generations to come when none of us will be alive to defend our actions.”
See the SUMMARY OF THE CASE OF RT. HON. EMEKA IHEDIOHA VS SEN. HOPE UZODINMA FOR REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT:
Mr. Ihedioha founded his application for the review of the controversial January 14 judgment on the following grounds:
1. That the Court of Appeal had earlier dismissed the petition of Senator Hope Uzodinma as incompetent and struck it out. However, the Supreme Court did not consider the appeal of Hope Uzodinma on this point and so the judgement of the Court of Appeal dismissing the petition still stands or subsists. There was therefore no basis for the Supreme Court to pronounce on the Appeal and declare Hope Uzodinma, elected.
2. That the judgement was delivered without jurisdiction in that by virtue of S.140(2) of the Electoral Act, once the Court says that the election was invalid, the only possible judgement the Court is allowed to give is a nullification of the election, and not to declare Hope Uzodinma, winner.
3. That there was no proof before the Court nor did the Supreme Court state how it arrived at the declaration that Hope Uzodinma met the constitutionally required geographical spread. To meet this requirement, the Supreme Court ought to state the scores and percentages of all the 70 candidates that contested the election, Local Government by Local Government. This was not done by the Supreme Court and therefore had no basis and jurisdiction to declare Hope Uzodinma winner of the election.
4. That the judgement was a nullity having been obtained by fraud or deceit in that Hope Uzodinma fraudulently misled the Supreme Court into holding that a total of 213,495 were unlawfully excluded from his votes. The fraud was further orchestrated by the fact that the total votes cast was more than the number of voters accredited to vote. The fraud was further demonstrated by the document tendered by INEC (FORM EC40G) which clearly showed that there were no valid elections in the disputed 388 polling units.
5. That the judgement was a nullity because it was given per incuriam, which means that the Supreme Court did not advert its attention to some existing laws and facts even on the face of the proceedings. For instance;
a) By Exhibit A1 (Form EC8D) the total number of voters accredited for the Governorship Election held on 9th March 2019 in Imo State was 823,743,while the total valid votes cast was 731,485. Note that the Petitioner did not plead or lead evidence of a different accreditation figure from the 388 disputed polling units.
b) With the inclusion of 213,695 votes for Hope Uzodinma and 1,903 to the votes of Emeka Ihedioha, as ordered by the Supreme Court, the total number of votes cast at the election now stands at 953,083 (i.e. 731,485 + 213,695 + 1,903) making the total number of votes cast at the election to be far in excess of the total number of voters accredited for the election, 129,340.
c) It is unlawful for the total number of votes cast in an election to exceed the number of accredited voters and that illegality rendered the judgment sought to be set aside null and void.
6. a. The present application is seeking to set aside the judgment in Appeal Nos. SC. 1462/2019 and SC.1470/2019 on the basis that even though the appeals where concluded within the 60 days period stipulated by Constitution, the entire proceeding was vitiated by jurisdictional vires which renders same a nullity. Time does not run against nullities.
b. Consequently, the present application is not subject to the 60 days limitation period in section 285(7) of the Constitution because an application to set aside a null judgment or order is not circumscribed by statutes of limitation, and section 285 (7) of the Constitution is, to all intents and purposes, a statute of limitation.
cpcnews.org 