Imo and the opposition’s limitless hysteria
Since the January 14th, 2020 unanimous decision of a seven-man panel of the Supreme Court of Nigeria being the final arbiter in the land to allow to stay, an appeal filed by the All Progressives Congress, APC candidate in the March 9th, 2019 Governorship election in Imo State, Senator Hope Uzodinma which challenged the declaration […]
Since the January 14th, 2020 unanimous decision of a seven-man panel of the Supreme Court of Nigeria being the final arbiter in the land to allow to stay, an appeal filed by the All Progressives Congress, APC candidate in the March 9th, 2019 Governorship election in Imo State, Senator Hope Uzodinma which challenged the declaration of the quondam Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Emeka Ihedioha as winner of the said election, and following the subsequent restoration of the former’s mandate, it appears the dusts raised by that historic and landmark decision would perpetually remain unsettled!
Having gone the road widely travelled by typical Nigerian politicians just like his co-contesting flag-bearers in AA, Uche Nwosu and APGA’s Sen. Ifeanyi Ararume beginning from the lower Tribunal to the Appellate court and also getting the typically Nigerian syndrome of throwing away the baby with the bath water, rather than properly spilling the beans, APC’s Uzodinma could perhaps have lost hope but for the fact that his case was not the same in material fact and pleadings with those of his co-travellers. His was a novel case seeking for justice against wrongful exclusion of valid votes already signed and validated by the electoral umpire.
His perseverance eventually paid off with the One-against-Four minority judgment of His Lordship, Honourable Justice Fredrick Oho of the Court of Appeal who held: “All your reliefs are hereby granted, and I hereby declare you the duly elected Governor of Imo State.” It is already public knowledge that the appellant (Uzodinma’s) contention (as different from the rest of his co-appellants in Imo) was simply that his 213, 695 votes were wrongfully excluded and that the erstwhile Governor (Ihedioha) was returned based on a wrongful computation of results from the 2, 883 polling units.
This contention, not too common in our post-election legal history particularly at the level of the apex court in our land must have made their Lordships to pay detailed attention to the pleadings of the appellants and in relation to the material, unchallenged and undisputed facts dismiss the decisions of the lower courts and therefore upholding the appeal!
The substance of the facts of the case of Uzodinma Vs. Ihedioha which would undeniably shape the context and practice of our law in the most populous black nation, even though already in public domain following their Lordship’s wise decision to give its ratio decidendi (the reason for the decision) less than two weeks after its judgment appeared to be mischievously ignored by both the protesting parties, their perceived sponsors and many analysts who seem more determined to even add to the mumbo-jumbo of our pantheon law especially as it relates and affects the common man. Having taken time to painstakingly study the voluminous expose by the learned jurists of the apex Court on Imo, it would only be safe to conclude that Ihedioha, PDP and their protesters seem in the eyes of reasonable Nigerians to be misdirecting their anger!
Otherwise, when will his legal team take some portions of the blame for failing to properly join issues with the Petitioners/Appellants to contradict their claims, particularly at the lower tribunal where the law allows same? It is even more bemusing to saner minds the way and manner the losers and their Party, (PDP), is attempting to foist a review of its decision on the Supreme Court mainly on the grounds that the judgment that favoured Uzodinma was obtained by fraud. In the motion for review pending before the apex Court, it is contended by Ihedioha that “the Appellants/Respondents (Uzodinma) fraudulently misled this court (Supreme Court) into holding that a total of 213, 495 votes were unlawfully excluded from the votes scored by the 1st Appellant/Respondent in the election”, adding that “The fraudulent nature of the additional votes was demonstrated by the fact that the total votes cast as shown in the 1st Appellant/Respondent’s computation was more than the total number of accredited voters for the election and in some polling units more than the total number of registered voters”.
The Supreme Court, in order to satisfy the curiosities and doubts of all parties, has however reportedly fixed today, Tuesday February, 18th 2020 to determine both motions for review in Imo and Bayelsa which the ruling All Progressives Congress, (APC) is also seeking a review of its last week’s verdict declaring PDP’s Sen. Diri as the authentic winner of the November 16th elections in the oil-rich State. That is for many public analysts a balance of bedevilment and palpitating agitations on the part of both parties! The views of some lawyers who had argued that the Supreme Court under the principle of stare decisis is bound by its previous decisions, and as such, there had been cases where the judgment of the Supreme Court astonished a section of the public but the court didn’t reverse its judgment when approached to do so.
On the argument of many regarding precedence, the same Constitutional Lawyer, Okpanachi, reflected that: “On November 2, 2009, Supreme Court dismissed Celestine Omehia’s application seeking for review of its judgment of October 25, 2007, which removed him and declared Rotimi Amaechi as the Governor of Rivers State. But Omehia re-appealed, saying that the apex court made a mistake. He had argued that the judgment contradicted some provisions of the 1999 Constitution. But the seven-man panel led by Justice Alloysius Katsina-Alu described the suit as frivolous and an act of judicial rascality. They accordingly dismissed the case with N100, 000 cost, saying even if it was a mistake; the apex court has a right to make a mistake”.
It was the insistence of the apex court that Amaechi remained the legitimate governor and that the decision was final regardless of whether it was rightly or wrongly entered. He recalled that the Supreme Court Justice, Katsina-Alu, had urged anybody aggrieved by the court’s decision to appeal to heaven where God Almighty reigns supreme and not in Nigeria where they held sway, adding that “only God can reverse the October 25, 2007 verdict.”
As Nigerians anticipate today’s appeals of both the ruling and leading opposition parties, it is emphatic to note that the decision would have a long-standing impact on the seeming conjuration that has bedevilled our legal system. But would the outcome of the review cure opposition, PDP’s limitless hysteria particularly on the Imo Governorship? The peculiar and worrisome nature of the protests must have led to the motion moved by Imo House of Assembly to declare opposition against the lingering protests and such should be commended for the overall interests and development of the Eastern Heartland. This is more so considering the fact that Governor Uzodinma, unlike many incumbents in Nigeria, has towed a path of unity and uncommon concern for the interest of the Imo electorates by continuing with most of the projects started by his predecessor.
Otu, a public affairs analyst, sent in this piece from Abuja