The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed an application filed by Emeka Ihedioha of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) seeking the sacking of Hope Uzodimma as the Imo State Governor.
In the suit, Ihedioha also asked to be issued a certificate of return as the rightful governor of the state.
According to him, Uzodimma wasn’t qualified to run for governor.
In a ruling read by Justice Tijjani Abubakar on Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismissed Ihedioha’s application, saying it lacked merit.
Justice Abubakar described the application as unnecessary and vexatious. He consequently awarded N40 million cost against his Counsel, Mike Ozekhome (SAN) for bringing the matter before the court.
Ihedioha in February 2020 filed an application in the apex court asking the court for: “An Order setting aside as a nullity the judgement delivered by the Court on the 14th of January, 2020 in Appeal No. SC.1462/2019”.
Ihedioha had said an earlier 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”.
According to him, “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”.
He further said, “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.
“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.
“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.”
