Round 4: Supreme Court Hears Ihedioha's Rebuttal And Receives Pertinent Filings And Exhibits
The former governor of Imo State, Emeka Ihedioha, has finally been able to present his rebuttal to their judgement that prompted his sacking.
Yesterday, he shared that the Supreme Court in 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 judgement and asked the apex court to set it aside.
His entire argument was contained in an application which he filed before the apex court also on Wednesday.
The application filed by Kanu Agabi (SAN) (below) on behalf of Ihedioha and the Peoples Democratic Party, was brought in pursuant of Section 6 (6) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act 2004
Related: Court Of Appeal Deals Orji Kalu Et Al Another Blow, Dismisses Appeal For Lack Of Merit
The application was supported with an affidavit sworn to by another lawyer, Uchenna Njoku.
In alleging fraud, 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.
It further pointed out that:
“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 inclusion of 213, 695 votes for the first appellant/respondent, 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, further dissented 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.
In conclusion, they substantiated that the judgment sought to be set aside in that it was given per incuriam. [through or characterized by lack of due regard to the law or the facts.]