Imo, Zamfara gov’ship polls S’Court adjourns for judgement review
.Ihedioha insists judgment is fraud
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned hearing on the application seeking a review of its judgment on the Imo and Zamfara states governorship election to March 2, 2020.
In the suit filed by ousted Emeka Ihedioha, the same members of the panel of the Supreme Court that declared Senator Hope Uzodinma the candidate of All Progressives Congress (APC) winner of the Governorship election held on March 9, 2019 had sat to hear application challenging the February 14 judgment on Tuesday.
But, Kanu Agabi (SAN), the lead counsel for Ihedioha’s team, informed the court that processes on the matter are still coming in. He therefore applied for a short adjournment to enable the legal team put in more processes.
Damian Dodo (SAN), counsel to Governor Hope Uzodinma and the counsel for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), T.A. Inuwa (SAN), did not opposed the application. Rather they said a short adjournment would enable them also put in more processes.
Besides the request for adjournment, Dodo (SAN) wanted to know from the court which of the applications will be taken on the next adjourned date. But the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad said the parties should sort that out.
Meanwhile, what appeared to be final address of Ihedioha by his team has insisted that the judgment of the apex court on Imo governorship election was obtained by fraud.
The address reads in part: “In this case, a man who himself branded the election in which he participated as invalid has been adjudged by your Lordships as the winner of the same election.
“That is in the face of past and innumerable decisions by your Lordships that if such a ground succeeded it should lead to the nullification of the election.
“In this case, the man you declared as winner of the election specifically prayed that your Lordships should nullify the result of elections in the entire state and that your Lordships order that a fresh election be conducted.
“Your Lordships also declared as winner a man who prayed your Lordships to order a re-run election in all the 388 polling units where elections and results were cancelled or not declared.
“Your Lordships ordered victory for a man who admitted under cross examination that in polling unit after polling unit, he awarded to himself more votes than the total number of registered voters in those polling units.
“Your Lordships accepted votes from 388 polling units presented by the 1st Respondent which had the consequence of swelling-up the total number of votes scored in the election way beyond the total number of accredited voters.
“The excess votes between the total votes scored and the total accredited voters are 129,340 votes – a clearly impossible situation and brazen illegality under our electoral law. (Underlining supplied).
“Your Lordships declared the 1st Respondent as winner of the election when your Lordships did not satisfy yourselves that the 1st Respondent scored enough votes across the various local government areas of Imo State to satisfy the geographical spread as decreed by the Constitution.
“Based on the foregoing, we submit that the judgment delivered by this Honourable Court on 14th January 2020 in Appeal No. SC.1462/2019 and Cross Appeal No. SC.1470/2019 is a nullity because – The judgment was delivered without jurisdiction in that the court declared the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election contrary to section 140 (1) and (2) of the Electoral Act (as amended).
“The judgment is unconstitutional in that it declared the 1st Respondent the winner of the election without proof that the votes accredited to him met the geographical spread stipulated in section 179 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
“The judgment was obtained by fraud in that the votes upon which the 1st Respondent was declared as the winner of the election were in excess of the number of voters accredited for the election.
“The judgment was given per incuriam as your lordships by this judgment unwittingly sanctioned that total votes cast at an election can be in excess of the total number of accredited voters, as in this case, the total votes exceeded the total accredited voters by 129,340 votes.
“Furthermore, the judgment was given per incuriam in view of the 1st Respondent’s contention that the election was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) whereupon he prayed that a supplementary election should be held in the 388 disputed polling units where he claimed his votes were cancelled.
“We respectfully urge your Lordships therefore to set aside the judgment in Appeal No. SC.1462/2019 and Cross Appeal No. SC.1470/2019 as prayed in our motion paper because as this Honourable Court rightly noted in ADEGOKE MOTORS v. ADESANYA (supra) “it is far better to admit an error than to preserve an error”. May it so please your Lordships.
Also, the Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the application filed by former Governor of Zamfara State, Abdul’aziz Yari-led faction of the All Progressives Congress (APC) seeking the review of its 2019 judgment to March 2, 2020.
The judgement in question delivered on May 24, 2019 voided the participation of candidates of the APC in the last general election in the state and led to the victory of candidates of Peoples Democratic Party.
When the matter came up on Tuesday for hearing, the five-member panel of justices of the apex court presided over by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, said the court cannot proceed to hearing of the application because the 141 to 178 respondents have not been served with hearing notice of the matter.
Counsel to the APC, Robert Clarke (SAN) then asked for a short adjournment to enable service of hearing notice of court processes on all the respondents, a request the court granted and adjourned till March 2, 2020.
A five-man panel of Justices of the apex court, led by Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, had on August 22, 2019 unanimously struck out the APC’s application for the review of its judgment in the Zamfara governorship matter, on the ground that it was incompetent as the complete judgments of the apex court comprising all the judgments of the five members of the panel being contested by the party were not attached to the application, but it was refiled in November 2019 by the party.
Justice Rhodes-Vivour further held that the consequential orders made in the judgment of the court were part and parcel of the pre-election matter and it was an abuse asking the apex court to review its judgment or orders.
“We don’t seat on appeal over our own decision. We have no jurisdiction over this matter,’’ he said.
Robert Clarke, the counsel to the appellant, had said that the purpose of the appeal was for the apex court to take a second look at its decision and the consequential order and contended that the orders were made out of jurisdiction and had denied his client fair hearing.
The apex court had in May last year nullified the elections of all the candidates of the APC in Zamfara in the 2019 general elections on the ground that the party did not conduct valid primary elections in the build-up to the general election.
The five-member panel of the court held that, “a party that has no valid candidates cannot be said to have emerged winner of the general elections. The runner-ups are expected to be declared winners by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)’’.
Before the general election, INEC said it would not allow the APC field candidates in Zamfara because the party did not hold primaries within the stipulated time.
The controversy among leaders of the party in the state led to the inability to hold the primaries within the stipulated time.
Two different courts, in Zamfara and Abuja later gave conflicting decisions on the position of INEC.
A High Court sitting in Gusau, Zamfara State, ruled that the APC actually conducted primaries in the state and should be allowed to present candidates for the elections while a Federal High Court ruled otherwise.
The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, on February 21 set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, for “lack of jurisdiction” on the part of the lower court.
