22 Reasons Why Emeka Ihedioha Should Be Returned As Imo Governor By Supreme Court


*PDP submission to Supreme Court on Review for Imo State*



FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS......



"CONCLUSION"



~ KANU AGABI, SAN



(1) There is no denying that this is a time of crises in our country. 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. Those who mean well for the nation will agree that we have here an opportunity for the Supreme Court to mitigate the rising unpopularity of our courts and to rehabilitate her damaged 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.



(2) It is owed to the work of this Supreme Court that the nation continues to survive. It is that work that give 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.



(3) 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.



(4) There is no doubting the fact that your Lordships, being human, will from time to time fall into error. Prove to the world that when that happens you will not lack the courage to correct yourselves. That is the unique opportunity that this case offers you.



(5)

The nation thinks well of your lordships. Prove to the nation that our good thoughts of you are justified and are well deserved. There is not upon this bench a single judge who has been disloyal to his oath or who has a bad reputation. Stand up for the judiciary and for yourselves. Stand up for truth. Stand up for justice. Stand up for strict and honest interpretation of the laws. Take that stand for which the nation can praise you and commend you.



(6)

The position that you hold demands that you do so. It is the great precedents that your Lordships have established that we appeal to you to follow. The nation expects you to deliver an honest verdict, a correct verdict. Prove to the nation that here in this Supreme Court a man or woman who has lost his rights will be given the opportunity to bewail it.



(6)

What is at stake in this case is not only the right that the Applicants have lost but the good name of the judiciary as well. What we call upon you to do is nothing new. It is something that you have done times without number in the past. Those occasions that you reversed yourselves in the past were not more urgent than it is now. Never in the history of this court have your Lordships delivered a judgment which evoked the protest of the public. This one has. Therefore, we urge you, we appeal to you to take a second look at it.



(7)

Those who in their wisdom established this court made it supreme thus expressing their determination that litigation should come to an end. And so this court is supreme, as you have yourselves said, not because you are infallible but because your decisions are final. Whatever you say the law is that is what it shall be. And that is why your Lordships are ever so careful to ensure that your decisions stand the test of time and are not open to any justifiable condemnation or suspicion.



(The just decisions of this Supreme Court immortalize your Lordships who deliver them. It is important therefore that you commit nothing to writing that generations to come, long after we are all dead and gone, will examine and criticize and condemn as unjust and unjustifiable. That has been the lot of the Athenian jury which condemned Socrates.



(9)That has been the lot of Pontius Pilate who, having found no guilt in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, nevertheless ordered that he be crucified. It is precisely to save judges from that kind of predicament that the law allows them in appropriate cases to correct their own mistakes or set aside altogether decisions that are a nullity.



It is that opportunity that we urge your lordships to take in this case and re-examine the judgment which we urge you to set aside on the ground that if you re-examine it dispassionately you will find reason to set it aside and thereby demonstrate to the world that you have courage to correct yourselves when you find that you have erred.



(10) 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.



(11) 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.



(12) 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.



(13) 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)



(14) 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.



(15) 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 –



(16) 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)



(18)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)



(19)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.



(20) 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.



(21) 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.



(22) 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.



____________________

Kanu Agabi, SAN, CON

Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN

J. T. U. Nnodum, SAN

K.C.O Njemanze, SAN

S. I AMEH, SAN.

Emeka Etiaba, SAN

Chief Umeh Kalu, SAN

Emeka Okpoko, SAN

L. M. Alozie, SAN

Essien H. Andrew, SAN

S. A. Anyalewechi, Esq.

A. S. Ogujiofor, Esq.

Charles Ndukwe,Esq.

Uchenna Njoku, Esq.



(Applicants’ Counsel)

Kanu G. Agabi & Associates.

ok

There are only 2 reasons why Ihedinjo will not be returned as Imo state governor.

1) He did not get up to 2/3rd win all over the state which is compulsory.

2) Second but more importantly, the 60 days for the supreme court to decide his case from the day the appeal court gave their own judgement is over.

is like PDP have good ground unlike APC

Cyberterror:
There are only 2 reasons why Ihedinjo will not be returned as Imo state governor.

1) He did not get up to 2/3rd win all over the state which is compulsory.

2) Second but more importantly, the 60 days for the supreme court to decide his case from the day the appeal court gave their own judgement is over.

You people are truly despicable! You know you have no legal leg to stand on based on the merits of the case, so you resort to what you’re good at: searching for technicalities!

Why you lot that say Ndigbo are inconsequential yet are determined to get a foothold in Alaigbo by hook or crook is what one can’t understand!

The supreme court should be ashamed of themselves if this judgement stands with all these damning evidences

XANDERBOY85:


You people are truly despicable! You know you have no legal leg to stand on based on the merits of the case, so you resort to what you’re good at: searching for technicalities!

Why you lot that say Ndigbo are inconsequential yet are determined to get a foothold in Alaigbo by hook or crook is what one can’t understand!

I abhor brainless people like you. What is the technicality in quoting the electoral act that clearly stipulates a time limit for resolution of post election cases in the supreme court? Your stupidity is in overdose.

Emeka has even withdrawn the case at the supreme. Wail no more

The supreme Court can not upturn its own judgement, I guess you weren't there when pdp defense was only on this ground.

And judgement was explicitly delivered on this stance

Cyberterror:
I abhor brainless people like you. What is the technicality in quoting the electoral act that clearly stipulates a time limit for resolution of post election cases in the supreme court? Your stupidity is in overdose.

You’re irredeemably daft! Saying ‘time limit’ should make the Supreme Court decline to look at Ihediohas’ submission on its own merit is trying to dismiss the appeal for a review based on a technicality!

What you’re saying in effect is that the Supreme Court shouldn’t look into the possibility they may have been misled and given a judgment in error based on criminality just because the time limit has expired, thereby allowing Uzodinma to benefit from his purported acts of illegality!

If Ihedioha didn’t meet the 2/3 spread of votes, is it Uzodinma that now met said requirement?

You probably have the same notion of the judicial term technicality as that held by your Tanko Mohammed! If you don’t wanna hear from me then quit posting cra’p....more so on a thread that has fuckall to do with you!

fergie001. You should be interested in seeing dis.

Like I said before, Kanu has highlighted obvious errors in the judgment unlike that of Bayelsa. Let's wait and see

Agboriotejoye:
fergie001. You should be interested in seeing dis.

Like I said before, Kanu has highlighted obvious errors in the judgment unlike that of Bayelsa. Let's wait and see

Thanks for the mention.

It was posted here sometime last week...but my head was on Bayelsa, I will take my time now.

I have my own issues with the fact that post-election cases die 74 days after the judgement of the CoA.

There is validity in the case, esp. on geographical spread.
You can overlook Electoral Act but never the Constitution. (If you want to base on technicalities)

There is a conflict here only the SC can unbundle.
Will they stick to the Electoral Act of 60 days OR will they say let's look at these errors for posterity sake.

The fact is....it's in their hands right now.

fergie001:

Thanks for the mention.

It was posted here sometime last week...but my head was on Bayelsa, I will take my time now.

I have my own issues with the fact that post-election cases die 74 days after the judgement of the CoA.

There is validity in the case, esp. on geographical spread.
You can overlook Electoral Act but never the Constitution. (If you want to base on technicalities)

There is a conflict here only the SC can unbundle.
Will they stick to the Electoral Act of 60 days OR will they say let's look at these errors for posterity sake.

The fact is....it's in their hands right now.

Well... They have to. Every constitutional matter must be looked at by the supreme court. Its an established precept which preserves the sanctity of the constitution as the supreme law of the land. It's exactly for this kind of cases that the review exists for.

We have two in this case: the issue of spread and the total votes exceeding accredited voters.

On the 60 days matter, review is not technically a litigation per se. Besides, you can't leave a constitutional issue unanswered because of an Act. It will be an aberration.

Even the Electoral Act section 40 question will need to be answered satisfactorily once and for all.

Agboriotejoye:


Well... They have to. Every constitutional matter must be looked at by the supreme court. Its an established precept which preserves the sanctity of the constitution as the supreme law of the land. It's exactly for this kind of cases that the review exists for.

We have two in this case: the issue of spread and the total votes exceeding accredited voters.

On the 60 days matter, review is not technically a litigation per se. Besides, you can't leave a constitutional issue unanswered because of an Act. It will be an aberration.

Even the Electoral Act section 40 question will need to be answered satisfactorily once and for all.

I align with all of your provisions Sir.

Where I think the SC goofed the most, was at the bolded.

In the case of Bayelsa, Eko (JSC) rightly said..give to the second withdrawal who participated in all stages of the election with the spread. The assignment went over to INEC.

In.the case of Zamfara, Galinje (JSC) also posited, give to the second with the geographical spread who participated in all stages of the election. INEC took it from there.

In this case, the judgement was explicitly wrong because it was definite. Kekere-Ekun and other panel.members were wrongly definite in throwing away Sections 179(2) of the Constitution.

Ihedioha might not be returned but there are sections of that judgement they will take back.

fergie001:

I align with all of your provisions Sir.

Where I think the SC goofed the most, was at the bolded.

In the case of Bayelsa, Eko (JSC) rightly said..give to the second withdrawal who participated in all stages of the election with the spread. The assignment went over to INEC.

In.the case of Zamfara, Galinje (JSC) also posited, give to the second with the geographical spread who participated in all stages of the election. INEC took it from there.

In this case, the judgement was explicitly wrong because it was definite. Kekere-Ekun and other panel.members were wrongly definite in throwing away Sections 179(2) of the Constitution.

Ihedioha might not be returned but there are sections of that judgement they will take back.

I suspect they might order a rerun in the 388 as Hope initially requested.
The SC can never feel comfortable going against the constitution. They might just give the assignment to INEC though. It's another way out

fergie001:

Thanks for the mention.

It was posted here sometime last week...but my head was on Bayelsa, I will take my time now.

I have my own issues with the fact that post-election cases die 74 days after the judgement of the CoA.

There is validity in the case, esp. on geographical spread.
You can overlook Electoral Act but never the Constitution. (If you want to base on technicalities)

There is a conflict here only the SC can unbundle.
Will they stick to the Electoral Act of 60 days OR will they say let's look at these errors for posterity sake.

The fact is....it's in their hands right now.

Part of the clerical errors spotted was that the Supreme court did not give the latest results regulation


Accredited voters
Result after adding the 388 PU

So the supreme is expected to put the figures out for all to see.

Even if they dont reverse the case.

The excess votes should be addressed.

However that may have the effect on the Judgement.

We fold our hands and watch

fergie001:

I align with all of your provisions Sir.

Where I think the SC goofed the most, was at the bolded.

In the case of Bayelsa, Eko (JSC) rightly said..give to the second withdrawal who participated in all stages of the election with the spread. The assignment went over to INEC.

In.the case of Zamfara, Galinje (JSC) also posited, give to the second with the geographical spread who participated in all stages of the election. INEC took it from there.

In this case, the judgement was explicitly wrong because it was definite. Kekere-Ekun and other panel.members were wrongly definite in throwing away Sections 179(2) of the Constitution.

Ihedioha might not be returned but there are sections of that judgement they will take back.

2 likely scenario.

1. Order rerun.

2. Correct the excess votes. However because its supreme.

However, going by Bayelsa review ruling.


[qoute]The Supreme Court cannot reverse its substantive judgment. It can only correct clerical errors its verdict.

Order 8 Rules 16 of the Supreme Court Rules provides that “the court shall not review any judgment once given and deliver by it, save to correct any clerical mistake or some errors arising from any accidental slip or omission or to vary the judgement or order so as to give effect to its meaning or intention.

“The judgment or order shall not be varied when it correctly represents what the court decided nor shall the operative and substantive part of it be varied and in different form substituted.”

The apex court held that the APC's applications did not show any clerical mistake that needs to be corrected in the judgment which they sought to be reviewed.

Also, the applications failed to point out any accidental slip or omission in the said judgment or showed this court any part of the said judgment that needs to be varied so as to give effect to its meaning or intention.

The court said the APC's applications were asking the court to change the substantive judgment which is against the Court's rule.

To put it simply, the APC's applications do not fall under the categories of issue that can be reviewed by the Supreme Court.[\quote]

Agboriotejoye:


I suspect they might order a rerun in the 388 as Hope initially requested.
The SC can never feel comfortable going against the constitution. They might just give the assignment to INEC though. It's another way out

I think that's what will happen.......because anything at variance with the Constitution...the SC judges won't want to have anything that will put their names on record as sanctioning unconstitutionality.

But always leave that possibility that Ihedioha might still not be returned.
Cc: engineerboat

fergie001:

I think that's what will happen.......because anything at variance with the Constitution...the SC judges won't want to have anything that will put their names on record as sanctioning unconstitutionality.

But always leave that possibility that Ihedioha might still not be returned.
Cc: engineerboat

I foresee a rerun in the 388 PUs which was Hope's initial prayer. It also helps settle the issue of spread once and for all. In that case, you'll realize how unpopular Hope is as a candidate especially with the manner of the judgment which brought him to office.

Agboriotejoye:


I foresee a rerun in the 388 PUs which was Hope's initial prayer. It also helps settle the issue of spread once and for all. In that case, you'll realize how unpopular Hope is as a candidate especially with the manner of the judgment which brought him to office.

I align with you asymmetrically.

Agboriotejoye:


I foresee a rerun in the 388 PUs which was Hope's initial prayer. It also helps settle the issue of spread once and for all. In that case, you'll realize how unpopular Hope is as a candidate especially with the manner of the judgment which brought him to office.

They will not be any rerun in any 388 units,uzodinma asked for rerun in the whole as a second option.either a total rerun or hope remains

Dansuqi:

They will not be any rerun in any 388 units,uzodinma asked for rerun in the whole as a second option.either a total rerun or hope remains

Thought you're not supposed to quote me

I concur

Agboriotejoye:


Thought you're not supposed to quote me

Says when you talk wisely

fergie001:

Thanks for the mention.

It was posted here sometime last week...but my head was on Bayelsa, I will take my time now.

I have my own issues with the fact that post-election cases die 74 days after the judgement of the CoA.

There is validity in the case, esp. on geographical spread.
You can overlook Electoral Act but never the Constitution. (If you want to base on technicalities)

There is a conflict here only the SC can unbundle.
Will they stick to the Electoral Act of 60 days OR will they say let's look at these errors for posterity sake.

The fact is....it's in their hands right now.

The 60 days is actually in Section 285(7) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended in the 2nd Alteration and not the electoral act.

Agboriotejoye:


Well... They have to. Every constitutional matter must be looked at by the supreme court. Its an established precept which preserves the sanctity of the constitution as the supreme law of the land. It's exactly for this kind of cases that the review exists for.

We have two in this case: the issue of spread and the total votes exceeding accredited voters.

On the 60 days matter, review is not technically a litigation per se. Besides, you can't leave a constitutional issue unanswered because of an Act. It will be an aberration.

Even the Electoral Act section 40 question will need to be answered satisfactorily once and for all.

Oga I have told you before now that nothing is going to come out of Monday's hearing but you hoping against hope.

You need jurisdiction to answer a constitutional question. Refer to the case of Cross River State government vs FG on the suspension/removal of Onnoghen. Furthermore NIKI TOBI, JSC, submitted, that jurisdiction is the threshold of judicial power and jurisdiction. It is extrinsic to the adjudication and it cannot be waived by one or both parties to the dispute by connivance, acquiescence or collusion. Where the court lacks jurisdiction in any matter, the court is incompetent to adjudicate in the matter as between the parties before it.

The 60 days is a constitutional question of jurisdiction and not just an electoral matter.

Most importantly the supreme court CANNOT RE-LITIGATE

fergie001:

I align with all of your provisions Sir.

Where I think the SC goofed the most, was at the bolded.

In the case of Bayelsa, Eko (JSC) rightly said..give to the second withdrawal who participated in all stages of the election with the spread. The assignment went over to INEC.

In.the case of Zamfara, Galinje (JSC) also posited, give to the second with the geographical spread who participated in all stages of the election. INEC took it from there.

In this case, the judgement was explicitly wrong because it was definite. Kekere-Ekun and other panel.members were wrongly definite in throwing away Sections 179(2) of the Constitution.

Ihedioha might not be returned but there are sections of that judgement they will take back.

Goofed How?

Whose responsibility was it to have raised the issue of spread...... the supreme court judges or Ihedioha's lawyers?

Was the question of spread brought before them that they didn't rule on it? Of course you know the court is not a father Christmas to give you what you didn't ask for OR are you insinuating that the Supreme Court should have helped Ihedioha's CASE by descending into the arena?

Judgements are delivered based on pleadings and issues joined. This, Justice Kekerekun clearly stated in her judgement.

To prove some of the things Ihedioha is asking for now requires calling of experts witnesses from INEC/others and that cannot happen because it will amount to FULL BLOWN RE LITIGATION.


See Ihedioha's case failed due to lack of diligent prosecution and he cannot correct it now. His lawyers concentrated so much on Uche Nwosu case that they didn't do due diligence to Uzodinma's case.

What is he is asking the Supreme Court to do is not a Review but to re-litigate the matter.

Is like a team asking for a replay match because one of their defenders was sick on the day the main match was played or cancel a match because a particular goal which was accepted was scored from an off side position.

More

Emeka Ihedioha is not an Igbo MUSLIM, he will never be returned as Imo State Governor.

Quote me anywhere.

Story.

SC that already thrown the case in the dustbin