Imo guber: How Supreme Court can reverse itself –Legal experts

TRACKING____All may not have been heard about the March 2019 governorship contest in Imo State between incumbent Governor, Senator Hope Uzodinma and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Emeka Ihedioha, who was recently sacked by the Supreme Court, in a judgment that has become a source of controversy across Nigeria. According to a group of legal experts, under the aegis of Partners for Justice and Equity (PAJE), the Supreme Court can decide to review the facts of the case with a view to ensuring that justice is not only done, but seen to have been done.

In a statement issued after their meeting in Abuja Thursday, PAJE, which is made up senior lawyers, also advised Ihedioha to make a formal approach to the Supreme Court through legal application for the apex court to look at the facts in issue once more.

PAJE gave seven reasons or grounds on which it said the Supreme Court can take a second look at the Imo Governorship election judgment. The statement was signed by Bar. Uwajiogu Ikeokwu Udemba, National Secretary of the group.

“There are several reasons for the Supreme Court to look at the case involving the March 2019 governorship election in Imo State with a view to ensuring that justice is given to those that deserve it. Because of time, we will only provide seven of the grounds as follows: “The sum total of votes added by Supreme Court exceeds accredited votes. This is in violation of Section 53 of Electoral Act 2010 (As Amended) and Section 8 (b) of INEC Guideline for 2019 election.

“The Acceptance of Results from 388 polling units by Supreme Court without certification is a violation of Section 89 ( e) and (f ) and 90 (c ) of the Evidence Act 2011 which requires all public documents to be certified before they can be tendered in evidence.

“The results from the disputed 388 polling units were neither certified by INEC who are the issuers of the document nor police in whose custody they claimed the documents emanated. “The Acceptance of Evidence of a Police Officer who neither made the document nor knew anything about the document is in violation of Section 37, 38 and 126 of Evidence Act 2011,” the statement said.

Continuing, PAJE said: “The Acceptance of the 388 results by the Supreme without any evidence from polling agents or INEC officials is a clear departure from the existing judicial precedence on the proof of election results as established by Supreme Court in long lines of cases including most recently Atiku vs. Buhari, Alex Otti Vs. Ikpeazu.