Imo election: Gladiators wait on Supreme Court as groups tango
While the parties in the Imo governorship election case wait on the Supreme Court, a group, the Imo Leaders of Thought, has warned against denigrating the judiciary.
Very soon, the Supreme Court will resolve the issue of whether Imo State Governor Emeka Ihedioha's victory in the March 9 governorship election is valid.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had declared Ihedioha of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) the winner.
Ihedioha’s opponents had urged the Election Petition Tribunal to cancel the election on the grounds that he did not meet the mandatory 25 per cent in twothirds of the local government areas.
They also alleged substantial noncompliance with the electoral laws.
But both the tribunal and Court of Appeal have dismissed the cases.
A group, Imo Professional Group, faulted both judgments, describing them as a “travesty”.
In a statement entitled ‘Imo Governorship Travesty’, signed by Dr Ifeanyi Emeka, the group alleged that Ihedioha failed to meet the constitutional minimum requirements of scoring 25 per cent of the votes cast in each of at least two third of all the Local Government Areas (LGAs) in the state.
But, another group, Imo Leaders of Thought (ILT), disagreed with the Imo Professional Group, saying “Much as we agree that the laws of the land allow citizens the liberty to seek remedies where they are not satisfied with judicial pronouncements, the growing tendency by political litigants to brand every court ruling that is not in their favour as a ‘travesty’, makes a mockery of our collective integrity as a people,”
It will be recalled that the Election Petition Tribunal, chaired by Justice Malami Dogondaji, in a September 21 verdict, held that the petitioners were unable to prove that the election did not comply with the Electoral Act.
The Court of Appeal did not agree that the election was marred by corrupt practices, non-compliance with the electoral laws and failure to secure the majority of lawful votes cast, either. It upheld the tribunal’s findings and conclusions.
The appellate court found that Uzodinma, who came fourth, called no witness from the polling units, ward or local government level to prove that Ihedioha did not score 25 per cent of the votes cast in 18 out of the 27 LGAs.
The Court of Appeal discountenanced a set of documents in which he claimed to have scored substantial votes from 386 polling units, but which he alleged were excluded by INEC.
The appellate court allowed a crossappeal to the effect that with respect to Section 179 (3) (4) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), only the person who came second in an election can make a case regarding Section 179 (2).
Ihedioha’s lawyers had contended that no other contestant in the March 9 election, except Nwosu, was competent to canvass the issue of whether Section 179 was complied with.
On Ararume, the appellate court agreed with the tribunal’s position on his expert witness.
The tribunal had found that the witness had degrees in education rather than in statistics.
He relied on Form EC8D, being the overall collation of results by INEC, and not polling units, ward or LGA results, and could not successfully demonstrate how he arrived at his figures from Form EC8D.
Ararume’s other witness, his state collation officer, testified as to events that took place at the polling units in different parts of the state.
The tribunal held that his evidence was hearsay, not based on what he witnessed.
Both the tribunal and Court of Appeal disagreed with Nwosu, who came second in the election, dismissing his claims that Ihedioha did not satisfy the requirements of geographical spread as stipulated in Section 179 (2).
The Court of Appeal held that none of the petitioners was able to establish, by credible evidence, that Governor Ihedioha did not meet the requirements of geographical spread as stipulated in Section 179 (2).
The courts noted that Ararume did not predicate his original petition on the geographical spread but called for cancellation of the election on allegation of fraud.