Update: Supreme Court gave Uzodinma benefit he did not ask for – Agabi

The Supreme Court of Nigeria, after taking briefs from counsels to parties  to a review suit  on the judgment on the Imo State governorship election on Tuesday, went on a break to resume proceedings at 3.00pm for delivery of judgment. The Court had in its initial judgment nullified the victory of Emeka Ihedioha of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), declaring Hope Uzodinma of the All Progressives Congress (APC), winner of the election after adopting a result presented before it by a police officer, not a staff of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which Uzodinma argued was wrongly excluded from the final result declared by the INEC.

The Court of Appeal had upheld the judgment of the Imo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal which held that the controversial result was forged by the APC candidate but the Supreme Court adopted the controversial result and declared Uzodinma winner. However, the figures derived from the controversial result that made Uzodinma governor did not tally with the INEC record and also bloated the overall figure which raised questions of over-voting, otherwise, electoral fraud.
Counsel to Emeka Ihedioha of the PDP, Kanu Agabi, at the beginning of the court sitting, had withdrawn a motion filed on the 5th of February; in addition to withdrawal of the written argument filed on the 28th of February.

Kanu Agabi had pointed out that the counsel to Hope Uzodinma and the APC tendered results of 366 polling units while the Supreme Court judgement gave them credit of 388 polling units. Ihedioha counsel then asked, “so, how did the 22 extra polling units come about?”

Agabi further argued that the number of votes cast at the election which the Supreme Court adopted to declared Uzodinma winner exceeded the number of accreditation done by INEC with over 129,000 votes. More so, the said result was not presented by the INEC but by a police officer who is not a staff of INEC.
Agabi also contested: “they did not achieve the constitutional required spread from what I have submitted.”

Kanu Agabi pointed out that Uzodinma’s counsel called for fresh election after declaring the election invalid, noting that he did not ask to be declared winner of the election. Agabi, therefore, argued that, “in the real sense he gets a benefit which he did not ask for.”
Agabi also noted that the PDP case on Imo is different from that of Bayelsa State. Agabi, then, requested the Supreme Court to set the judgement aside.

Kanu Agabi in his metaphoric application appealed: “when I was a child, my father will beat me to cry and also beat me to stop.

“My Lord, please we are crying and do not treat us like my father did.

“I ask you set aside that judgement.”

At this point, CJN Muhammad interjected, asking Agabi “if the judgement is set aside what next.”

Agabi responded quickly: “then, the Judgement of the Court of Appeal will be held.”

The Court of Appeal had upheld the judgement of the Tribunal which held that the result presented by Uzodinma claiming the votes were wrongly excluded, was forged.

Counsel to Hope Uzodinma, Damian Dodo, however, countered Agabi’s argument; asking the court to dismiss the application for incompetence and lack of merit.

Dodo noted that there is total lack of jurisdiction for this court to revisit its judgment of 14th January 2020 either the application as an application for review or an application for set aside. He maintained: “this court has consistently and rightly so held that there is lack of jurisdiction to seek for appeal over its judgment.”

Dodo argued that there is no constitutional backing for this court to review its judgment. “Therefore, the decision to review is not tenable,” he declared.

He maintained that the votes due to Hope Uzodinma from the 388 polling units were wrongfully excluded

Dodo also stated that there is no difference between this case and Bayelsa; adding that there is no jurisdiction to review the judgment; “and this application falls short of that as it is a nullity,” he declared.

All eyes are currently on the Supreme Court.