IMO: Facts Ihedioha took to Supreme Court against Uzodinma

The court had declared Hope Uzodinma of the All Progressive Congress (APC) as the winner of the March 9 governorship election in the state.

Ihedioha and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) filed their application through their lawyer Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, pursuant to Section 6 (6) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, 2004.

They said that the apex court was misled into giving that judgment, describing the apex court judgment as a nullity, and asked that the decision be set aside.

They claimed that Gov. Uzodinma and his party fraudulently misled the apex court into holding that 213,495 votes were unlawfully excluded from the votes they scored in the governorship election held on March 9, 2019.

They recalled that that Uzodinma, while under cross-examination, admitted that he was the person, who computed the result that gave him the 213,495 votes alleged to have been excluded from his total votes in the election and not INEC.

"The fraudulent nature of the additional votes was demonstrated by the fact that the total votes cast as shown in the first appellant/respondent's computation was more than the total number of voters accredited for the election and in some polling units more than the total number of registered voters.

"The fraud was also demonstrated by the fact that the result computed by the first appellant/respondent showed only the votes of the first applicant and the first appellant/respondent without specifying the votes scored by the other 68 candidates who participated in the election.

"The judgment which is a nullity ought to be set aside because it was given per incuriam, meaning the previous court judgment failed to pay attention to relevant statutory provision or precedents.

"That the judgment is a nullity having been delivered without jurisdictionÔÇØ, they noted.

Ihedioha and PDP also said that by Exhibit A1, the total number of voters accredited for the election was 823, 743, while the total valid votes cast was 731, 485.

They pointed out that the inclusion of 213, 695 votes for the first appellant/respondent, made the total number of votes cast at the election to be more than the total number of voters accredited for the election.

The applicants, among other grounds, argued that the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal dismissing Uzodinma's petition as incompetent continues to subsist as the appeal against that decision was not considered by the apex court.