By Clifford Ndujihe

Eminent leaders of thought, on the platform of Third Force Movement, have faulted the Supreme Court on Ihedioha vs Uzodinma, especially its decision to reject the review of its judgement on the 2019 governorship elections in Imo State.

According to the group, the judgement “has cast serious doubt over the integrity and sanctity of the Nigerian judiciary.”

The apex court, in a majority judgement six of the seven-man panel, dismissed the application of Chief Emeka Ihedioha to review the decision of the court nullifying his election and declaring Senator Hope Uzodinma winner of the 2019 governorship election in Imo State.

In a statement by their spokesperson, Dr. Olusegun Obe, the eminent leaders said it will petition the United Nations, UN; United States of America, USA, and the international community “over the fraud and injustice in the judgement.”

They said the latest ruling of the Supreme Court, which rejected application for the review of its earlier judgement, runs contrary to the precedence set by the Supreme Court on the matter of review.

They said the judgement violates “the spirit and principle of justice, which is the whole essence of the necessity for the judiciary and so may heighten the political tension in Imo State and the South-East at large.”

We’ll take it international

The group, however, said it is now set to internationalise the matter by immediately sending a formidable petition to the UN, USA, United Kingdom, UK; African Union, AU; European Union, EU, among other world powers.

They said it was in pursuant of the course and cause of justice on the judgement and subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court, “which we regard as a ruthless attempt to sweep fraud and injustice under the carpet.

“We are, therefore, resolved more than before to be steadfast and resolute as concerned leaders of conscience in Nigeria to pursue this cause of justice to its logical end over this worrisome precedence by the Supreme Court.

“It has since foisted a dark cloud over the survival of Nigerian democracy and the peace and stability of the South-East.

“We also make bold to state that the application before the Supreme Court is not an appeal, but a review which the Supreme Court in the previous instance has claimed jurisdiction over, so as to correct errors of misinterpretation or fraud in judgement previously given in error.”

ALSO READ: Bayelsa Supreme Court review & Ihedioha vs Hope

Lists precedence

Continuing on the Ihedioha vs Uzodinma case, the elders listed previous cases as precedents: “So, we wish to remind their Lordships of Oriker Jev & Ors. v. Iyortom & Ors. [2015] NWLR (Pt. 1483) 484, where the Supreme Court had in an earlier ruling mistakenly ordered that INEC conduct rerun election.

“But upon application for review, the court discovered it gave the said order based on a wrong interpretation of Section 133(2) in conjunction with Section 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and subsequently set aside the earlier ruling and ordered INEC to issue the applicant a certificate of return.

“Furthermore, there is also a precedence of review in the case of Olorunfemi v. Asho [2000] 2 NWLR (Pt. 643) 143.

“The Supreme Court in its March 18, 1999 ruling, set aside its earlier judgement delivered on January 8, 1999 and ordered that the appeal be heard de-novo by another panel, on the ground that it ought to have considered the respondent’s cross-appeal first before allowing the appellant’s appeal.

“These are examples of where the Supreme Court has previously set aside its earlier rulings, which are not by reasons typographical errors, but misinterpretation and administration of justice by errors as evident in the Imo ruling, which gave mandate to Uzodinma who was never a candidate of any political party with votes not in tandem with total accredited voters.

“Therefore, the constitutional finality of the judgement of the Supreme Court, where its flows from or rest on fraud and misleading evidences, can never serve the purpose of justice for which the Constitution created the Supreme Court and therefore defeats the whole essence of the judiciary.

“So it should be corrected for precedence and posterity sake,” they concluded on the Ihedioha vs Uzodinma issue.

Vanguard