…Gives reasons it can’t revisit case
…Panel member disagrees, says verdict was in error
…This is final victory for Imo people —Uzodinma
…IPOB dissatisfied with S’Court

By Ikechukwu Nnochiri, Chinonso Alozie & Chinedu Adonu

Jubilations, yesterday  took over the political space of Imo State over the victory of Governor Hope Uzodinma of All Progressives Congress, APC, against Emeka Ihedioha of Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, who was at the Supreme Court, seeking the review of January 14, 2020 judgment that validated Uzodinma as governor of the state.

The Supreme Court, yesterday,  had declined to restore Ihedioha as the governor of the state.

The  apex court, in a decision by a seven-man panel of Justices led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Tanko Muhammad, reinstated the judgment it gave on January 14, which declared Hope Uzodinma as the validly elected governor of Imo State.

In the lead verdict delivered by Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, the apex court held that Ihedioha’s application to set aside the judgment that removed him from office lacked merit.

It held that the application was an invitation for the Supreme Court to sit on appeal over its own final judgment.

Verdict was in error—Panel member

However, a member of the apex court panel, Justice Centus Nweze, disagreed with the lead verdict and gave a dissenting opinion that allowed Ihedioha’s application.

Nweze said he was satisfied that the judgment that declared Uzodinma winner was entered in error.

But reacting to the judgment,  Governor Hope Uzodinma said in Owerri that the victory is final victory for Imo people which came from God to ensure uninterrupted flow of prosperity to all lmo people. He said it was time for true lovers of Imo State to come together for the good of the people

Dismissing the case

While dismissing Ihedioha’s case, Justice Ariwoola in his lead verdict held that section 235 of the 1999 constitution (as amended), accorded finality to the judgment that declared Uzodinma winner.

The apex court said it decided to discountenance the preliminary objection Uzodinma filed against Ihedioha’s application to decide the matter on its merit.

Justice Ariwoola said: “There is no doubt that the judgment of this court being sought to be set aside for being a nullity was delivered on January 14, 2020. The judgment is a final judgment of this court as prescribed by Section 235 of the constitution.

“The appeal was adjudged to be meritorious and was allowed and the judgment of the lower court, which affirmed the judgment of the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal was set-aside.

“By the provisions of the Rules of this court, it shall not review any judgment once given and delivered by it, except to correct any clerical mistake or error arising from any accidental slip or omission, or to vary a judgment or order so as to give effect to its meaning or intention.

“The judgment or order shall not be varied, when it correctly represents what the court decided, nor shall the operative or substantive part of it be varied and in different form substituted. See order 8 Rule 16 of the Rules of this court.”

Insisting that the judgment of the apex court on the Imo State governorship dispute remained final, Justice Ariwoola said the law might be amended in future to affect issues on the same subject, saying: “But for that case decided, that is the end of the matter.”

According to him, “It is settled law that this court has no power to change or alter its own judgment or to sit as an appeal court over its own judgment.

“There is no doubt that the court has inherent powers in respect of matters under its inherent jurisdiction. It certainly has no inherent powers to assume jurisdiction in respect of matters not within its jurisdiction.

“The finality of the decision of the Supreme Court in civil proceedings is absolute. Unless specifically set-aside by later legislation. The justices that man the court are of course fallible, but their judgments are as the constitution intends, infallible.

“Therefore, any ingenious attempt by counsel to set-aside or to circumvent the decision  of the Supreme Court will be met with stiff resistance.

“Without any further ado, this application is considered lacking in merit and liable to be dismissed. To ask us to set-aside the judgment of this court delivered on  January 14 is an invitation to ask us to sit on appeal over our own judgment and we cannot do so.

“To set-aside the judgment in the instant circumstance is to open the floodgate for applications by parties to review judgments of this court. To do that is to say the least, bring the court to disrepute and ridicule. In the circumstance, this application is accordingly dismissed.

“Even though cost will ordinarily follow events, parties are to bear their respective costs.”

Dissenting judgment

Meanwhile, in his dissenting judgment, Justice Nweze held that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to entertain Uzodinma’s appeal since his substantive petition was struck out by the lower court for want of competence.

He held that in absence of any clear order of the Supreme Court on the decision of the appellate court that dismissed the petition, it was wrong to declare Uzodinma winner.

Justice Nweze  held that  the Supreme Court was constitutionally empowered to in the interest of justice, set-aside its judgment that was entered in error.

“This court has the powers to overrule itself and had done so in the past”, he held.

He said it was “clearly preposterous” to award Uzodinma victory of an election that he contended was invalid.

Justice Nweze said he was convinced that Uzodinma awarded “mysterious” votes to himself in 388 polling units, but failed to make any reference to votes that  accrued to other candidates.

Uzodinma’s argument

In their argument, Uzodinma and the APC, through their lawyer, Damian Dodo, SAN, urged the Supreme Court  to dismiss the application and re-affirm its earlier verdict that sacked Ihedioha from office.

“There is a total lack of jurisdiction on this court to revisit its judgment of January 14. Whether the application is characterised as an application for review or classified as an application to set-aside, or howsoever it is dressed.

“This court has consistently and rightly so, held that there is a lack of jurisdiction to sit on appeal over its judgment,” Dodo submitted.

He argued that there was no clerical error or accidental slip to be corrected in the judgment that removed Ihedioha from office.

This is final victory for Imo people—Uzodinma

Reacting to the Supreme Court judgment in Owerri, Governor Uzodinma said: It is the final victory for Imo people which came from God to ensure uninterrupted flow of prosperity to all lmo people. It is time for true lovers of Imo State to come together for the good of the people.”

READ ALSO: Imo: Court’s verdict will haunt Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence ― Supreme Court Justice

Celebration in Imo

According to the jubilants, Governor Uzodinma can now concentrate and continue his delivery of good  governance to the people of the state.

However, the PDP supporters who were at some points also waiting for the Supreme Court judgment to go in their favour felt discouraged and started going back to their homes.

Vanguard got to know that there were strategic positioning of the security agencies around the state, especially in front of Imo Government House. They have been there since January 14, 2020.

Vanguard observed that  the jubilations for Uzodinma were taken round to places in different locations of the metropolis.

Some were seen along the streets of Owerri capital, including Wetheral, Okigwe, Douglas, Assumpta Avenue and Orlu road among others.

We’re dissatisfied—IPOB

In a related development, the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, yesterday expressed sadness over the Supreme Court dismissal of sacked Ihedioha’s application.

IPOB in a statement made available to Vanguard, alleged that “the Supreme Court of Nigeria has allowed itself to become a willing tool of the caliphate in its quest to conquer the South-East.”

The group maintained that the apex court has defied the logic that unaccounted and untraceable result sheets were admitted by the court, stressing the world will now understand how corrupt Nigerian judiciary really is.

“We are saddened that the Supreme Court of Nigeria have allowed itself to become a willing tool of the caliphate in its quest to conquer and subjugate Biafraland.

“It defies logic that unaccounted and untraceable result sheets were admitted by the court. The world will now understand how corrupt Nigerian judiciary really is. This miscarriage of justice will be made known to the whole world”, the statement reads.

The leader of IPOB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu reacting to the judgement, in a statement, recalled that counsel to Hope Uzodinma, earlier today under cross-examination by the judges agreed that indeed, Supreme court can revisit judgement if there is an error.

He also stated that the judgement was flawed and can be set aside, saying that the number of votes added to Hope Uzodimma by supreme court judges exceeds the number of accredited voters.

“I am glad the counsel to Hope Uzodinma, one Mr Ododo (SAN), conceded earlier today under cross-examination by the judges that indeed The Supreme Court can revisit or “set aside a previous judgement if there is a slip or clerical errors”. Note the term, ‘slip or clerical errors’. Therefore the flawed judgement of January 14, 2020 imposing the caliphate slave Hope Uzodinma on Imo people   can in law be set aside. This is an uncontested fact.

“Equally compelling is the submission by Kanu Agabi (SAN) who clarified in simple terms that contrary to common sense and the law, “the number of votes ascribed to the Hope Uzodinma by Tanko Muhammad and his gang at the Supreme Court exceeded the accredited voters by 128k votes”. This is a fatal error and as such is a no brainier! Previous judgement using falsified figures to impose Uzodinma cannot stand before God in heaven and man on earth.

“Agabi further submitted that Hope Uzodinma in their pleadings before the Appeal Court upon which their case is predicted, stated unequivocally that “2019 Imo State governorship election was invalid”. Kanu Agabi wondered why Hope Uzodinma would now benefit from the same electoral process his legal team referred to as ‘invalid’ in their submissions. The Supreme Court in essence validated invalidity by pronouncing Hope Uzodinma governor in the first instance”, the statement reads.

Kanu, therefore insist that it is only fresh election in Imo state that can save the country from the mess cause by supreme court judges.

Vanguard