Recall that ever since the January 14 judicial miscarriage of simple arithmetic by the Supreme Court which sacked former Imo State Governor, Chief Emeka Ihedioha and planted Senator Hope Uzodinma, there had been endless disquiet in Imo State polity.
This can be observed on series of protests both in the state and even in Abuja and foreign strategic embassies including the EU, USA and others by PDP stalwarts.
Only weekend, the seating governor, who was on President Muhammadu Buhari’s delegation to the AU meeting in Addis Ababa, ordered end to election related protests in the state.
However, whereas the Governor has the right to control protests, using executive orders, followers of the ‘second Missionary Journey of Ihedioha to the Supreme Court’ have been reviewing the tactical meaning of the recent reply by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Mr Abubakar Malami to the ruling All Progressive Congress (APC) chairman, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole.
Observers say excerpts from the letter are very deep in understanding and may spell doom on any side.
There are strong indications that sequel to the submission of his appeal back to the apex court through the Court Registrar in Abuja, embattled Ihedioha had simply asked the court to review the entire judgement which it based on suspicious documents containing cooked figures and statistics to remove him from office.
Already, in the said AGF’s reply to Oshiomole, he said in an excerpts that “Expectedly, precedents are far in-between on revisit and reversal by the Supreme Court, being the highest court in the land and expected to create order and stability. While the court doesn’t have a recent history of reversing itself on a major matter like the Imo State governorship appeal, it is not without precedents.
“A known reversal was in the case of Johnson Vs Lawanson (1971) 7 NSCC 82.
“In the case, which is about 49 years old, the Supreme Court had a reason to overrule itself. In that case, Justice G. B. A. Coker, then of the court, said: “When the court is faced with the alternative of perpetuating what it is satisfied is an erroneous decision which was reached per incuriam and will, if followed, inflict hardship and injustice upon the generations in the future or of causing temporary disturbances of rights acquired under such a decision, I do not think we shall hesitate to declare the law as we find it.”
“If the apex court, still relying on Order 8, Rule 16, deems the mathematical error a clerical error which can be corrected under the said rule, then Uzodinma may be removed!
Findings at the Supreme Court Registry showed that the apex court may rule on the appeal on March 9th.
