Just in: Uzodinma cites ground upon which S’Court can reinstate Ihedioha
Fresh angle on another ground upon which the Supreme Court can rely to return former Governor Emeka Ihedioha to office has been revealed by the incumbent governor, Senator Hope Uzodinma.
The twist is that whereas in his counter appeal filed at the Supreme Court to quash Ihedioha’s appeal to be returned, Governor Hope Uzodinma of Imo State asked the Court to dismiss Ihedioha’s application, unfortunatley, Uzodinma and his party the APC, agreed the provision of Order 8 Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules 2014, which clearly states that the apex court is prohibited from reviewing its judgement once given and delivered, ‘save to correct clerical mistakes or accidental slip’.
Observers say Ihedioha’s appeal is clearly relying on the later clause of Order 8 Rule 16 as the computation and inclusion of the INEC’s opposed results from 388 polling units can be adjudged as clerical mistake or accidental slip because all the said results are full of contradictions and cannot stand the test of time and integrity.
Business Hilights recalls that embattled former Speaker of the Federal House of Representatives and governor of Imo State, Chief Emeka Ihedioha had filed an appeal seeking judicial review of the apex court’s judgement, which had on January 14, 2020, ordered his removal from office.
However, in his standing appeal for hearing on Tuesday, February 18, Ihedioha and the PDP are praying the Supreme Court for an order setting aside “as a nullity” the judgement delivered by it on January 14 and declare Ihedioha the substantive governor.
But current governor Uzodimma and APC’s preliminary objection against Ihedioha, brought pursuant to Section 6(6) (a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, is raising strong objection and argued the competence of the motion and the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the same and therefore urged the apex court to strike out the motion filed by Ihedioha.
Uzodinma and the APC are of the stand that “The application constitutes an invitation to the Supreme Court to sit on appeal over its final decision,” submitting further that having delivered its final decision, the Supreme Court has become fuctus officio and divested of jurisdiction over the same subject matter.
