Governor Hope Uzodinma of Imo State, on Friday, expressed optimism that the Supreme Court would not reverse its judgment that sacked his predecessor, Emeka Ihedioha, and declared him winner of the March 19, 2019 governorship election.
Recall that the apex court had, on Jan. 14, removed Ihedioha of the PDP on the ground that he did not score the lawful majority votes in the Imo governorship race.
The court said it arrived at that decision after adding votes scored by Uzodinma in 388 polling units, which showed that he won the race.
It subsequently declared him winner of the election and ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to give him a certificate of return as elected Imo governor.
But, Ihedioha has, however, vowed to return to the Supreme Court with a view to seeking a review of the judgment that removed him from office.
Speaking on the development, Uzodinma, who spoke with State House correspondents after a closed door meeting with President Muhammadu Buhari on Friday in Abuja, said that the matter was already “a concluded case”.
“I am not disturbed by the PDP’s move to seek a review of the judgment. I am not concerned because I believe they are going back to the Supreme Court based on falsehood because the number of accredited votes outside the excluded votes is what they are talking about.
“But, if you are going to court, you must go to court to discuss or talk about the number of accredited votes including the excluded polling units. If you compute the number of accredited votes inclusive of the excluded voters, the figures are correct.
“We went to court with an issue of exclusion; we didn’t go to court complaining about election malpractices, violence and all of that. So, it is a peculiar case.
“My case can be likened to that of Jim Nwobodo vs Onoh and Omoboriowo vs Ajasin – It is the position of the Supreme Court that where an election has been announced at a polling unit, INEC is bound to collect the result and enter the results into the Form EC 8B.
“So, let INEC tell us what happened; I’m a lawmaker and I participated in the amendment of the Electoral Act. Election petitions are timed.
“As far as I’m concerned, the 60 days left for Supreme Court to look into that matter has expired. I’m not a lawyer but with my little knowledge of law making, I understand what is in the Electoral Act,” NAN quoted him as saying.
For a better society