Headline

PDP Rejects Supreme Court’s Judgment on Ihedioha, Asks Tanko to Resign as CJN

Published

6 years ago

January 16, 2020

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has rejected the Supreme Court judgment which nullified the election of Hon Emeka Ihedioha as governor of Imo State, and installing Mr. Hope Uzodinma of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as duly elected.

Addressing the press, the party Chairman, Prince Uche Secondus, noted that the Supreme Court’s verdict was political and not in the interest of the people. He asked the Chief Justice, Mohammed Tanko, to step down as he has lost the confidence of the people.

Below is the text of his address:

January 16, 2020

Supreme Court Judgment On Imo Governorship Election is Groundless and Should Be Reversed

Being a text of Press Conference by the PDP National Working Committee (NWC) Presented by the National Chairman, Prince Uche Secondus, in Rejection of the Judgment of the Supreme Court On Imo Governorship Election.

Gentlemen of the Press!

The National Working Committee of our great party, after a thorough examination of all the issues relating to the miscarriage of justice by the Supreme Court on the Imo state governorship election petition, and after a very extensive consultation, resolves as follows:

That the Supreme Court, as presently constituted under Justice Mohammed Tanko, has become heavily compromised; lost its credibility and is now annexed to execute ignoble agenda of the APC-led Federal Government against the Nigerian people.

That the judgment of the Supreme Court voiding the lawful election of Hon. Emeka Ihedioha (who scored 276,404 votes) and awarding fictitious votes to declare Hope Uzodimma of the APC, who scored 96, 458 votes as governor of Imo state, is highly irrational, unfounded, a provocative product of executive manipulation and a recipe for crisis, which should not be allowed to stand.

With the verdict, the Supreme Court executed a coup against the PDP and the people of Imo state as well as other Nigerians, and such must not be allowed to have a place in our democracy.

The questions Justice Tanko’s Supreme Court must answer are:

1. The Supreme Court, in a host of cases, the latest and most celebrated being Atiku V Buhari & Ors, consistently decided that for a petitioner to succeed in an allegation of infraction of any provision of the Electoral Act especially one complaining about malpractice, as in this case, wrongful exclusion of votes, the petitioner must call witnesses polling unit by polling unit.

The question is, how many witnesses did Uzodinma/APC call from the 388 polling units from where the Supreme Court allocated votes to him.

The so called results from the 388 Polling units were rightfully rejected, in line with several decisions of the Supreme Court, by the Tribunal and Court of Appeal as it was merely dumped on the tribunal in a Ghana Must Go bag, by a policeman who had no mandate of the police to testify at the Tribunal.

The Tribunal did not even open the Ghana Must Go bags as there was no basis to do so. It is one of the great wonders of the world how the Supreme Court opened the bag, counted the results and added them to only the APC Candidate.

What is more perplexing is the fact that INEC produced a schedule of reasons why results were not produced from the 388 units.

Indeed election did not even take place in most of the units for one reason or another, like violence, etc and so no result could possibly be obtained from those units. The results were not merely rejected or cancelled by INEC.

None of the candidates or their Counsel, except perhaps APC, as we speak, are aware of the number of votes scored by each party from the 388 polling units. The Tribunal or Court of Appeal did not mention or ascribe any figure from the units to any party in their decisions.

In fact, in the cross examination of the APC Candidate, Sen. Hope Uzodinma, he could not read any figure from the “Oluwole” results. He said that the figures were not clear. And so it beats our imagination where the Supreme Court conjured and manufactured the figures it used in declaring Uzodinma/APC as duly elected.

But the law is settled as decided by the same Supreme Court in Buhari v. INEC (2008); that “weight can hardly be attached to a document tendered in evidence by a witness who cannot or is not in a position to answer questions on the document. One of such persons the law identifies is the one who did not make the document. Such a person is adjudged in the eyes of the law as ignorant of the content of the document”.

2. Does the Supreme Court have powers to formulate and allocate votes as election results?

3. Were the said results certified by INEC as required by law?

4. Did Hope Uzodinma call 388 witnesses from the 388 polling units to speak to the results to obviate the principle of dumping which the Supreme Court used against the PDP and her candidate, Atiku Abubarka, in the last Presidential Appeal.

5. Were the presiding officers and or party agents of the 388 polling units called to testify by Uzodinma/APC, who were the Petitioners?

6. What are the figures from each of the various 388 polling units generated and allocated to Hope Uzodinma/APC by the Supreme Court?

7. Is the Supreme Court saying that all the votes from the alleged 388 polling units were for the APC alone in an election that was contested by over 70 candidates?

8. It is on record that the votes analysis from the Imo governorship election as at March 11, 2019 when the results were declared were as follows:

-Total Accredited Votes: 823,743
-Total Valid Votes: 739,485
-Cancelled Votes: 25, 130
-Total Valid Votes: 714,355

But at the Supreme Court the Total Valid Votes have increased to 950,952.

This accounts for 127, 209 votes in excess of Total Accredited Votes of 823,743.

The question is; can the Supreme Court sit in Abuja on January 14, 2020 to increase the total number of accredited votes in election held in Imo State on March 9, 2019.

8. Is there any law, which permits the Supreme Court or anyone else for that matter, to unilaterally increase the total accredited votes by any margin after the accreditation and or the election?

9. Where did the Supreme Court get the numbers to declare Uzodinma/APC from a paltry 96,456 votes over Ihedioha/PDP votes of 276,404.

Even if all the excess accredited votes of 127,209 manufactured by the Supreme Court were added to Uzodinma/APC it will be 223,657 votes, still less than Ihedioha’s votes of 276,494 by 42,747 votes.

10. The victory of Ihedioha/PDP were confirmed by 2 concurrent judgments of both the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal and the tradition is that the Supreme Court hardly tamper with such decisions except it was found to be perverse. What was the evidence of perversity?

It is important to also bring to the consciousness of well-meaning members of the public, particularly Nigerians, that there were 2 elections on March 9, 2019, namely, Governorship and the House of Assembly.

As already known, there was only one accreditation for the 2 elections. The APC did not win any of the 27 seats in the Imo State House of Assembly which were won as follows:

PDP      won      13
AA         won      8
APGA    won      6
APC       won      0
Total                  27

The above further questions and confronts the rationale for the judgment of the Supreme Court on Imo State.

How then did the Supreme Court arrive at its decision to allocate results to void a lawful governorship election and imposed an unelected person as governor?

The fact is that, the Supreme Court, as presently constituted under Justice Tanko, has lost its credibility and no longer commands the respect and confidence of Nigerians.

If the people no longer repose confidence in the Supreme Court, then our democracy, national cohesion and stability are at great risk.

The constitution of the panel that heard the appeal itself was a product of drama.

The panel was changed three times and any judge that showed signs of not agreeing to murder democracy in this case was promptly removed by the CJN.
The result had to be unanimous to satisfy the script of rationality.

But can any judge who sat on that panel go home and sleep well?

Can any judge who sat on that panel face his creator and swear that impartial justice was done? We think not.

We had intelligence before the verdict on the Imo Governorship that the hierarchy of APC had decided that they must use the Supreme Court to capture the states won and controlled by the PDP such as Imo, Sokoto, Bauchi, Adamawa and Benue.

Can the PDP rightly trust the impartiality and independence of the panel headed by Justice Tanko Mohammed, the CJN, to adjudicate on the remaining cases involving the PDP like Kano, Sokoto, Benue, Bauchi, Adamawa, Plateau and others?

Is the same fate awaiting the Governors of these states that are controlled by the PDP and other states like Kano where the PDP clearly won and was robbed?

Should Justice Tanko Mohammed and his colleagues on the Imo Governorship Panel not recuse themselves from the remaining cases involving PDP?

The PDP firmly holds that if the flawed judgment of the Supreme Court on Imo governorship election is allowed to stand, it would be a recipe for anarchy, chaos and constitutional crisis not only in Imo state but in the entire country.

Our party has it in good authority that Justice Tanko and his panel are working on instruction from certain forces in the Presidency to use the Supreme Court to take over states lawfully won by the PDP and award them to the APC.

The PDP therefore advises Justice Tanko not to allow himself to be used to push our nation to the path of anarchy and constitutional crisis as any further attempt to subvert justice in the pending petitions on Sokoto, Bauchi, Benue, Adamawa as well as Kano and Plateau states will be firmly and vehemently resisted.

In other to avoid an imminent breakdown of law and order, the PDP demands that Justice Tanko Mohammed immediately steps down as CJN and chairman of the National Judicial Council as Nigerians have lost confidence in him and a Supreme Court under his leadership.

Justice Tanko must not head the panel to determine the remaining election petitions before the Supreme Court.

One final issue to be noted is that it is in the public record that Hon Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun has been the constant instrument used by anti-democratic agents resident in Lagos from where she was elevated to the bench of the Supreme Court, to deliver at least 3 of the most doubtful and controversial judgments which removed PDP governors and other elected officials.

These judgments are:
1. Paul Ukpo V Liyel Imoke where Liyel Imoke was removed in very suspicious circumstances in 2007 when she was at the Court of Appeal;

2. Adeleke V Oyetola delivered in 2019 which annulled the election of Adeleke by the Osun people; and now;

3. Uzodinma V Ihedioha delivered on January 14, 2020 which removed Ihedioha of the PDP who won the election with 276,494 votes and replaced with Uzodinma of the APC who came 4th in the election with a paltry 96, 458 votes.

These cannot be mere coincidences.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, in the light of extraordinary circumstances that vitiates that judgment as a product manipulation and a clear coup d’etat against the will of the people of Imo State, we demand that the decision of the Supreme Court on the Imo Governorship Election be reviewed and reversed in the interest of justice.

Furthermore we demand that Justice Tanko Mohammed, the CJN and his colleagues on the Imo Governorship Panel recuse themselves from the remaining cases involving PDP in the Supreme Court.

We state for the records that the Supreme Court under Justice Tanko Mohammed shall be held responsible if there is any breakdown of law and order in any state as a result of judgments procured solely for political rather than judicial reasons as is currently happening.

Thank you
…

Headline

Akpabio Lashes Out at Tinubu’s Critics, Says Nigeria Safe Despite Insecurity

Published

3 days ago

June 10, 2026

Eric

The Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, has urged Nigerians to be careful of those trying to kidnap for ransom.

Akpabio argued on Tuesday that those behind kidnapping are perpetuating the activity to create an impression that Nigeria is not safe.

Speaking in Abuja during the commissioning of road projects to mark President Bola Tinubu’s third year anniversary, Akpabio said some of the president’s critics have resorted to paying youths to cause mayhem.

Akpabio accused Tinubu’s critics of focusing on insecurity instead of policy and infrastructure.

“Minister you said that people claimed that nothing is happening in Nigeria under the administration of President Tinubu. If they did not say that, how will they go for election? he asked rhetorically.

“If you realize what is happening recently, when they realized that they can’t talk about projects, performance, good laws, transformation in the Petroleum industry, subsidy removal that have been promised Nigerians for decades, they can no longer talk about the high-rise buildings in Abuja such as the NRS building, they resorted to paying young people and recruiting them to cause mayhem in the country.

“Be very vigilant and be careful about people trying to kidnap for ransom. They are kidnapping in order to give the impression that Nigeria is not safe.

“Our men and women in uniform have done tremendously well but many people will not know and that is why I keep saying that the devil you see today, you will soon see them no more.

“Elections will come and go; elections will never be our end; we will see the end of elections; it will never see our end,” he said.

Headline

The Search for Justice: ADC vs Tsoho

Published

5 days ago

June 8, 2026

Eric

By Eric Elezuo

From the first day the African Democratic Congress (ADC) took a new shape in July, 2025, in readiness to wrest power from the government of the day, crises, allegedly engineered by the President Bola Tinubu-led All Progressives Congress (APC), have remained its lot.

From the struggle for leadership positions to the fight to save itself from deregistration, the hitherto coalition and main opposition party, has remained in a battle for its life and existence. And has not relented in the search for lasting justice. This time, it has taken the law itself to court to ensure that justice is not only done, but seen to have been done.

It would be recalled that shortly after the the party ratified the election of Senator David Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as Chairman and Secretary of the party respectively, skirmishes were noticed among the rank and file of the party as a supposedly former deputy national chairman of the party, Nafiu Bala Gombe, claimed chairmanship of party, saying that since the founding chairman had resigned, it is constitutionally incumbent upon him to automatically assume the chairmanship role.

Gombe’s claims came on the heels of his ‘resignation’ from office, which paved the way for a new national executive of the party to be constituted. But his claims did not deter the party from carrying on with the formation and running of the party, including holding a keenly contested presidential primary election, which produced His Excellency, the former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. So Gombe went to court. Yet, Mark and Aregbesola carried on the running of the party.

As a result, Gombe had approached a court for an order restraining Mark leadership from parading themselves as leaders of the ADC pending the hearing and determination of his suit challenging their leadership.

He had also asked the court to issue another order against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), restraining it from recognizing the Mark leadership.

But in his ruling in the interlocutory application, Justice Emeka Nwite ordered Gombe to put the defendants on notice so that they appear before the court to show cause, why the application should not be granted.

Rather than appearing before the trial court to show cause, the defendant appealed to the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal, challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court to dabble into the matter they described as internal matters of the ADC.

The appellate court in dismissing the appeal for lacking in merit, ordered accelerated hearing in the suit and further ordered all parties to maintain status quo ante bellum.

Dissatisfied, Mark had approached the appellate court but, his appeal was dismissed and the matter returned to the trial court.

With the to and from nature of the cases involving the ADC leadership crisis, the party has accused judges of bias in favoring party detractors and disobedience to court rules among other malice, the party has taken a new route to obtain the much eluded justice, and that involves charging the custodians of the law to court.

Consequently, the ADC has filed a lawsuit before a High Court in Abuja involving the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, over concerns arising from the ongoing leadership dispute within the party.

Also joined in the suit is the National Judicial Council (NJC), which the party said had not addressed issues it raised regarding the handling of a case challenging the leadership of former Senate President, Senator David Mark, within the ADC.

The lawsuit, dated June 4, 2026, was filed by the National Welfare Secretary of the ADC, Nkemakolam Ukandu, who is seeking to be joined in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 instituted by Nafiu Bala Gombe against the Mark-led leadership of the party.

According to the suit, Ukandu expressed concerns about the handling of the matter and alleged that the actions of both Justice Tsoho and Justice Peter Lifu, the judge assigned to hear the case, could affect confidence in the proceedings.

The lawsuit further stated that the assignment of the case to Justice Lifu stirred concerns among some members of the party, who believe the process may not guarantee a fair hearing.

The legal action marks a fresh twist in the leadership dispute within the ADC, which has attracted significant political attention ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Aside Justice John Tsoho, other defendants are the National Judicial Council (NJC), and Justice Peter Lifu, a judge newly assigned to hear the suit challenging the Senator David Mark-led leadership of ADC.

The plaintiff, who was seeking to be joined in the Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, brought by Nafiu Bala Gombe against the Mark-led leadership, accused the chief judge and Lifu of manifest bias, and willingness to do the biddings of persons against the interest of the party.

Ukandu, in the suit he personally filed at the Federal High Court, Abuja, faulted the chief judge for reassigning the suit to Lifu, in alleged disregard of the orders of the Supreme Court as well as Justice Emeka Nwite of the Abuja division of the Federal High Court, who initially heard the suit brought by Gombe against the party.

The plaintiff, in the suit marked FHC/ ABJ/ CS/ 1165/2026, recalled that an appeal from an interlocutory decision of Nwite rose to the Supreme Court, wherein the apex court on April 30, 2026, “made an order of remittance of Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025: Nafiu Bala Gombe VS. ADC & 4 ORS back to Justice Emeka Nwite for continuation of hearing of pending applications challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court.”

He stated that upon resumption of hearing before Nwite, the plaintiff wrote to the chief judge praying for a reassignment of the matter to another judge of the Honourable Court.

Ukandu stated, “All the defendants’ counsel, including counsel to the applicants seeking to be joined in this matter, opposed the said application by the plaintiff’s counsel and Hon. Justice Emeka Nwite thereafter adjourned the matter sine die pending the service of the said letter by the plaintiff’s on all the parties in the matter, outcome of the letter by the 2nd defendant and the furnishing of the CTC of the judgement of the Supreme Court to the court.

“Without complying with the orders of the Supreme Court and Hon. Justice Emeka Nwite, the 2nd Defendant in abuse of his judicial powers reassigned this matter,” to Lifu.

He added that the third defendant, on his part, pretending not to see the order of Nwite, went ahead and fixed the matter for hearing for June 3, 2026.

Ukandu further recalled that ADC had on May 7 informed the public through a press release that the chief judge had planned to reassign the case to another judge favourable to the plaintiff.

He said the party had “warned against such unethical practice but the 2nd Defendant despite the public outcry reassigned the suit to the 3rd Defendant who have been nick-named as ‘Wike Judges’.”

He stated that the third defendant had started presiding over the matter, despite taking judicial notice of the orders of the Supreme Court and Nwite, and that the matter came up for hearing before the third defendant.

Though neither the Federal High Court nor the National Judicial Council had publicly responded to the issues raised so far, it is imperative to to state that the ADC appears to have lost interest in both the judiciary, which it believe is kowtowing to the dictates of Gombe, and by extension the body language of the Federal Government.

The ADC appears to have managed to draw the sympathy of the public as a group known as the Grassroots Mobilization Network (GMN), has lent their voice to the supposed injustice leveled against the Mark-led ADC, raising concerns about the handling of the matter, and calling for transparency in the judicial process.

The group alleged that the judiciary was being used to target opposition parties.

The group expressed concern over what it described as growing public distrust in the judiciary and called on relevant authorities to ensure fairness and transparency in the handling of politically sensitive cases.

While Nigerians await the outcome of the litigation, and other resolution of other sundry issues arising from the ADC and the judiciary, the party is going ahead making last minute transparent efforts to nominate a suitable running mate to bear the presidential flag with the presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar.

Among the party’s shortlists are the first runner-up in the presidential primary, Rotimi Chibuike Amaechi, Mrs. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Akinwumi Adesina, Emeka Ihedioha, Emeka Nwajiuba and Chief Dele Momodu.

Headline

Gunmen Abduct Ex-Power Minister Adelabu’s Sister, Her Two Sons in Ibadan

Published

1 week ago

June 3, 2026

Eric

Suspected gunmen have abducted the sister of a former Minister of Power, Adebayo Adelabu, in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital.

The family of former minister and chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC) confirmed the abduction, disclosing that Mrs. Olaide John-Paul and her 12-year-old twin sons were kidnapped by the gunmen on Wednesday, June 3, 2026.

According to a statement issued by Adelabu’s media aide, Femi Awogboro, the victims were kidnapped at about 7:30am while Mrs. John-Paul was taking her children to school.

Mrs. John-Paul, the youngest of five children of Mrs. Olufunmilayo Aduke Adegoke Adelabu, reportedly retired voluntarily from her career at First Bank Pension Custodian in 2025 before relocating to Ibadan with her children.

She was said to be making arrangements to join her husband, who had earlier relocated to the US.

The family expressed deep concern over the development but stated that security agencies had already commenced efforts to rescue the victims and apprehend those responsible.

“We are pleased to confirm that security operatives have swung into action and preliminary investigations have commenced in earnest,” the statement partly read.

While appealing for calm, the family urged members of the public to refrain from spreading unverified information that could undermine ongoing rescue operations.

“We are deeply distressed by this unfortunate incident, but remain hopeful that the victims will be rescued safely. We appeal to the public to remain calm, avoid speculation and support ongoing efforts with prayers,” the statement added.

The family also called on anyone with useful information that could aid the rescue operation to promptly share such intelligence with security agencies through the appropriate channels.

It assured that it would continue to cooperate fully with law enforcement authorities and provide updates as investigations and rescue efforts progress.