Connect with us

Headline

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

Published

on

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

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Headline

LP: Nenadi Usman Floors Julius Abure at Appeal Court

Published

on

By

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has dismissed the appeal filed by Julius Abure challenging the legitimacy of the Nenadi Usman-led leadership of the Labour Party (LP).

A three-member panel of the appellate court, in a Tuesday judgment, unanimously affirmed the January 21 judgment by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which upheld the legitimacy of the 29-member caretaker committee of the LP, led by Senator Usman.

In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Oyejoju Oyewumi, which Justices Abba Mohammed and Eberechi Nyesom-Wike agreed with, the appellate court held that the earlier Supreme Court judgment conclusively settled the leadership dispute within the LP by nullifying the convention that purportedly returned Abure as National Chairman.

Justice Lifu had, in the January 21 judgment, relied on an April 4, 2025, decision of the Supreme Court, which held that Abure’s tenure as the party’s National Chairman had expired. The judgment directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to recognize Senator Usman and other members of her committee as the legitimate leaders of the party, to the exclusion of all others.

The court further held that the lower court had the power under Section 251 of the Constitution to compel a statutory Federal government agency to perform its functions when it ordered INEC to recognize Senator Nenadi Usman as the National Chairman of the Labour Party.

It was equally agreed with the trial court that constituting the LP’s caretaker committee, headed by Usman, was a doctrine of necessity required to provide leadership in the party when a vacuum appeared to exist.

The court faulted Abure’s claim that the trial court denied him a fair hearing and accused him of abusing the court process.

The court also accused Abure of forum shopping by appearing before the Nasarawa State High Court in a case already decided by the Supreme Court, and of persisting in the claim the party’s leadership despite the apex court’s clear and unambiguous pronouncement.

It held that the appeal, marked: CA/ABJ/CV/255/2026, was devoid of merit and constituted an abuse of court process.

“On the whole, I agree with the decision and conclusion of the trial court as the same, being in accordance with the Constitution,” Justice Oyewumi held, adding that the lower court reached a reasonable conclusion that the Court of Appeal cannot fault.

While dismissing the appeal, the court awarded him costs of N10 million for wasting the court’s time on an issue that had already been conclusively determined.

Earlier, the court held that Nenadi Usman, as a juristic person, had the right to file the case before the trial court, and that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case.

The court also rejected Abure’s allegation that the lower court denied him a fair hearing, noting that the claim lacked any basis.

Continue Reading

Headline

Tinubu Sacks Edun, Appoints Oyedele As Finance Minister

Published

on

By

President Bola Tinubu has approved a minor cabinet reshuffle in the membership of the Federal Executive Council (FEC).

According to a memo signed by the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Senator George Akume, two cabinet members, Mr. Wale Edun and Arc. Ahmed Musa Dangiwa are to leave the cabinet while their replacements have been named.

A statement signed by the Special Adviser, Media and Publicity to the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Yomi Odunuga, on Tuesday evening, said Edun, until the latest development, was the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister for the Economy.

“He has been directed to hand over to Mr. Taiwo Oyedele, who is now to take over as Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy. Oyedele was formerly a Minister of State in the ministry.

“Also Mr. Muttaqha Rabe Darma (PhD.) has been named as the ministerial nominee and minister-designate for the Housing and Urban Development Ministry,” Odunuga stated.

The memo also directed Dangiwa to hand over to the Minister of State in the ministry pending Darma’s confirmation.

The memo stated that “all handing over and taking over processes should be completed on or before close of business on Thursday 23rd April, 2026.”

Explaining the President’s decision, Odunuga quoted Akume as saying: “These changes are aimed at strengthening cohesion, synergy in governance as well as achieving more impactful delivery on the economy to Nigerians, through the Renewed Hope Agenda.”

He said the President, in approving the cabinet reshuffle, has fully exercised his powers as conferred on him by Sections 147 and 148 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999, as amended).

The President thanked the outgoing ministers for their services to the nation while wishing them the best in all their future endeavours.

The President, Akume noted, equally assured all cabinet members that “the process of reinvigoration shall be continuous.”

Continue Reading

Headline

Tinubu, Victim of Historical Amnesia – Atiku

Published

on

By

By Eric Elezuo

True to political permutations, the National Convention of the opposition African Democratic Congress (ADC) amid Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) derecognition and leadership litigation, set a chain reaction in the political space, including a former Vice President and one of the leaders of the ADC, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, berating President Bola Tinubu as lacking a good knowledge of history.

Against all odds, the party went ahead on April 14, to host a Convention, where over 3000 delegates attended, and where the leadership of Senator David Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as National Chairman and National Secretary respectively were ratified.

Since the April 14 event, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) has reacted in a manner political stakeholders and analysts categorized as panicky with statements from the presidency, and President Bola Tinubu himself. Though these responses were tagged correctional of ill-made utterances by ADC chieftains, observers have however said they portray comments by a team faced with an ultimately new challenge.

At the convention, the secretary of the ADC, Aregbesola, had dismissed Tinubu’s administration and his renewed hope policy as a scam. He lambasted the administration as a government of “scammers”, urging Nigerians to block it from retaining power in 2027.

“If allowed, this regime will continue to chant renewed hope till eternity. We have a duty to stop these scammers from retaining power,” Aregbesola said.

The former vice president followed up the convention statements, accusing Tinubu’s presidency of attempting to subvert democratic principles and silence opposition voices ahead of the 2027 elections, a position that further set the ruling party on edge, eliciting tons of reactions.

Beyond Presidential spokesman, Bayo Onanuga’s criticism of Aregbesola for failing to reflect on his own record before attacking his “former boss and benefactor”, Tinubu himself made remarks against the person’s of the leaders of the ADC and their convention, calling it ‘street convention’.

“Unfortunately, Aregbesola did not undertake any honest self-reflection on his own record in public office — as governor or as Minister of Interior,” Onanuga stated in his statement.

He alleged that Aregbesola’s tenure as governor of Osun State was marked by hardship and poor economic management.

“His eight years as governor of Osun State were characterised by unmitigated hardship for the people. Under his half-baked socialist policies, civil servants went unpaid for months, and those who were paid received only a fraction of their salaries,” Onanuga said.

Tinubu, on his part, while hosting the Hope Renewal Ambassadors, took a swipe at some opposition figures, especially Atiku, ridiculing and questioning their records for criticising his administration, and saying that many of them have held strategic positions in the past without delivering lasting results.

He boldly retorted that “If you look at one of them, no one without history among them – no one without history. The head was the chairman of the privatisation council of Nigeria in this country one time.

“He privatised the steel industry in Delta. Is it working today? No. Is anything they privatised working today? They want to privatise another man’s political party. That one says no.”

Responding therefore, the former Vice President launched a fierce counterattack on Tinubu, accusing him of hypocrisy, historical distortion, and political desperation.

In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku described the President’s remarks as a “reckless tirade” that reflects “a troubling pattern of hypocrisy and historical amnesia.”

The statement began with “Atiku Abubakar’s attention has been drawn to the latest reckless tirade by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu—a performance that exposes not just desperation, but a troubling pattern of hypocrisy and historical amnesia.”

Atiku expressed surprise that a leader facing persistent scrutiny over his own credentials would attempt to discredit others with what he described as well-documented records of public service.

On the issue of privatisation, Atiku’s camp argued that Tinubu’s criticism does not stand up to scrutiny, noting that the President had previously opposed reforms he now appears to be implementing.

The statement maintained that Atiku had long advocated the privatisation of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and the sale of refineries to credible private investors—a position it claimed Tinubu resisted at the time.

It, however, alleged that the current administration is now overseeing a system that has effectively commercialised the national oil company “without transparency, clear valuation, or accountability.”

“This is not reform; it is privatisation without accountability,” the statement said.

Defending Atiku’s economic legacy, the statement cited several companies as examples of the success of the privatisation programme he supervised, including Oando Plc (formerly Unipetrol), Conoil Plc, African Petroleum (now Ardova Plc), Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals, Benue Cement Company, and Transcorp Hilton Abuja.

The statement also took a swipe at the President’s intellectual posture, suggesting that his comments reflect a failure to engage with documented history on Nigeria’s economic reforms.

“It is not our fault that the President does not and cannot read,” the statement said, while also referencing past controversies surrounding Tinubu’s academic records.

It added that Tinubu’s remarks could only have been made in disregard of publicly available records and credible accounts of the privatisation process.

“You cannot oppose reform when it demands courage and then execute a shadow version of it in power,” the statement added.

Atiku’s camp further criticised the tone of the President’s remarks, arguing that resorting to mockery reflects a deeper leadership concern.

“The President’s attempt to reduce a serious economic legacy to ridicule underscores a leadership more comfortable with insults than with facts,” it stated.

The statement also highlighted the current economic situation in the country, pointing to rising cost of living, inflation, and insecurity as evidence of policy failure.

“Across the country, families are skipping meals, businesses are shutting down, and citizens are struggling under the weight of inflation and declining purchasing power. What has been presented as reform has translated into hardship without relief,” it said.

The statement concluded by asserting that Atiku’s record remains “clear, documented, and defensible,” while noting that unresolved public concerns about the President’s background persist.

“A leader who has not fully addressed questions about his own background should exercise restraint before casting aspersions on others,” it added.

The statement ended with a cautionary note: “Nigerians are watching.”

While the ADC is fighting for their life, and an opportunity to feature on the ballot during the 2027 general elections, and APC solidifying their grip on the political space, the atmosphere still exudes evidence of palpable tension. The APC maintains that they are on homerun to victory, ADC counters that nothing will save the ruling party from being defeated in the coming elections.

But as it stands today, both parties are locked in battle of wits recreating the tension and bad blood that was the hallmark of the 2015, and to a large extent, the 2023 elections.

But on April 22, the Supreme Court will rule on the leadership of the ADC; this will set the motion to the credibility of the ADC to participate in the 2027 election.

But fears pervade the political terrain as Tinubu made veiled reference to the judiciary while mocking Atiku and other leaders of the ADC.

“We cannot submit to the disobedience of unlawful orders in court. We must embrace the judiciary, whether it favours us or it doesn’t, we submit to this principle of democracy, separation of powers and understanding of the dynamics of it and the nation that Nigeria is,” Tinubu had said, insinuating that the ADC had gone against the judiciary.

The coming week will determine in totality the direction the 2027 situation will take.

Continue Reading

Trending