The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned till March 2, 2020, in the appeal filed by the former Imo State governor, Emeka Ihedioha asking the apex court to revise itself in the judgment which sacked him.
The apex court had on January 14, 2019, sacked Ihedioha of the People’s Democratic Party as governor of the state on the grounds that he did not score the highest votes cast in the March 9, 2019, governorship election in the state.
The court ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission to withdraw the certificate of return from Ihedioha and issue a fresh one to Hope Uzodinma, the candidate of the All Progressives Congress, who according to the court, scored the highest valid votes in the election.
At the proceedings Tuesday, Chief Kanu Agabi, counsel to Ihedioha, told the court that all the parties in the matter had not been served.
He asked for a short adjournment to enable him to effect the service.
The camp of Uzodinma did not oppose the application.
Consequently, the court adjourned to March 2 for hearing of the matter.
In his written address, Agabi pleaded with the justices of the apex court that the verdict of the court in the matter should match “the solemn oath you have taken,” saying the judgment was obtained by fraud.
He noted further that the judgment could not stand on the grounds that the court gave the judgment without jurisdiction which renders it a nullity.
He prayed the court to: “Remember that every decision of this honourable court involves the good name of the judiciary.
“Prove to the world that this court is sacred. Let your verdict help to retain the good graces of our people.”
Agabi reminded the justices that: “It is owed to the work of this Supreme Court that the nation continues to survive. It is that work that gives us the confidence to present this application.”
Agabi posited that there was no doubting the fact that the Lordships, being human, will from time to time fall into error.
“Prove to the world that when that happens you will not lack the courage to correct yourselves. That is the unique opportunity that this case offers you.
“The nation thinks well of your lordships. Prove to the nation that our good thoughts of you are justified and are well-deserved. There is not upon this bench a single judge who has been disloyal to his oath or who has a bad reputation. Stand up for the judiciary and for yourselves. Stand up for truth. Stand up for justice. Stand up for strict and honest interpretation of the laws. Take that stand for which the nation can praise you and commend you,” he said.
Agabi continued: “The position that you hold demands that you do so. It is the great precedents that your Lordships have established that we appeal to you to follow. The nation expects you to deliver an honest verdict, a correct verdict. Prove to the nation that here in this Supreme Court a man or woman who has lost his rights will be given the opportunity to bewail it. What is at stake in this case is not only the right that the Applicants have lost but the good name of the judiciary as well. What we call upon you to do is nothing new. It is something that you have done times without number in the past. Those occasions that you reversed yourselves in the past were not more urgent than it is now.
“Never in the history of this court have your Lordships delivered a judgment which evoked the protest of the public. This one has. Therefore, we urge you, we appeal to you to take a second look at it.
“Those who in their wisdom established this court made it supreme thus expressing their determination that litigation should come to an end. And so this court is supreme, as you have yourselves said, not because you are infallible but because your decisions are final. Whatever you say the law is that is what it shall be. And that is why your Lordships are ever so careful to ensure that your decisions stand the test of time and are not open to any justifiable condemnation or suspicion.
“The just decisions of this Supreme Court immortalize your Lordships who deliver them. It is important therefore that you commit nothing to write that generations to come, long after we are all dead and gone, will examine and criticize and condemn as unjust and unjustifiable. That has been the lot of the Athenian jury which condemned Socrates. That has been the lot of Pontius Pilate who, having found no guilt in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, nevertheless ordered that he be crucified. It is precisely to save judges from that kind of predicament that the law allows them in appropriate cases to correct their own mistakes or set aside altogether decisions that are a nullity. It is that opportunity that we urge your lordships to take in this case and re-examine the judgment which we urge you to set aside on the ground that if you re-examine it dispassionately you will find reason to set it aside and thereby demonstrate to the world that you have the courage to correct yourselves when you find that you have erred.
“Your Lordships accepted votes from 388 polling units presented by the 1st Respondent which had the consequence of swelling-up the total number of votes scored in the election way beyond the total number of accredited voters. The excess votes between the total votes scored and the total accredited voters are 129,340 votes – a clearly impossible situation and brazen illegality under our electoral law. (Underlining supplied)
“Your Lordships declared the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election when your Lordships did not satisfy yourselves that the 1st Respondent scored enough votes across the various local government areas of Imo State to satisfy the geographical spread as decreed by the Constitution.
“Based on the foregoing, we submit that the judgment delivered by this Honourable Court on 14th January 2020 in Appeal No. SC.1462/2019 and Cross Appeal No. SC.1470/2019 is a nullity because –The judgment was delivered without jurisdiction in that the court declared the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election contrary to section 140 (1) and (2) of the Electoral Act (as amended)
“The judgment is unconstitutional in that it declared the 1st Respondent the winner of the election without proof that the votes accredited to him met the geographical spread stipulated in section 179 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
“The judgment was obtained by fraud in that the votes upon which the 1st Respondent was declared as the winner of the election were in excess of the number of voters accredited for the election.
“The judgment was given per incuriam as your lordships by this judgment unwittingly sanctioned that total votes cast at an election can be in excess of the total number of accredited voters, as in this case, the total votes exceeded the total accredited voters by 129,340 votes.
“Furthermore, the judgment was given per incuriam in view of the 1st Respondent’s contention that the election was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) whereupon he prayed that a supplementary election should be held in the 388 disputed polling units where he claimed his votes were cancelled.
“We respectfully urge your Lordships, therefore, to set aside the judgment in Appeal No. SC.1462/2019 and Cross Appeal No. SC.1470/2019 as prayed in our motion paper because as this Honourable Court rightly noted in ADEGOKE MOTORS v. ADESANYA (supra).
“It is far better to admit an error than to preserve an error,” Agabi summed.
