‘Supreme Court judgment on Imo State governorship election petition unassailable’
By Onyedika Agbedo
18 January 2020 | 4:14 am

Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN)

Chairman, Nigeria’s Council of Legal Education, Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN), in this interview speaks on last Tuesday’s verdict of the Supreme Court that voided the election of Chief Emeka Ihedioha of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as governor of Imo State and declared Senator Hope Uzodinma of the All Progressives Congress (APC), who had come fourth in the result declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) the winner. Describing the judgment as unassailable, right and sound, Ngige says those faulting the judgment do not have the facts of the case. He, however, calls for far-reaching electoral reforms that will make the outcome of elections in the country acceptable to all and sundry.

The judgment of the Supreme Court on Imo State governorship election has been generating mixed reactions from various quarters. What is your take on the matter as a senior lawyer in the country?
My take, which I had canvassed in a television programme on the very day the judgment was delivered, is that based on the facts on ground, the judgment is unassailable. The judgment is right; it is sound in the circumstances. And I gave my reasons that if results were excluded by the tribunal and the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court finds that the exclusion of those results were wrongly done and they now included it, thereby re-computing the collated result, the outcome will naturally be what it is now; that after re-computing, the candidate who has scored majority of one quarter votes in two thirds of the local government areas will be declared winner. And the Supreme Court after re-computing found that the person who had earlier come fourth has now become number one and the person who was earlier number one is now number two and the person who earlier became number two is no longer a candidate so all the votes are deleted.

The person who came third did not ask to be declared winner; he only wanted a re-run but the re-run cannot be given when there is a clear winner and the Supreme Court is not a father Christmas; they cannot give him what he did not ask for. So, the person that became number one and met the spread was therefore lawfully declared as the winner of the election.

Sentiments have been raised about how the result came about. It is not my business to discuss how the result came about. The only issue is: Did the Supreme Court properly admit the result? If they properly admitted the result, then you cannot question the decision.

If you remember, when election takes place, result sheets are made into up to 10 duplicates so that all the party agents will get their copy, the police will get their own copy and even the DSS. At times, some observers are given. So, if the candidate who claims to have won the election subpoenas the police to come and tender their own copy that tallies with his own, he has discharged the onus on him and the probative value will be given to those results. And this is not the first time this is happening.

If you can recall, in the case involving Peter Obi and Chris Ngige, it was a question of also each candidate producing results and calling witnesses who had duplicate copies to come and corroborate his own. In the end, the tribunal engaged in re-computation based on the result available. After re-computing, they held that Peter Obi had the highest majority votes cast in two third of the 21 local governments of Anambra State and he was therefore declared winner over Ngige, who was the person INEC had earlier declared. So, it is the same thing.

People are also saying that there is no APC member in the Imo State House of Assembly and referring to Action Alliance (AA) and All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) and others. All those people are offshoots of the APC. And in any event, when Peter Obi was declared winner in Anambra, he met a House of Assembly that was dominated entirely by PDP. He had no single member in the House. So, all these things have their precedent before. So, there is nothing new in what the Supreme Court has done in my own view.

But why some legal luminaries are questioning the judgment, saying it needed to be further digged into… ?
(Cuts in) Anybody asking further questions after the Supreme Court had made the pronouncement is engaging in academic discussion, which is good for a symposium or retreat. As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the decision is final. How can you further dig into how number four became number one when, like you said, I have explained that it was as a result of the exclusion of some results that made number four to come to that position. And with the inclusion of those results, he has now become number one. It’s simple.

Couldn’t the Supreme Court have ordered for a re-run of the governorship election since the exclusion of those results suffices for substantial non-compliance to the Electoral Act and Constitution?
Well, it’s a kind of discretion for them to exercise. One is, if there is somebody who has met the spread and has majority votes, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria enjoins you, without going to the contrary, to declare that person winner irrespective of the number of cancelled votes.

I am aware that there is a provision in INEC manual that says that where the number of votes in the polling stations cancelled will make a difference between the winner and runner-up, it should order for a supplementary election in the cancelled area. But that provision of the manual must be read subject to the provision of the Constitution. The manual cannot dictate to the Constitution; it is the Constitution that will dictate to the manual. But that provision in the manual applies to National Assembly elections because in the Constitution, there is no provision as to the manner of winning elections, to be declared winner, for offices other than the president and governors. So, for legislative houses, you refer to the Electoral Act and Election Manual by INEC for declaration of a winner. So, that is what has happened.

How would you react to derogatory statements made against the judiciary by some politicians since the judgment was delivered?
It is because most of them are ignorant of the facts of the case or ignorant of the legal principles that informed the decision. It is also because we are still a developing nation. Do you know election was held in England few weeks ago and the Labour Party lost abysmally to the Conservatives; the Conservatives also lost in some areas. But there is no single election petition; not one! So, we are still evolving.

President Buhari has given an indication that he wants to leave a legacy of free and fair election with the election that will be conducted next time around. So, we look up to that promise because that will be the beginning of our journey towards electoral reforms that will be like that of United Kingdom or the U.S.

So, the politicians are reacting out of ignorance and out of frustration; and because they don’t know the facts of the case.
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://m.guardian.ng/politics/supreme-court-judgment-on-imo-state-governorship-election-petition-unassailable/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjas7Ohxo3nnAhX

mynd44
Oam4j
Wirinet
Ejimatic
Vicdom
Kyase
Kahal
Obuksbayelsa
Oghenaogie
Helinues
Seetto
Topcruise
Majamatic
Racoon
Gamelnasser
Meleszenawi
Xanderboy85
Nosryk
Chukel
Guzel
Amaniro
Azimo
Topmaike
Afamed
Yarimo
Gandollar
Jubrilelsudan
Murphyibiam
Zombieterror

"The true test of a fair hearing is the impression of a reasonable person who was present at the trial whether from his observation justice has been done".-(Niki Tobi JSC).

The Supreme court ruling may be final but this iberiberism will go down in histroy as the worst overt electoral robbery aided by the judiciary.

Forget partisan politics, the INEC chair, CJN, all members of the supreme court that gave the so called unanimous but flawed, fraudulent and controversial ruling ought to have resigned by now whether the judgement was wilfully passed or done in error.

How can this iberiberism ever stand any form of judicial logic? For the sheer sake that the total no.of accredited voters by INEC & that computed by the Supreme Court to arrive @ this decision are incongruent shows that the apex court have now bastardized its integrity.

Racoon:
The Supreme court ruling may be final but this iberiberism will go down in histroy as the worst overt electoral robbery aided by the judiciary.

I did not tag you for you to come and post clownish stuffs here

[s]

garfield1:
I did not tag you for you to come and post clownish stuffs here

[/s]And when have it become a norm for you to tag me before I comment on a thread in a public forum like this?And when have it also become a must that my opinion must be tailored to suit your warped reasoning? My friend, dont glorify your ........Dispute what I said with indisputable facts.

The fact remains that the Supreme court in their haste to do a hatchet job ended up damaging their reputation and integrity beyond repair.The only option left is for all members of this compromised panel is to honourably resign & apologize to ndi Imo/Nigerians & judiciary.

Things like this make me believe in destiny, hope who didn't even campaign seriously is now the governor and obinna uzoh who didn't take part in the election about to become a senator.

garfield1:




‘Supreme Court judgment on Imo State governorship election petition unassailable’
By Onyedika Agbedo
18 January 2020 | 4:14 am

Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN)

Chairman, Nigeria’s Council of Legal Education, Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN), in this interview speaks on last Tuesday’s verdict of the Supreme Court that voided the election of Chief Emeka Ihedioha of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as governor of Imo State and declared Senator Hope Uzodinma of the All Progressives Congress (APC), who had come fourth in the result declared by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) the winner. Describing the judgment as unassailable, right and sound, Ngige says those faulting the judgment do not have the facts of the case. He, however, calls for far-reaching electoral reforms that will make the outcome of elections in the country acceptable to all and sundry.

The judgment of the Supreme Court on Imo State governorship election has been generating mixed reactions from various quarters. What is your take on the matter as a senior lawyer in the country?
My take, which I had canvassed in a television programme on the very day the judgment was delivered, is that based on the facts on ground, the judgment is unassailable. The judgment is right; it is sound in the circumstances. And I gave my reasons that if results were excluded by the tribunal and the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court finds that the exclusion of those results were wrongly done and they now included it, thereby re-computing the collated result, the outcome will naturally be what it is now; that after re-computing, the candidate who has scored majority of one quarter votes in two thirds of the local government areas will be declared winner. And the Supreme Court after re-computing found that the person who had earlier come fourth has now become number one and the person who was earlier number one is now number two and the person who earlier became number two is no longer a candidate so all the votes are deleted.

The person who came third did not ask to be declared winner; he only wanted a re-run but the re-run cannot be given when there is a clear winner and the Supreme Court is not a father Christmas; they cannot give him what he did not ask for. So, the person that became number one and met the spread was therefore lawfully declared as the winner of the election.

Sentiments have been raised about how the result came about. It is not my business to discuss how the result came about. The only issue is: Did the Supreme Court properly admit the result? If they properly admitted the result, then you cannot question the decision.

If you remember, when election takes place, result sheets are made into up to 10 duplicates so that all the party agents will get their copy, the police will get their own copy and even the DSS. At times, some observers are given. So, if the candidate who claims to have won the election subpoenas the police to come and tender their own copy that tallies with his own, he has discharged the onus on him and the probative value will be given to those results. And this is not the first time this is happening.

If you can recall, in the case involving Peter Obi and Chris Ngige, it was a question of also each candidate producing results and calling witnesses who had duplicate copies to come and corroborate his own. In the end, the tribunal engaged in re-computation based on the result available. After re-computing, they held that Peter Obi had the highest majority votes cast in two third of the 21 local governments of Anambra State and he was therefore declared winner over Ngige, who was the person INEC had earlier declared. So, it is the same thing.

People are also saying that there is no APC member in the Imo State House of Assembly and referring to Action Alliance (AA) and All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) and others. All those people are offshoots of the APC. And in any event, when Peter Obi was declared winner in Anambra, he met a House of Assembly that was dominated entirely by PDP. He had no single member in the House. So, all these things have their precedent before. So, there is nothing new in what the Supreme Court has done in my own view.

But why some legal luminaries are questioning the judgment, saying it needed to be further digged into… ?
(Cuts in) Anybody asking further questions after the Supreme Court had made the pronouncement is engaging in academic discussion, which is good for a symposium or retreat. As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the decision is final. How can you further dig into how number four became number one when, like you said, I have explained that it was as a result of the exclusion of some results that made number four to come to that position. And with the inclusion of those results, he has now become number one. It’s simple.

Couldn’t the Supreme Court have ordered for a re-run of the governorship election since the exclusion of those results suffices for substantial non-compliance to the Electoral Act and Constitution?
Well, it’s a kind of discretion for them to exercise. One is, if there is somebody who has met the spread and has majority votes, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria enjoins you, without going to the contrary, to declare that person winner irrespective of the number of cancelled votes.

I am aware that there is a provision in INEC manual that says that where the number of votes in the polling stations cancelled will make a difference between the winner and runner-up, it should order for a supplementary election in the cancelled area. But that provision of the manual must be read subject to the provision of the Constitution. The manual cannot dictate to the Constitution; it is the Constitution that will dictate to the manual. But that provision in the manual applies to National Assembly elections because in the Constitution, there is no provision as to the manner of winning elections, to be declared winner, for offices other than the president and governors. So, for legislative houses, you refer to the Electoral Act and Election Manual by INEC for declaration of a winner. So, that is what has happened.

How would you react to derogatory statements made against the judiciary by some politicians since the judgment was delivered?
It is because most of them are ignorant of the facts of the case or ignorant of the legal principles that informed the decision. It is also because we are still a developing nation. Do you know election was held in England few weeks ago and the Labour Party lost abysmally to the Conservatives; the Conservatives also lost in some areas. But there is no single election petition; not one! So, we are still evolving.

President Buhari has given an indication that he wants to leave a legacy of free and fair election with the election that will be conducted next time around. So, we look up to that promise because that will be the beginning of our journey towards electoral reforms that will be like that of United Kingdom or the U.S.

So, the politicians are reacting out of ignorance and out of frustration; and because they don’t know the facts of the case.
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://m.guardian.ng/politics/supreme-court-judgment-on-imo-state-governorship-election-petition-unassailable/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjas7Ohxo3nnAhX

mynd44
Oam4j
Wirinet
Ejimatic
Vicdom
Kyase
Kahal
Obuksbayelsa
Oghenaogie
Helinues
Seetto
Topcruise
Majamatic
Racoon
Gamelnasser
Meleszenawi
Xanderboy85
Nosryk
Chukel
Guzel
Amaniro
Azimo
Topmaike
Afamed
Yarimo
Gandollar
Jubrilelsudan
Murphyibiam
Zombieterror

I agree with the totality of what he said .The
SC reserves the right to declare winner based on what you sought for.The judgement is sacrosanct and binding in all its entirety.

Racoon:
[s][/s]And when have it become a norm for you to tag me before I comment on a thread in a public forum like this?
And when have it become a must that my opinion must be tailored to suit your warped reasoning? My friend, dont glorify your ........Dispute what I said with indisputable facts.

The fact remains that the Supreme court in their haste to do a hatchet job ended up damaging their reputation and integrity beyond repair.The only option left is for all members of this compromised panel is to honourably resign & apologize to ndi Imo/Nigerians & judiciary.

Only the intellectually daft fellows cancel post.you have failed to show or demonstrate how the judgment was a hatchet job save for a funny mathematical data.so with the supreme court finding out that indeed 233,000 valid votes belonging to hope was unlawfully excluded,you still expected them to rule in favor of your clannish master.

Let us use this analogy.a student scored 80 in exam which is the highest in that class but the examiner without cogent and reasonable cause reduced his marks to 30 based on selfish interest.the student appeals to the university senate and after thorough findings restored his score to 80.where is the injustice there boy raccoon ?

[s]

garfield1:

Only the intellectually daft fellows cancel post.you have failed to show or demonstrate how the judgment was a hatchet job save for a funny mathematical data.so with the supreme court finding out that indeed 233,000 valid votes belonging to hope was unlawfully excluded,you still expected them to rule in favor of your clannish master.

[/s]Guess you never studied mathematics? Even Channels TV asked Nigerians to "LOOK" @ the iberiberism of the Supreme Court.

Racoon:
[s][/s]Guess you never studied mathematics? Even Channels TV asked Nigerians to "LOOK" @ the iberiberism of the Supreme Court.

Up uzodinma

ON THE IMO STATE CASE, I FINALLY AGREED THAT THE SUPREME COURT GOT IT RIGHT!
For simple analogy, read this:

So that you crying lots can understand, I will break the judgment down for you in a layman way. Hope Uzodinma went to court, he told the court; I was rigged.

The court asked 'Can you prove your case', he answered, 'Yes', the court said 'Okay, Prove your case'.

Hope said no problem, he called 54 witnesses, he presented results of 388 polling units across the state where his votes were excluded. At the final INEC collation centres, INEC merely write 'Not Available' in the 388 columns where the votes of APC and Hope should be recorded, whereas, the column were filled and signed by all party agents, INEC and Police at the polling units.

Hope was smart, he gather the form EC8A his agents received at the 388 polling units where his votes were recorded and signed by all party agents, he also got form EC8B in all the 388 wards where his votes was unrecorded and was not therefore signed by his (APC) party agents. He presented all of that to the court and ask the court to explain why votes recorded at the PU went missing at the Ward, Local and State collation centres.

The Court said okay, we've heard you. They turn to the PDP and Ihedioha and asked him, did you hear what Hope said and see what he presented? Ihedioha said Yes. Court now asked him, do you agree with him?, he said No. Court then asked, what do you have to say.

Ihedioha called just 1 witness, he said what Hope presented and said was false. The Court said okay, but present the truth. Ihedioha said although I don't have any form or paper to present and I don't have more than 1 witness to call, but I know what Hope said is false. The court said Okay, hold on.

The court turned to INEC, did you hear what Hope said? They said Yes. Is it true? they said we don't know. The court asked if the form EC8A presented by Hope, where his votes were included and signed by all party agents and INEC was truly issued by INEC, INEC said Yes. They ask again, do you have any other contrary results or forms from the one Hope presented, INEC said No. The court said Okay. We are coming.

The court turned to the Police, who provided security for the election, do you hear what Hope said? Police said Yes, the court asked further, were you given the form EC8A at polling units level as provided for by the law? Police said Yes. Court ordered them to present it and they did, court cross-checked if it's the same with the one presented by Hope and alas it was.

Court then called Ihedioha, come and check it and juxtapose, he did, they asked if the form EC8A presented by INEC and the one presented by Hope which Ihedioha has just seen are the same, he said Yes. They asked him, what do you have to say? He insisted, it was forged

Court then told Ihedioha, you are a thief, Hope has proved his case and they declare hope the winner.

ME? I REST MY CASE.