By Adeyera Damilola (The New Diplomat’s politics desk)
An international Non-for-profit organization, Fatherland Group, on Friday said the Governor of Imo state, Hope Uzodinma would continue to have problem of legitimacy despite the Supreme Court ruling declaring him as the duly elected Governor.
Fatherland group which consists of a global network of forward thinking Nigerians armed with a new understanding of their past, present and future expressed concerns about how electoral disputes have become the norm rather than the exception. The group in a statement signed by its Chairmand Dele Ogun said the APC Governor for a long time may not enjoy public trust adding that the Supreme Court ruling dashed the hope of majority of the people of Imo State.
Fatherland Group said: “The people of Imo state will not be deceived by Greek gift policies being initiated by the new Governor to cover the tracks of the travesty of Justice and shift public attention from the issues surrounding his emergence. The massive public demonstrations that trailed the ruling was a clear indication that the Supreme Court ruling failed to address the fears and aspirations of millions of people in Imo State adding that the APC in Imo is presiding over ‘bottled up disenchantment.”
Recall that a seven-man panel of the apex court led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Tanko Muhammad, had unanimously declared Hope Uzodinma of the All Progressive Congress, APC, as the winner of the March 9, 2019 governorship election and the validly elected governor of the state. This judgement led to ousting of Emeka Ihedioha of the People’s Democratic Party, PDP, from the Imo State Government house. PDP and it’s candidate have both refused to accept the apex court’s judgement as the party organized a protest in Abuja while Ihedioha is also reportedly preparing to seek a review of the judgement.
Fatherland group called on the Nigerian Government to have a comprehensive review of the electoral system so that the right to choose political leaders remains with the people (Electorate). According to the group, they regret that the Supreme Court did not take the opportunity presented by this case to make it mandatory for any party who seeks to assert exclusion of votes in a case where INEC has not expressly confirmed that elections were conducted by it in polling units, to first establish that elections took place.
The group said: “The court would have better served the public interest by recognising that the presumption of regularity which operates to make the mere presentation of the Form EC8A by a party to be proof that elections occurred (where the same is not admitted by INEC) is clearly avoiding the realities of the present state of elections in the country which are marred with violence, ballot box snatching, abduction of electoral/returning officers as a result of unhealthy competition between contestants.
“This presumption also overlooks the practice of contestants forging certificates so as to appear qualified to contest certain positions. In the circumstances where it was not common ground that elections took place in those polling units, the Fatherland Group would have expected the court to have taken more cognisance of the non-admission by INEC, as the body with constitutional responsibility for the conduct of elections, of elections having taken place in the 388 polling units so as not to legitimise what appears to have been a serious irregularity.”
