- Says INEC, Ihedioha Created Grounds For Uzodinma Victory
By Hamilton Nwosa(Head, The New Diplomat Poll Tracking Desk)
The Supreme Court of Nigeria has explained how it arrived its judgment on Imo state governorship tussle saying both the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and former Governor Emeka Ihedioha of Imo State were to blame for the apex court’s judgment of January14, 2020 which nullified the election of Ihedioha , and announced Senator Hope Uzodinma as the duly elected Imo State Governor.
Recall that INEC had declared Ihedioha of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) elected governor of Imo State because he was the candidate with the highest number of votes in the March 9, 2019 governorship elections in the State. Dissatisfied with INEC’s declaration, Senator Hope Uzodinma of the All Progressives Congress (APC) had proceeded to the Election Petitions Tribunal to challenge the validity of Ihedioha’s election. Uzodinma who lost his case at both the election tribunal and Appeal Court however proceeded straight to the Supreme Court where he triumphed over Ihedioha and others.
Uzodinma had finished fourth during the governorship election. But the apex Court upheld his prayers and declared him winner of the Imo state governorship polls because he scored the highest number of lawful votes which were illegally cancelled by some unauthorized officials.
The judgment which attracted widespread condemnation and protests by PDP faithful on alleged grounds that the cancelled votes from 388 polling units which the Supreme Court apparently relied upon to declare Uzodinma’s as the duly elected governor having won the highest number of were above the INEC accredited voters threshold for the election.
The apex court, according to a copy of the judgment published late yesterday by an online publication, “said while INEC argued the documents tendered by the APC candidate were falsified, it could not establish enough evidence to prove this.”
The digital publication quoted the Supreme Court as saying a certified true copy of the judgment: “Having pleaded that the documents are false, the respondents made allegation of criminal nature against the appellants.
“They were required to plead the specific elements of fraud and lead evidence showing the genuine results. Not only must the allegation be proved beyond doubt, it must also be proved that the appellants personally committed the forgery or aided and abetted the commission of the crime or that they procured the commission of the crime through their agents or officials. Although they relied heavily on the assertion that exhibits PPP1 – PPP366 were fake, no evidence was adduced to prove the assertion at all, let alone beyond any reasonable doubt”.
