Headlines
PDP Rejects Supreme Court’s Judgment on Ihedioha, Asks Tanko to Resign as CJN
- /home/rhoncare/pointblank.ng/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 27
https://pointblank.ng/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/PDP.jpg&description=PDP Rejects Supreme Court’s Judgment on Ihedioha, Asks Tanko to Resign as CJN', 'pinterestShare', 'width=750,height=350'); return false;" title="Pin This Post">
- Share
- Tweet /home/rhoncare/pointblank.ng/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 69
https://pointblank.ng/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/PDP.jpg&description=PDP Rejects Supreme Court’s Judgment on Ihedioha, Asks Tanko to Resign as CJN', 'pinterestShare', 'width=750,height=350'); return false;" title="Pin This Post">
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
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has asked the Presidency and the National Assembly to clarify who is constitutionally exercising the powers of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu following the expiration of the 21-day period announced for the President’s annual vacation.
Recall that Tinubu left Nigeria on August 30 for a three-week annual vacation in Europe. The President’s absence coincided with Vice President Kashim Shettima’s official engagements outside the country, including his current representation of Nigeria at the 81st United Nations General Assembly in New York.
In a personally signed statement on Monday, Atiku argued that the expiration of the 21-day period had raised questions under Section 145 of the 1999 Constitution regarding the transfer of presidential powers.
Section 145(1) provides for the President to transmit a written declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives when proceeding on vacation extending beyond a specified period or when otherwise unable to perform the functions of his office.
Atiku said Nigerians had not been shown any such declaration transferring presidential functions to Shettima.
“President Tinubu left Nigeria on 30 August. The Presidency publicly announced a three-week vacation. Yet, to date, Nigerians have not been shown any constitutional letter transmitting presidential authority to Vice President Kashim Shettima.
“The 21 days have now elapsed. If such a letter exists, the Presidency should publish it immediately,” Atiku said.
The 2027 African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, said the constitutional provision also addresses a situation where the President fails to transmit the required declaration.
He referred to Section 145(2), which provides that where the President is unable or fails to transmit the declaration within 21 days, the National Assembly can, by a simple majority in each chamber, mandate the Vice President to perform the functions of President as Acting President.
Atiku therefore asked the National Assembly to explain whether the constitutional procedure had been activated.
“If it does not, then the constitutional mechanism contemplated by Section 145(2) has been triggered, and the National Assembly owes Nigerians an explanation as to why it has not acted.
“This is not a matter of political convenience. It is a matter of constitutional order,” he said.
Atiku further drew attention to Shettima’s presence in New York, where he is leading Nigeria’s delegation to the 81st United Nations General Assembly based on the President’s directive.
Atiku said the situation raised a question about who was exercising presidential authority in Nigeria and under what constitutional instrument.
“So again: who is exercising presidential authority in Nigeria today, and under what constitutional instrument?” he asked.
The former Vice President also criticised what he described as reliance on informal indications of presidential activity while the President remains abroad.
“Nigeria cannot be governed by assumptions. It cannot be governed by presidential social-media posts from Europe.
“It cannot be governed by photographs from private dinners at the Élysée Palace.
“It cannot be governed on autopilot,” he said.
Atiku also said President Tinubu should be in the country at a time like this, linking his concerns to recent domestic developments in the country, including the deaths of 37 Nigerians in the custody of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps in Minna.
He said the incident had led to investigations, suspensions and calls for independent scrutiny.
He also raised concerns about petrol prices, claiming that the product was selling for as much as ₦1,500 per litre in some parts of the country.
“These are not ordinary times. Yet the President is abroad. The Vice President is abroad.
“The Senate President is abroad. And Nigerians have not been told, in the clear constitutional language required of a serious democracy, who is exercising the powers of the President,” Atiku said.
Atiku acknowledged the diplomatic significance of Tinubu’s private dinner with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris but argued that Nigeria’s governance responsibilities could not be suspended while the President was abroad.
“President Tinubu’s private dinner with President Emmanuel Macron in Paris may serve diplomatic purposes. But Nigeria itself cannot be placed on vacation.
“The Constitution does not recognise a ‘working vacation’ as an alternative system of presidential succession.
“It provides a procedure. That procedure must be obeyed,” he argued.
Atiku consequently called on the Presidency to disclose whether Tinubu transmitted the declaration required under Section 145(1) before leaving Nigeria.
He also asked the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives to state whether they received such a communication.
“If no declaration was transmitted within the constitutionally stipulated period, the National Assembly must explain why the procedure provided by Section 145(2) has not been activated,” he said.
Atiku concluded that the issue was bigger than the President’s personal movements, arguing that Nigerians were entitled to know who was constitutionally responsible for the exercise of presidential powers.
“Nigeria is bigger than any President.
“At a time of severe economic hardship, rising energy costs, security challenges and the shocking deaths of citizens in government custody, the country deserves visible, accountable and constitutionally grounded leadership.
“The question will not disappear: Who, constitutionally, is in charge of Nigeria?” Atiku questioned.
President Bola Tinubu has celebrated his wife, Oluremi, on her 66th birthday, describing her as his “truest friend and confidante”.
In a birthday tribute to the First Lady on his verified X handle on Monday, Tinubu praised her patience, courage, compassion and unwavering support throughout their years together.
The President, who described Oluremi as the woman who had stood by him through different seasons of his life, said she had shared his burdens and provided counsel during difficult moments.
“Today, I celebrate the woman who has walked beside me with patience, grace and uncommon courage. Àwọn àgbà sọ pé, ‘Ìyàwó rere ni adé ọkọ rẹ̀.’ A good wife is her husband’s crown,” he said.
Tinubu said Oluremi had given practical meaning to the biblical description of a virtuous woman, adding that she had remained a source of strength and understanding to him.
“The burdens that were mine to bear often found their way onto your shoulders. The thoughts I could not put into words somehow found their way to you.
“In difficult times, when the future was uncertain, you stayed calm beside me and prayed with me,” he stated.
The President described the First Lady as his “truest friend and confidante”, saying she was never afraid to offer him honest counsel.
“I call you my truest friend and confidante because you speak the truth plainly, even on the days I would rather not hear it,” Tinubu said.
He also praised Oluremi for her role in raising their children and grandchildren, saying her values of faith and kindness had shaped the family.
“Our home bears the lasting imprint of your devotion. Our children and grandchildren have grown beneath the shelter of your prayers. They carry your values of faith and kindness wherever life takes them,” he said.
Tinubu also highlighted the First Lady’s humanitarian activities, recalling her work through the New Era Foundation and the Renewed Hope Initiative.
“Nigerians know you for your compassion, kindness, generosity of spirit and steadfast faith. I have watched you touch lives quietly and consistently, offering hope and support to those in need,” he said.
He added that her initiatives had supported young people, widows, elderly citizens and women farmers across the country.
“From the New Era Foundation during our years in the saddle in Lagos to the Renewed Hope Initiative today, your care has reached many young boys and girls, widows, elderly citizens, and women farmers across the country,” the President stated.
Tinubu also acknowledged Oluremi’s advocacy for people affected by tuberculosis and other diseases, describing her as a compassionate advocate and determined champion.
He said her compassion transcended ethnic, regional and religious boundaries.
“For you, compassion has never recognised the boundaries of tribe, region or religion,” he said.
Reflecting on their years together, Tinubu said their shared experiences, including difficult decisions and sacrifices, had strengthened their relationship.
“A long journey teaches a man the true value of a good partner. We have travelled a long road together. I think of the difficult decisions we talked through for hours and the sacrifices no one else saw.
“Laughter and prayer carried us through many of them,” he said.
The President said he would choose Oluremi again if given the opportunity to relive his life.
“If life returned me to the beginning, I would choose the same road that led me to you. Through every mile, my heart has always remained at home with you,” Tinubu said.
The President wished the First Lady many more years in good health and happiness.
“Happy 66th birthday, my darling Oluremi. I pray that God Almighty will grant you many more years in good health and joy,” he said.
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar demanded explanation as to why Tinubu had been repeatedly absent from UNGA, asking whether the president’s documented history with United States law-enforcement agencies has become a burden on Nigeria’s foreign relations.
In a statement by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Mr Phrank Shaibu, Atiku said Tinubu stayed away from the 79th UNGA session in 2024, the 80th in 2025, and now the 81st in 2026, repeatedly sending Shettima to stand in for him.
The former vice president said three consecutive absences could no longer be dismissed as coincidence or routine delegation but constituted a pattern of presidential evasion requiring an honest explanation.
He stated, “The United Nations General Assembly is one of the world’s most important diplomatic gatherings. It brings together the representatives of the UN’s 193 member states and provides a unique platform for presidents and prime ministers to defend their countries’ interests, negotiate partnerships and shape global decisions on trade, security and development.
“Vice President Shettima may represent Nigeria capably, but representation by delegation cannot permanently substitute for the personal authority, visibility and responsibility of the president.
“Tinubu cannot continue to treat Nigeria’s seat at the world’s biggest diplomatic table as though it were an inconvenient appointment that can be endlessly outsourced.
“Presidential absence on the global stage has consequences. UNGA is not merely a ceremonial gathering or an annual photo opportunity.
“Its side-lines are where leaders hold decisive bilateral meetings, court investors, negotiate trade partnerships, mobilise development finance and make the case for their countries.”
Atiku added, “When a president makes himself absent from that stage for three consecutive years, his country loses opportunities. Investment does not follow silence. International capital does not pursue a country whose leader repeatedly abandons the room in which consequential economic relationships are being built.
“The cost is eventually transferred to ordinary citizens: fewer investments mean fewer businesses and fewer jobs. Reduced capital inflows place additional pressure on the local currency.
“A weaker naira raises the cost of imports, production, transportation and food. These are among the economic pressures now punishing Nigerian families through the worst cost-of-living crisis in living memory.
“Tinubu may consider attending UNGA a matter of personal prerogative, but the economic and diplomatic consequences of his absence are being paid by Nigerians. A President may surrender his seat, but a nation cannot escape the bill.”
