The government accepted a recommendation to extend the president’s tenure from four to five years and agreed in principle that Parliament should serve a corresponding five-year term.
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
Continue Reading
Former Vice President of Nigeria and Presidential Candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, has expressed bewilderment over President Bola Tinubu’s latest claim that “prosperity is on the horizon” and that “the quality of life is improving,” asking whether the President was referring to another country or the Nigeria that millions of citizens endure every day.
In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku said the President’s remarks reveal a troubling disconnect between those who govern and the people they were elected to serve.
“Mr. President says prosperity is on the horizon. Nigerians are asking: whose horizon? Certainly not that of the market woman whose capital has been wiped out by inflation. Not that of the civil servant whose salary now expires before the month begins. Not that of the manufacturer struggling under crushing energy costs. Not that of the unemployed graduate who sees no future. Certainly not that of farming communities forced off their ancestral lands by terrorists and bandits, families mourning loved ones slaughtered in senseless attacks, or countless Nigerians who now live in daily fear of kidnappers who have turned human lives into commodities. And certainly not that of millions of households that have quietly reduced the number of meals they eat each day simply to survive.”
Atiku said that while no serious person disputes that President Tinubu inherited challenges, no President is elected to inherit excuses.
“The Constitution did not swear President Tinubu into office to explain history. It swore him into office to change it. Every administration inherits problems. Great leaders are remembered for solving them, not for endlessly rehearsing them.”
The former Vice President noted that after more than three years in office, the Tinubu administration can no longer govern by blaming its predecessors.
“The Nigerian people are not interested in who created the problem. They want to know who will solve it. A government that still blames its predecessors after years in office is, by its own conduct, admitting that it has run out of ideas. President Tinubu may find comfort in blaming those before him, but history will remember his administration as the one under which Nigerians endured unprecedented hardship, institutionalised fiscal recklessness, and one of the greatest appropriation scandals in the annals of our nation. The suffering of Nigerians today is driven not by the past, but by an administration that has elevated opacity over transparency, rewarded a privileged circle of cronies, and condemned millions to deepening economic pain, insecurity, and despair.
“It is even more astonishing that a President who constantly invokes China now blames Nigeria’s population for the country’s difficulties. China did not become an economic superpower by complaining about the size of its population. It became prosperous because visionary leadership transformed that population into its greatest economic asset through sustained investment in manufacturing, infrastructure, education, technology, and export-led industrialisation. Great leaders convert challenges into opportunities. They do not convert opportunities into excuses.
“That is precisely what an Atiku Abubakar administration will do. We will invest aggressively in manufacturing, modern infrastructure, quality education, skills acquisition, agriculture, and export-driven industries to unlock the enormous productive capacity of our people. Nigeria’s youthful population is not a burden; it is our greatest strategic advantage. Our people are not the problem. President Tinubu’s failed leadership is.”
He said it was particularly insensitive for the President to suggest that because hunger existed before his birth, Nigerians should somehow accept the unprecedented hardship confronting them today.
“Nobody ‘elected’ Tinubu to eliminate the hunger of 1940. Nigerians ‘elected’ him to confront the hunger of today. The fact that previous generations endured hardship is not a licence to deepen the suffering of the present generation.”
Atiku stressed that hope is not manufactured through speeches but earned through purposeful leadership and policies that improve lives.
“Hope cannot be preached to a hungry stomach. It cannot be legislated into existence. It cannot substitute for affordable food, stable electricity, productive jobs, quality education, accessible healthcare, or security for families to sleep with both eyes closed. Government inspires hope through performance, not rhetoric.”
He urged President Tinubu to step outside the comfort of official briefings and carefully choreographed ceremonies and reconnect with the realities confronting ordinary Nigerians.
“If the President truly believes that the quality of life is improving, then one must respectfully remind him that the Nigeria he is talking about exists only in his head. It is certainly not the Nigeria where families are choosing between food and medicine, where communities are fleeing armed violence, where kidnappers dictate the rhythm of daily life, and where hope is becoming more expensive than bread.”
Ghana has backed five-year presidential terms as part of a sweeping constitutional reform programme that could reshape elections, political eligibility, public appointments and institutional accountability in one of West Africa’s most stable democracies.
It argues that Ghana’s current electoral cycle leaves governments with too little time to implement and assess major policies because the early months of an administration are dominated by transition arrangements, while the final year is largely consumed by election preparations.
“The early months of every administration are consumed by transition matters, and the final year is largely consumed by elections,” Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Dominic Ayine said while announcing the government’s position.
The proposal forms part of a much broader attempt to rewrite important sections of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, which came into force in January 1993 and established the country’s Fourth Republic.
Unlike constitutional changes elsewhere in Africa that have been used to remove presidential term limits or extend an incumbent’s stay in office, Ghana’s proposal does not alter the existing two-term limit. It would instead increase the length of each term from four to five years.
President John Dramani Mahama is also serving what the present Constitution treats as his second and final presidential term. He first led the country between 2012 and 2017 before returning to office in January 2025.
The government also accepted in principle a proposal to lower the minimum age for presidential candidates.
Ghana’s Constitution currently requires candidates to be at least 40 years old. The review committee recommended reducing the threshold to 30, but the government settled on 35, arguing that the existing rule excludes qualified citizens on the basis of what it described as an arbitrary age restriction.
Presidential and parliamentary elections would also move from December to the first week of November, creating a longer period between voting and the inauguration of a new government on January 7.
That change is intended to give the Electoral Commission more certainty and provide additional time for transitions and electoral disputes to be resolved.
Under another accepted proposal, presidential election petitions would have to be filed within 14 days of the declaration of results and decided by the Supreme Court within 30 days.
But the five-year term and lower presidential age represent only a small part of the reform package.
The government’s position paper responds to more than 147 proposed amendments and about 59 proposed new constitutional provisions.
The committee behind the report consulted more than 500 experts and practitioners, engaged groups representing more than 21,500 people and received 785 written submissions. Among the most consequential proposals is a plan to cap Parliament at 300 members.
Ghana presently has 276 constituency MPs. Under the government’s model, those 276 seats would remain, while another 24 would be filled through proportional representation and allocated among women, young people and persons with disabilities.
Ghana’s constitutional reform programme also proposes lowering the presidential eligibility age from 40 to 35 and moving elections to November
The government described the cap as a cost-saving measure that would stop the continuing proliferation of constituencies. It plans to commission a study on how the additional proportional-representation seats would be allocated.
The government also accepted a recommendation that Ghanaian citizens by birth should no longer be barred from Parliament simply because they hold another nationality.
Qualifying dual citizens would be permitted to contest parliamentary elections without first renouncing their second citizenship.
The government said the present restriction is inconsistent with Ghana’s growing engagement with its diaspora and reduces the pool of qualified candidates.
Another proposal would create a constitutional right of abode for people of African descent in the diaspora, subject to conditions established by Parliament.
The government linked the measure to Ghana’s Year of Return and Beyond the Return initiatives, which have sought to deepen ties with Africans and people of African heritage outside the continent. It said Parliament would determine the conditions for residence and any pathway to citizenship.
The package also reaches into the management of the economy and public institutions.
The review committee proposed stronger disclosure rules covering public debt, government guarantees, public-private partnerships and liabilities arising from state-owned companies.
It also recommended allowing Parliament to establish an independent fiscal council to scrutinise the sustainability of government finances.
However, the government concluded that several of those objectives could be achieved through existing public financial management laws rather than being written into the Constitution.
This reflects a broader pattern in its response: some recommendations were accepted as constitutional amendments, while others were redirected towards ordinary legislation to avoid creating rigid or expensive new institutions.
The government similarly supported creating a Public Ethics Commission and a body to regulate political parties and campaign financing, but rejected proposals to constitutionally establish some other commissions, saying their responsibilities could be handled by existing institutions or legislation.
It acknowledged that creating several new constitutional bodies would carry significant staffing, accommodation and operating costs at a time when Ghana must balance institutional reforms against spending on infrastructure, health, education and social protection.
The reform process is not Ghana’s first attempt to revise the 1992 Constitution.
A commission established in 2010 submitted its report in 2011, followed by a government White Paper in 2012 and the creation of an implementation committee.
However, the recommendations were not fully implemented. A later attempt to hold a referendum on local government reforms in 2019 was cancelled after political consensus collapsed.
The latest proposals are therefore, not yet law; Ghana’s government plans to appoint a Constitution Review Implementation Committee to prepare two amendment bills simultaneously: one covering non-entrenched provisions and another dealing with entrenched sections of the Constitution.
Non-entrenched amendments require the support of at least two-thirds of all members of Parliament. Entrenched provisions must go through a national referendum.
For a referendum to pass, at least 40% of registered voters must participate and at least 75% of the valid votes cast must support the proposed amendments.
The bills are expected to be ready by October 2026, while the referendum on entrenched provisions is expected in 2027.
That difficult approval process means the government’s endorsement is only the beginning.
But after two earlier reform efforts failed to deliver substantial constitutional change, the five-year presidential term will test whether Ghana can build the political and public consensus required to make its most extensive governance reforms in years a reality.
Source: Inside Africa
The Secretary to the Osun State Government, Teslim Igbalaiye, has been released by the Osun State Police Command.
Igbalaiye’s release was announced by Pelumi Olajengbesi, the spokesperson for the Imole Campaign Council, the group leading the re-election campaign of Governor Ademola Adeleke.
Olajengbesi shared the development on his verified Facebook page on Thursday.
“We sincerely appreciate the Inspector General of Police and the Commissioner of Police, Osun State Command, for listening to the voice of reason despite pressure and for responding to the people’s demand regarding the unlawful arrest of the Secretary to the State Government, Chief Igbalaye Teslim.
“The Nigerian Police Force best serves the nation when it stands against oppression and upholds justice and the rule of law. Welcome back, Chief Igbalaye Teslim. Your courage and sacrifice for the people of Osun State will not be forgotten. Our SSG is out, back and solid,” Olajengbesi wrote.
The spokesperson for the Osun State Police Command, Abiodun Ojelabi, also confirmed the release in a telephone conversation with journalists in Osogbo.
Igbalaiye and five others were arrested and detained by the state police command after a raid on his residence in Osogbo on Wednesday.
The police stated that among those arrested at the SSG’s residence was a suspect on the police watchlist in connection with criminal offences, Oladele Abiodun.
Ojelabi also said a sum of N4,810,500, two Permanent Voter Cards, a voter register, a Dynabook laptop, one photocopy machine and one printer were recovered from Igbalaiye’s residence.
Others arrested with Igbalaiye include Akande Taiwo, 60; Adeyemo Lukman, 45; Olaoye Muftau, 50; and Aderemi Musliu, 40
The PPRO said a police team, acting on intelligence that a criminal gang was hibernating at a location in Osogbo, carried out a lawful raid and apprehended the suspects.
He said, “During the operation, officers recovered exhibits comprising a cash sum of four million, eight hundred and ten thousand, five hundred naira (N4,810,500), one Dynabook laptop, one photocopy machine, one printer, two voter cards and a voter register for Wards 1-15.
“These exhibits have been secured and are currently in police custody for detailed forensic examination and further investigation.
“The recovery of the cash and the register containing voters’ details raises serious concerns regarding possible electoral offences and other criminal activities.
“While investigations are still ongoing, the facts presently available disclose reasonable grounds to investigate the commission of offences, which may include:
“Bribery of voters (vote buying), contrary to Section 121 of the Electoral Act, 2022, arising from the alleged distribution of money or other inducements to registered voters for the purpose of influencing their voting decisions.
“Criminal conspiracy, where two or more persons are found to have agreed to commit an unlawful act; harbouring or concealing a wanted criminal, where any individual is found to have knowingly sheltered or assisted a fugitive from justice; and any other offences that may be disclosed upon the conclusion of the ongoing investigation.”
The release came hours after the Speaker of the Osun State House of Assembly, Adewale Egbedun, alleged that the arrest of the SSG was ordered by the state Commissioner of Police, Ibrahim Gotan, following an incident at an Independent National Electoral Commission stakeholders’ meeting.
Egbedun claimed the commissioner directed the arrest after he was booed by some attendees and noticed Igbalaiye laughing during the incident.
He also alleged that the SSG was later informed that police officers were waiting at his residence. The police, however, maintained that the raid and arrests were based on intelligence linking the suspects to alleged criminal activities and possible electoral offences.
Source: The PUNCH
