A group of legal experts, under the aegis of Partners for Justice and Equity (PAJE), has revealed that the Supreme Court can reverse itself in its recent ruling that sacked Emeka Ihedioha as the Governor of Imo State.
The PAJE said the court can decide to review the facts of the case with a view to ensuring that justice was not only done, but seen to have been done.
This was made known in a statement released to newsmen after their meeting in Abuja, on Thursday.
PAJE, which is made up of senior lawyers, also advised Ihedioha to make a former approach to the Supreme Court through legal application for the apex court to look at the facts in issue once more.
It gave seven reasons or grounds on which it said the Supreme Court can take a second look at the Imo Governorship election judgment.
The statement was signed by Bar. Uwajiogu Ikeokwu Udemba, National Secretary of the group.
“There are several reasons for the Supreme Court to look at the case involving the March 2019 governorship election in Imo State with a view of ensuring that justice is given to those that deserve it. Because of time, we will only provide seven of the grounds as follows:
“The sum total of votes added by Supreme Court exceeds accredited votes. This is in violation of Section 53 of Electoral Act 2010 (As Amended) and Section 8 (b) of INEC Guideline for 2019 election.
“The Acceptance of Results from 388 polling units by Supreme Court without certification is a violation of Section 89 (e) and (f) and 90 (c) of the Evidence Acts 2011 which requires all public documents to be certified before it can be tendered in evidence.
“The results from the disputed 388 polling units were neither certified by INEC who are the issuers of the documents nor Police in whose custody they claimed the documents emanated.
“The Acceptance of Evidence of a Police Officer who neither made the document nor knew anything about the document is in violation of Section 37, 38 and 126 of Evidence Act 2011.
The Acceptance of the 388 results by the Supreme without any evidence from polling agents or INEC officials is a clear departure from the existing judicial precedence on the proof of election results as established by Supreme Court in long lines of cases including most recently Atiku vs. Buhari, Alex Otti vs Ikpeazu.
“It is obvious that the Supreme Court relied only on the submission of Hope Uzodimma without any reference to the records of proceeding of the Tribunal/Court of Appeal or otherwise, it would have realized that even though Hope Uzodimma claimed 388 polling units, he only brought 366 polling units results yet the Supreme Court unilaterally credited him with results from 20 polling units that were not produced.
“The Supreme Court judgment was erroneously premised on 388 polling units results when indeed only 366 polling units results were presented to the court who knows if the exclusion of 20 added results could have, if not wipe out the margin make it impossible for the APC candidate to make spread requirement,” it added.