Supreme Court Dashes Ihedioha’s Hope, Dismisses Suit Seeking Uzodinma’s Removal

The controversy surrounding Hope Uzodimma’s emergence as Imo State Governor in the last dispensation and suits to remove him has come to end as the supreme court has dismissed an application by Emeka Ihedioha, former governor of Imo, seeking the removal of Hope Uzodinma from office as the state governor.

In a judgment delivered on Tuesday, Tijjani Abubakar, who read the lead verdict, dismissed the application for lacking in merit.

Abubakar described the application as unnecessary and vexatious.

The court also awarded the cost of N40 million against Mike Ozekhome, Ihedioha’s lawyer, for bringing the matter before the court.

‘DOUBLE NOMINATION’

In December 2020, the supreme court upheld a judgment of the court of appeal which nullified the candidature of Uche Nwosu as the governorship flagbearer of Action Alliance (AA).

The court held that Nwosu was guilty of double nomination by having the ticket of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and AA.

Consequently, Nwosu withdrew his appeal challenging Ihedioha’s victory at the poll.

However, on January 14, the apex court voided Ihedioha’s election and declared Hope Uzodinma, who came fourth in the election, as the duly elected governor of the state.

Consequently, the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) filed an application contending that Uzodinma’s candidacy ought to have been nullified since the APC had given tickets to the governor and Nwosu.

Ihedioha then applied to be joined as an interested party in the suit.

IHEDIOHA’S APPEAL

Ihedioha had premised his application on the grounds that the APC did not validly nominate Uzodinma to contest the 2019 election since tickets were given to two different candidates.

The PDP and Ihedioha’s application further sought to invalidate the years that Uzodinma spent in office as the governor of Imo.

An affidavit filed in support of the application, which was deposed to by Adedamola Farokun, a legal practitioner, averred that “the third respondent/applicant (PDP) is neither in any way seeking a review of the valid, subsisting, and well considered judgement of this court delivered in this appeal in 2019, nor seeking a review of the judgement of this court delivered on January 14, 2020 in SC/462/2019, but humbly seeking that this court give effect to its judgement delivered on December 20, 2019″.

“That this court has the constitutional, inherent powers, and jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought and give effect to its judgement,” it reads. 

“That it is in the interest of justice for this court to exercise its wide discretionary powers in favour of granting this application as prayed.”

However, when the matter came up on Tuesday, the apex court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, which it described as “frivolous and highly vexatious”.