Ihedioha to S’Court: My case different from Bayelsa

A former Imo State Governor, Hon. Emeka Ihedioha has told the Supreme Court that the facts and circumstances of his application before the court are different and distinguishable from the one filed by the All Progressive Congress (APC) and i’s candidate, David Lyon with respect to the governorship election of Bayelsa State.

As the apex court delivers its judgment today, there is obvious anxiety among the people of the state, as members of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Okigwe has asked God for intervention.

Ihedioha made the distinction in his further affidavit in support of his application dated February 28, wherein he argued that his application before the apex court was not in any way seeking review of the court’s judgment or asking the apex court to sit on appeal over its judgment.

The former governor had approached the apex court to set aside the January 14 judgment, which removed him from office as Imo State governor and installed Hope Uzodinma as his replacement, to March 2.

However the apex court had on February 18 adjourned hearing in the application to Monday March 2, following a request by Ihedioha’s lawyer, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN) for time to reply the respondents.

However, in between the adjourned date, a similar application brought by the APC and its sacked governor-elect for Bayelsa State, David Lyon and his deputy, Degi-Eremienyo for reversal of its judgment was dismissed by the court.

In a unanimous judgment, a seven-man panel of Justices of the apex court headed by Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, dismissed the two different applications that sought the setting aside of the February 13 judgment that went against Lyon and his deputy.

Justice Amina Augie, who delivered the lead judgment, described the fresh applications that were filed by Lyon and his deputy, as well as the All Progressive Congress, APC, as “highly vexatious, frivolous and gross abuse of the judicial process”.

It held that the applications were aimed at “desecrating the sanctity of the court”, stressing that it was an invitation for the Supreme Court to sit on appeal over its final judgment in violation of the Constitution.