The national chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Mr Adams Oshiomhole, said Tuesday’s judgment of the Supreme Court on Imo governorship tussle indicates that the court remains supreme.
Oshiomhole, who spoke to State House correspondents in Abuja on Tuesday while reacting to the Imo judgement, said the Supreme Court did not make mistake in the first instance.
The Supreme Court had on Tuesday dismissed the application filed by the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Mr Emeka Ihedioha to review its judgment.
The APC Chairman said Ihedioha did not have the required number of votes to be declared winner of the election.
He said it was even legally unwise for Ihedioha to ask the Supreme Court to review its judgment, knowing fully well that its decision had traditionally been irreversible.
”We know that Ihedioha did not have the required number and that is a fact that nobody has ever disputed.
”How anybody thought he can impose someone who did not meet the spread is only known to PDP. Because, they specialize in rigging and they see rigging as their birth right.
”And that is why they could have the guts to be protesting in front of foreign embassies as if Nigeria is a colony under the supervision of some foreign powers.
”So I think what the Supreme Court has done today is just to reaffirm that they are Supreme and whatever they did the last time was on the basis of what was before them.
”I think they are just being consistent with the position they took in previous cases.
”Of course as a party chairman, APC members and indeed all Democrats and all those who believe in the rule of law, who believe that as imperfect as the Supreme Court can be, they remain Supreme.
”We thank God that the whole litigation process has come to an end,” he said.
He said all hands must be on deck to fill up the gaps so that Imo people would witness sustainable growth and development.
On the arguments that votes in the Imo election that gave victory to Governor Hope Uzodinma was more than the registered votes, Oshiomhole described the arguments as roadside talks by some elements in PDP.
”You have made an assumption which is not supported by fact, mainly by the speculation and the roadside talks by some elements in PDP, suggesting that there was over-voting if you add the votes that were ignored.
”Those are not proven because if they were, it was up to their counsel to provide evidence that it was more than the registered votes, not to go and sit on television.
”Matters before the court are canvassed before the court. Issues not raised in the court cannot be raised on television.
”I assume your question is informed by those uninformed, self-serving speculations. They don’t merit my reaction,” he said.
