The Supreme Court upholds Uzodimma’s position as the Imo State Governor, confirming his victory and resolving the legal disputes surrounding his election.

Governor Hope Uzodimma’s re-election as the Governor of Imo State, following his victory in the November 11, 2023 governorship election, was officially affirmed by a noteworthy decision issued by the Supreme Court on Friday.

A five-member panel of the apex court, with Justice Mohammed Idris as author of the lead judgment, delivered their decision. They dismissed the appeal brought forward by Samuel Anyanwu and his party, The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), noting that it lacked merit. All issues raised in the appeal were considered and ruled against by Justice Idris.

In a similar vein, the Labour Party (LP) and Athan Achonu’s appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court due to its lack of merit. Justice Idris clarified in his verdict that the appellants were unable to provide sufficient evidence to support their challenge against the election results during tribunal proceedings.

Read Also: Supreme Court Denies Ajaka’s Request for Full Panel in Kogi Case

The ruling essentially confirmed the rulings made by both the Imo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal and Court of Appeal, which had already thrown out the appeals presented by the plaintiffs.

The appeal made by the PDP and Anyanwu was rejected by Abuja’s Court of Appeal on July 16. As a result, Uzodinma will remain governor as affirmed by the court. The three-member panel headed by Justice Bitrus Sanga deemed that after resolving all conflicts against those appealing their cases lacked merit.

Both the Labour Party and Allied Peoples Movement made an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate court. The appellants, dissatisfied with this decision of the tribunal, approached Court of Appeal to argue that there were irregularities in November 11 election and that it did not comply with Electoral Act. They also accused Governor Uzodinma’s West African Examination Certificate (WAEC) as being forged while questioning his qualifications for office.

The appellants’ case was dismissed as the Court of Appeal ruled that they were unable to substantiate their claims regarding non-compliance and forgery.