TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE!….IMO APC QUESTIONS FEDERAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT, SAYS DECISION DEFIES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS
PRESS STATEMENT
The judgment delivered by Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Thursday, October 29, 2026, against His Excellency, Distinguished Senator Hope Uzodimma, whom we maintain emerged as the authentic winner of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Imo West Senatorial District primary election held on May 18, 2026, raises grave concerns about constitutional compliance, the application of established judicial precedents and the evaluation of evidence.
As a party, we consider the judgment deeply troubling and believe that the legal questions arising from it warrant rigorous scrutiny. In our view, a judgment that appears to depart from established constitutional principles and raises questions about the treatment of material evidence risks undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.
We therefore state as follows:
1. CONSTITUTIONAL TIME LIMITS AND SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS
Section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), prescribes a 14-day period for instituting pre-election matters within its scope.
The APC Imo West Senatorial District primary election was held on May 18, 2026. However, former Governor Rochas Okorocha reportedly instituted his action on August 13, 2026, long after the constitutionally prescribed period had elapsed.
Our concern is straightforward: where an applicant approaches the court seeking to be declared the winner of a party primary, the question of when the cause of action arose and whether the action was instituted within the constitutionally prescribed period becomes fundamental to the court’s jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court has consistently emphasised the strict application of constitutional timelines in pre-election disputes. The relevant authorities, including the case cited in the proceedings as Orji v. Chima, must be carefully considered in determining the applicable legal principles.
We are therefore concerned that the judgment appears not to have adequately addressed the critical question of compliance with the constitutional time limit.
Constitutional provisions are binding, not optional. Where the Constitution prescribes a deadline for commencing an action, compliance with that requirement must be established in accordance with the law. No litigant should be permitted to circumvent a constitutional timeline through the framing of a claim.
2. THE USE OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS IN A CASE INVOLVING ALLEGED FORGERY
The proceedings also raise a fundamental question about the appropriateness of originating summons in a case involving allegations of forgery and disputed documentary evidence.
The Supreme Court has, in several decisions, explained the circumstances in which originating summons is appropriate and when substantial disputes of fact require a different procedure.
Where the resolution of a case depends on determining the authenticity of documents and resolving material factual disputes, the court must carefully consider whether originating summons provides the appropriate procedure for doing so.
We are concerned that this critical procedural issue was not adequately addressed in the judgment.
The integrity of judicial proceedings demands that allegations of forgery be examined through procedures capable of properly resolving the relevant factual disputes. Where the authenticity of documents is contested, the court must ensure that the parties have a fair opportunity to present and test the evidence in accordance with the law.
3. THE COMPETENCE OF THE ACTION DESERVES FURTHER SCRUTINY
Given that the case reportedly rests on allegations involving forged or disputed documents, the competence of the originating summons raises a serious legal question.
The issue is not merely technical. The procedure adopted in a case can determine whether disputed facts are properly investigated and whether the resulting decision rests on a sound evidentiary foundation.
We are therefore concerned that the judgment did not sufficiently resolve the implications of the disputed documents and the procedure through which the allegations were presented.
These are substantial issues that deserve further judicial consideration, particularly in a pre-election dispute capable of determining a political party’s candidate for an entire senatorial district.
4. INEC AND APC DISPUTED THE DOCUMENTS: WHY WERE THEIR OBJECTIONS NOT DECISIVE?
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this case is the dispute over the authenticity and origin of the documents relied upon by the applicant.
During the proceedings, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) reportedly maintained that the documents tendered were not in its custody, had not been certified by the commission, and bore a stamp and signature that it did not recognise as authentic.
Similarly, the All Progressives Congress, the political party at the centre of the dispute, reportedly maintained that the documents did not emanate from its recognised organs and were not in its custody.
These objections raise questions that cannot be brushed aside lightly.
Where the institution from which a document is purported to have originated disputes its authenticity, and the political party concerned similarly disowns the document, the court must carefully examine the evidence and explain the basis for its conclusions.
We are deeply concerned that, notwithstanding the objections reportedly raised by INEC and the APC, the court proceeded in a manner that, in our view, failed to give sufficient weight to these material issues.
Imo APC is particularly concerned about the court’s treatment of INEC’s position, which was reportedly characterised as an afterthought.
We believe that the evidence and objections presented by the commission, the APC and the relevant party directorate responsible for its records deserved thorough and transparent consideration.
The fundamental question is this: where both the electoral commission and the political party dispute the authenticity and origin of documents relied upon in a pre-election case, what evidentiary basis justifies the court’s ultimate conclusion?
This question goes to the heart of the dispute and deserves a clear answer through the appropriate judicial process.
The court undoubtedly has the authority to evaluate evidence and determine its weight. However, that authority must be exercised in accordance with the law, the evidence on record and the principles of fair hearing.
Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done through a process that commands the confidence of the parties and the public.
5. WE WILL STUDY THE JUDGMENT AND PURSUE ALL LAWFUL REMEDIES
As the judgment has only just been delivered, we will undertake a thorough examination of the court’s reasoning, findings and conclusions before determining the appropriate legal steps.
We remain confident that the appellate process provides an avenue for the issues arising from this judgment to receive further judicial consideration.
Our confidence in justice does not mean that we expect every judgment to favour our position. Rather, it rests on our conviction that every judicial decision must be capable of withstanding scrutiny against the Constitution, applicable laws, binding precedents and the evidence presented before the court.
We urge our supporters to remain calm, law-abiding and steadfast. Our response will be guided by the law and the remedies available within the judicial system.
We believe that the courts remain indispensable to the protection of citizens’ rights and the preservation of democracy. It is precisely because of this responsibility that questions concerning jurisdiction, procedural competence and the evaluation of evidence must be addressed with the seriousness they deserve.
6. OUR POSITION REMAINS UNCHANGED: HOPE UZODIMMA IS OUR AUTHENTIC CANDIDATE
We reiterate our position that His Excellency, Distinguished Senator Hope Uzodimma, emerged as the authentic winner of the APC Imo West Senatorial District primary election held on May 18, 2026.
We remain confident in our position and will pursue all lawful avenues available to defend it. The legal status of the party’s nomination and the consequences of the judgment must, however, be determined in accordance with the applicable law and any further judicial proceedings.
We trust that the appropriate judicial process will provide the necessary answers and that, in the end, justice will prevail.
SIGNED:
Austin Onyedebelu
APC Chairman, Imo State
