The All Progressives Congress (APC) in Imo State has faulted the judgment delivered by means of the Federal Top Court docket in Abuja towards Imo State governor, Senator Hope Uzodimma, over the celebration’s Imo West Senatorial District number one election, describing the verdict as troubling and elevating issues about constitutional timelines, judicial precedents and……
The All Progressives Congress (APC) in Imo State has faulted the judgment delivered by means of the Federal Top Court docket in Abuja towards Imo State governor, Senator Hope Uzodimma, over the celebration’s Imo West Senatorial District number one election, describing the verdict as troubling and elevating issues about constitutional timelines, judicial precedents and the analysis of proof.
In a observation issued on Thursday, October 29, 2026, and signed by means of the celebration’s State Chairman, Austin Onyedebelu, and State Secretary, Onyebuchi Ibezim, the APC mentioned the judgment delivered by means of Justice Obiora Egwuatu regarding the Would possibly 18, 2026, number one election raised “grave issues about constitutional compliance, the appliance of established judicial precedents and the analysis of proof.”
TVC Information On-line experiences that Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal Top Court docket, Abuja, has ordered Imo State Governor Hope Uzodimma to instantly forestall presenting himself because the APC candidate for the Imo West Senatorial District election scheduled for January 16, 2027. The pass judgement on issued the orders after ruling that Uzodimma didn’t win the APC number one performed on Would possibly 18 and monitored by means of INEC.
Within the observation following the ruling, APC mentioned, “As a celebration, we believe the judgment deeply troubling and imagine that the criminal questions bobbing up from it warrant rigorous scrutiny,” the observation mentioned.
“In our view, a judgment that looks to leave from established constitutional rules and raises questions in regards to the remedy of subject material proof dangers undermining public self assurance within the management of justice.”
Learn Additionally: Court Orders INEC To Publish Okorocha As APC Candidate For Imo West
The celebration puzzled the timing of the criminal motion reportedly instituted by means of former Imo State Governor Rochas Okorocha, arguing that it was once filed outdoor the constitutionally prescribed length for pre-election issues.
Mentioning Phase 285(9) of the 1999 Charter, as amended, the APC mentioned the supply prescribes 14 days for instituting pre-election issues inside of its scope.
“The APC Imo West Senatorial District number one election was once hung on Would possibly 18, 2026. Alternatively, former Governor Rochas Okorocha reportedly instituted his motion on August 13, 2026, lengthy after the constitutionally prescribed length had elapsed,” the observation mentioned.
It added that the timing of the motion was once central to figuring out the courtroom’s jurisdiction.
“Our fear is simple: the place an applicant approaches the courtroom searching for to be declared the winner of a celebration number one, the query of when the reason for motion arose and whether or not the motion was once instituted inside the constitutionally prescribed length turns into basic to the courtroom’s jurisdiction,” the celebration mentioned.
The APC additionally cited Ultimate Court docket selections at the strict utility of constitutional timelines in pre-election disputes, together with the case of Orji v. Chima, which it mentioned will have to be thought to be in figuring out the appropriate criminal rules.
“We’re due to this fact involved that the judgment seems to not have adequately addressed the important query of compliance with the constitutional point in time,” the observation added.
The celebration maintained that constitutional provisions should be enforced, arguing that litigants will have to now not be allowed to bypass prescribed timelines throughout the framing in their claims.
“Constitutional provisions are binding, now not non-compulsory. The place the Charter prescribes a cut-off date for starting up an motion, compliance with that requirement should be established in line with the legislation. No litigant will have to be approved to bypass a constitutional timeline throughout the framing of a declare,” it mentioned.
The APC additionally puzzled the appropriateness of the usage of an originating summons in a case involving allegations of forgery and disputed documentary proof.
In step with the observation, the Ultimate Court docket has, in numerous selections, defined the cases wherein originating summons is suitable and when really extensive disputes of reality require a unique process.
“The place the solution of a case is determined by figuring out the authenticity of paperwork and resolving subject material factual disputes, the courtroom should moderately believe whether or not originating summons supplies the correct process for doing so,” the celebration mentioned.
It added that the procedural factor had now not been adequately addressed within the judgment.
“The integrity of judicial lawsuits calls for that allegations of forgery be tested thru procedures in a position to correctly resolving the related factual disputes. The place the authenticity of paperwork is contested, the courtroom should be sure that the events have an excellent alternative to provide and take a look at the proof in line with the legislation,” the observation mentioned.
The celebration additional argued that the competence of the motion deserved nearer scrutiny since the case reportedly concerned allegations regarding solid or disputed paperwork.
“The problem isn’t simply technical. The process followed in a case can resolve whether or not disputed info are correctly investigated and whether or not the ensuing resolution rests on a legitimate evidentiary basis,” it mentioned.
The APC mentioned it remained taken with what it described because the judgment’s failure to sufficiently get to the bottom of the consequences of the disputed paperwork and the process in which the allegations had been introduced.
The celebration maintained that the criminal questions raised by means of the judgment required cautious exam, mentioning constitutional compliance, the correct process for resolving disputed proof and the appliance of judicial precedents as problems requiring scrutiny.