…Uzodinma, Nwosu, Araraume fail to prove case against Ihedioha.
Imo State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, has recieved from all the parties in the three surviving petitions, their final written addresses in the petitions filed by Senator Ifeanyi Araraume of APGA, Senator Hope Uzodinma of APC, Uche Nwosu of AA.
Senator Araraume through his lead counsel Awa Kalu SAN, while INEC, Governor Emeka Ihedioha, and the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, adopted through their lead counsels: Aham Ejelam, Onyechi Ikpeazu and Ken Njemanze respectively.
Adeniyi Akintola and Olusola Oke appeared for Uche Nwosu and Senator Uzodinma respectively.
While Senator Araraume is believed to have failed to prove his petition against Governor Ihedioha, Uche Nwosu’s case which was largely based on the statistical analysis, which he claimed shows that Governor Ihedioha did not meet the constitutional requirement of scoring 25% in two-third of the 27 local government areas in the state, was discredited o cross examination, as the said analysis was not based upon any INEC certified result.
The withdrawal of the Action Alliance from the petition dealt a huge to the quality of witnesses for Uche Nwosu. The implication is that Uche Nwosu has no strong case.
On the statistical analysis claimed by Uche Nwosu, it was discovered to the shock if the court, that the man who conducted the analysis was not a statistician, rather is a junior lecturer in a College of Agriculture in Ebonyi State and only graduated from the university on 2012.
In the Hope Uzodinma case, the fact that his personal witnesses could not read out entries in the pink copies of results which they want the Tribunal to use to declare Hope Uzodinma winner.
This is coupled with the woeful outing of Senator Hope Uzodinma in the witness box, where he even said that he does not know what remita means.
Uzodinma’s failure has jolted analysts, who have wondered how he came out his results as all petitions and processes were paid through remita.
Also INEC, disowned all the 388 pink copies of results tendered by Uzodinma as fake and could not have emanated from the Commission.
It is also on record that their were a whole lot of contradictions in the testimonies tendered by the three petitioners, a development that embarrassed both their counsels and supporters.
The Tribunal after the adoption of addresses, has reserved judgement for a date to be announced at a later date.