A coalition of Nigerian civil society organisations (CSOs) has called on the judiciary to ensure fairness, transparency and strict adherence to the law in the ongoing legal dispute involving Imo State Governor, Hope Uzodimma, warning that the handling of the case could have implications for public confidence in the judicial system.
In a statement issued in Bauchi, the coalition expressed concern over what it described as conflicting accounts surrounding Uzodimma’s emergence as the senator representing Imo West Senatorial District.
According to the group, Uzodimma had reportedly attributed his emergence to the Option A4 electoral process, while a submission attributed to the All Progressives Congress (APC) leadership before the Federal High Court reportedly referred to a consensus arrangement.
The coalition said the differing accounts raised questions that deserved proper judicial scrutiny. However, it urged the court to determine the issues based strictly on the evidence and applicable laws.
The group also recalled the controversy surrounding the Supreme Court’s January 2020 judgment on the Imo State governorship election, which overturned the declaration of Emeka Ihedioha as winner and recognised Uzodimma as governor.
The judgment attracted widespread public debate and criticism, with some individuals and groups questioning aspects of the court’s decision.
The coalition said the history of electoral disputes in Imo State made it particularly important for the judiciary to handle the current case with transparency and impartiality.
The statement was jointly signed by Job Samuel Danfulani of the Centre for Public Integrity; John Samuel Nangi of Nigeria Integrity Watch; Mohammed Ibrahim Sumaila of the Northern Council of Nigeria; Abdullahi Salisu of the Nigeria Ethnic Nationality Forum; and Hassana Mohammed of the Foundation for Democracy in Africa.
The coalition also referred to comments reportedly made by former Cross River State Governor, Donald Duke, concerning alleged visa denials involving some Supreme Court justices who participated in the 2020 Imo governorship judgment.
Duke had reportedly made the remarks in his memoir and during a book launch in February 2023. However, the coalition’s reference to the comments did not establish any official connection between the reported visa decisions and the judicial ruling.
It said the controversy surrounding the judgment remained a reminder of the importance of protecting the judiciary’s credibility and independence.
The coalition further urged security agencies to examine reports circulating in parts of the Southeast concerning alleged political calculations around Uzodimma’s possible presidential ambition.
While acknowledging that every Nigerian has the constitutional right to aspire to political office, the group said political ambitions and activities should be pursued within the framework of the law and democratic principles.
It stressed that its concerns were not directed at any individual’s constitutional right to contest an election but at the need for transparency and accountability in the political process.
The coalition also recalled a petition reportedly submitted by Deji Adeyanju and the late Ariyo-Dare, under the Coalition in Defence of Nigerian Democracy and Constitution, calling for visa restrictions against some Supreme Court justices over the 2020 Imo judgment.
It said the judiciary must remain independent and demonstrate that no individual, regardless of political position or influence, is above the law.
In its concluding remarks, the group called on the courts to protect the integrity of the judicial process and ensure that the ongoing dispute over the Senate seat is resolved in accordance with the Constitution and relevant electoral laws.
‘The temple of justice must stand firm against any attempt to undermine the electoral and judicial process or improperly secure a seat in the 11th National Assembly,’ the coalition said.
The coalition also commended Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, describing him as an example of the kind of judicial conduct that could strengthen public confidence in the justice system.
It praised what it characterised as his commitment to judicial independence and called for greater recognition of judges who demonstrate impartiality and uphold the rule of law.