The All Progressives Congress (APC) in Imo State has faulted the judgment delivered by the Federal High Court in Abuja towards Imo State governor, Senator Hope Uzodimma, over the social gathering’s Imo West Senatorial District major election, describing the choice 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 the Federal High Court in Abuja towards Imo State governor, Senator Hope Uzodimma, over the social gathering’s Imo West Senatorial District major election, describing the choice as troubling and elevating issues about constitutional timelines, judicial precedents and the analysis of proof.
In a press release issued on Thursday, October 29, 2026, and signed by the social gathering’s State Chairman, Austin Onyedebelu, and State Secretary, Onyebuchi Ibezim, the APC mentioned the judgment delivered by Justice Obiora Egwuatu in regards to the May 18, 2026, major election raised “grave concerns about constitutional compliance, the application of established judicial precedents and the evaluation of evidence.”
TVC News Online studies that Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has ordered Imo State Governor Hope Uzodimma to right away cease presenting himself as the APC candidate for the Imo West Senatorial District election scheduled for January 16, 2027. The choose issued the orders after ruling that Uzodimma didn’t win the APC major performed on May 18 and monitored by INEC.
In the assertion following the ruling, APC mentioned, “As a party, we consider the judgment deeply troubling and believe that the legal questions arising from it warrant rigorous scrutiny,” the assertion mentioned.
“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.”
Read Also: Court Orders INEC To Publish Okorocha As APC Candidate For Imo West
The social gathering questioned the timing of the authorized motion reportedly instituted by former Imo State Governor Rochas Okorocha, arguing that it was filed exterior the constitutionally prescribed interval for pre-election issues.
Citing Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the APC mentioned the supply prescribes 14 days for instituting pre-election issues inside 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,” the assertion mentioned.
It added that the timing of the motion was central to figuring out the courtroom’s jurisdiction.
“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 social gathering acknowledged.
The APC additionally cited Supreme Court choices on the strict software of constitutional timelines in pre-election disputes, together with the case of Orji v. Chima, which it mentioned ought to be thought of in figuring out the relevant authorized ideas.
“We are therefore concerned that the judgment appears not to have adequately addressed the critical question of compliance with the constitutional time limit,” the assertion added.
The social gathering maintained that constitutional provisions have to be enforced, arguing that litigants shouldn’t be allowed to bypass prescribed timelines via the framing of their claims.
“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,” it mentioned.
The APC additionally questioned the appropriateness of utilizing an originating summons in a case involving allegations of forgery and disputed documentary proof.
According to the assertion, the Supreme Court has, in a number of choices, defined the circumstances through which originating summons is suitable and when substantial disputes of truth require a distinct process.
“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,” the social gathering mentioned.
It added that the procedural subject had not been adequately addressed within 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,” the assertion mentioned.
The social gathering additional argued that the competence of the motion deserved nearer scrutiny as a result of the case reportedly concerned allegations regarding cast or disputed paperwork.
“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,” it acknowledged.
The APC mentioned it remained involved about what it described as the judgment’s failure to sufficiently resolve the implications of the disputed paperwork and the process via which the allegations have been offered.
The social gathering maintained that the authorized questions raised by the judgment required cautious examination, citing constitutional compliance, the suitable process for resolving disputed proof and the applying of judicial precedents as points requiring scrutiny.
