As the scheduled hearing of his application by the Supreme Court is set to go down, dismissed ex-governor of Imo state, Emeka Ihedioha has said his case at the apex court is very different from the one All Progressive Congress, APC, filed for the Bayelsa State governorship election.

Emeka said his case is not an invitation for the Supreme Court to sit on appeal over its judgment that chased him from office on January 14.

According to him, no evidence was presented as to how governor Uzodinma satisfied the mandatory spread required under section 179 of the 1999 constitution.

He added that his application is not an academic exercise or an invitation to the court to answer hypothetical questions since the case warrants nothing like that.

His words via his lawyer, “The application is not an academic exercise or an invitation to this honourable Court to answer hypothetical questions as the issue of nullity of the judgment of January 14, 2020 is neither academic nor hypothetical”.

His words, “That contrary to the deposition by Governor Hope Uzodinma, he (Uzodinma) never stated the results of the other 68 candidates that participated in the election at the 388 polling units, as their scores were not indicated anywhere by the appellants.

“Contrary to the depositions by the respondents, there is nowhere in the judgment of this honourable Court delivered on January 14 2020 in which the decision of the lower court striking out the petition for incompetence was set aside or upturned.”

“On the contrary, the judgment of this honourable Court only set aside the judgment of the lower court affirming the judgment of the Governorship election tribunal. The order of the lower court striking out the petition was not an affirmation of any decision of the Governorship election tribunal.

“That the failure to state the results of the other 68 candidates that participated in the election in the disputed 388 polling units and the 1st appellant/respondent’s (Uzodinma) admission under cross-examination of allocating to himself more votes than the total registered voters in the identified units are all manifest on the face of the record of the Supreme Court.

“That no evidence was led as to how governor Uzodinma satisfied the mandatory spread required under section 179(2) of the 1999 constitution.

“That while Uzodinma and his APC claimed that “results from 388 polling units were excluded which this court-ordered to be added to him, PW54, whose evidence they relied upon, testified that he came to tender results of only 366 polling units.

“Under cross-examination, PW54 admitted that the result he tendered was even less than the number (366) he alleged he had come to tender.

“Even going by the number of 366 polling units stated by PW54, nothing in the judgment of this court explained the difference, particularly the number of votes in 22 polling units that the appellant/respondents misled this court to add to the 366 polling units to make up the 388 polling units.”