The Imo State Governor, Hope Uzodinma, on Friday, September 25, criticised those who labelled him “a “Supreme Court Governor” as ignorant.
1st News had reported that Uzodinma became Imo State governor on January 14 after the apex court sacked Emeka Ihedioha, who was originally declared the winner of the March 9, 2019 governorship election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
According to the Supreme Court verdict, Ihedioha did not score the majority of lawful votes in the election.
However, critics had continued to mock the governor for emerging in their opinion, through the
Uzodinma made this remark during a Channels Television programme on Friday, shrugging off the criticisms.
The governor insisted that he was not the first person to be favoured by a Supreme Court’s verdict.
He said: “It is the height of ignorance because they don’t know what they are saying. There is a reason for the Supreme Court.
“In the doctrine and principle of democracy, the law expected that there would be grievances and malpractices in the electoral process.
“When this happens, the only legitimate right you have is to seek redress at the court. And of course, the court determines.
“Remember that this is not the first time; so many elections had held where the candidates went to court and they got justice. So, why will mine be different?
“Human beings voted and the votes were not counted. I went to the Supreme Court and INEC was unable to explain why they did not enter the result. It was a simple judgment. The Supreme Court said INEC was wrong.”
Meanwhile, Ekiti State governor, Kayode Fayemi, has criticised reports over his purported suspension as a member of the All Progressives Congress in the state.
Fayemi issued this disclosure via a statement titled ‘Governor Fayemi’s purported suspension: A joke taken too far” on Friday, September 25.
The governor’s press secretary, Yinka Oyebode, said those behind the governor’s suspension belonged to an “unknown group”.
He said, “The All Progressives Congress as a party is governed by laws. Members of the group cannot hide under their recent suspension; to announce a dubious suspension they lack the locus to handle.
“While one would have dismissed their claims as another failed attempt to polarise the party in the state; it is also important to put it on record that the action of the group smacks of criminal impersonation; as none of those who signed the purported suspension letter were executive members of the party at ward, local government or state level.