The All Progressives Congress in Imo State has faulted a Federal High Court judgment in Abuja that ruled against Governor Hope Uzodimma regarding the party’s primary election for the Imo West Senatorial District, calling the decision troubling and raising valid questions about legal precedents, constitutional timelines, and evidence evaluation.
In a statement issued on Thursday, October 29, 2026, and signed by the party’s State Chairman, Austin Onyedebelu, and State Secretary, Onyebuchi Ibezim, the APC said the judgment delivered by Justice Obiora Egwuatu concerning the May 18, 2026, primary election raised “grave concerns about constitutional compliance, the application of established judicial precedents and the evaluation of evidence.”
TVC News Online reports that Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has ordered Imo State Governor Hope Uzodimma to immediately stop presenting himself as the APC candidate for the Imo West Senatorial District election scheduled for January 16, 2027. The judge issued the orders after ruling that Uzodimma did not win the APC primary conducted on May 18 and monitored by INEC.
In the statement following the ruling, APC said, “As a party, we consider the judgment deeply troubling and believe that the legal questions arising from it warrant rigorous scrutiny,” the statement said.
“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.”
The party questioned the timing of the legal action reportedly instituted by former Imo State Governor Rochas Okorocha, arguing that it was filed outside the constitutionally prescribed period for pre-election matters.
Citing Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the APC said the provision prescribes 14 days for instituting pre-election matters within 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 statement said.
It added that the timing of the action was central to determining the court’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 party stated.
The APC also cited Supreme Court decisions on the strict application of constitutional timelines in pre-election disputes, including the case of Orji v. Chima, which it said should be considered in determining the applicable legal principles.
“We are therefore concerned that the judgment appears not to have adequately addressed the critical question of compliance with the constitutional time limit,” the statement added.
The party maintained that constitutional provisions must be enforced, arguing that litigants should not be allowed to circumvent prescribed timelines through 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 said.
The APC also questioned the appropriateness of using an originating summons in a case involving allegations of forgery and disputed documentary evidence.
According to the statement, the Supreme Court has, in several decisions, explained the circumstances in which originating summons is appropriate and when substantial disputes of fact require a different procedure.
“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 party said.
It added that the procedural issue had not been adequately addressed in 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 statement said.
The party further argued that the competence of the action deserved closer scrutiny because the case reportedly involved allegations concerning forged or disputed documents.
“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 stated.
The APC said it remained concerned about what it described as the judgment’s failure to sufficiently resolve the implications of the disputed documents and the procedure through which the allegations were presented.
The party maintained that the legal questions raised by the judgment required careful examination, citing constitutional compliance, the appropriate procedure for resolving disputed evidence and the application of judicial precedents as issues requiring scrutiny.
What You Should Know
A Federal High Court in Abuja ordered Governor Hope Uzodimma to stop presenting himself as the APC candidate for the Imo West Senatorial District ahead of the upcoming elections, ruling that he did not actually win the primary held on May 18. In response, the Imo State chapter of the APC has rejected the verdict, arguing that the legal challenge was filed too late and failed to follow proper constitutional procedures.
- Political Implications: This court battle creates uncertainty within the ruling party in Imo State regarding who will legitimately represent them in the upcoming senatorial race.
- Legal Precedent: The dispute highlights crucial questions about judicial timelines, the application of pre-election deadlines, and the correct legal procedures for handling disputed party documents and allegations of forgery.
