The court in a ruling delivered by Justice A.S. Adepoju set aside the police invitation letter dated March 13, 2023 sent to Ugochinyere, Ihedioha and Irona.

Ruling in the suit between Ugochinyere and seven respondents including the governor of Imo State, State Security Services, Nigeria Police Force, Inspector General of Police, Commissioner of Police Imo State, Ebubeagu Security Network and the Deputy Inspector General  in charge of Federal Investigation and Intelligence Bureau; the court stated: “It is hereby ordered that the letter dated March 13, 2023, titled “INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES- RE: CASE OF MURDER(SIC), KIDNAPPING AND ARSON” be set aside pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.”

The court further held that “the respondents are restrained whether by themselves, agents, officers, staff, privies or howsoever described from giving any effect, carrying out, proceeding with, arresting, further inviting or taking any other steps in furtherance of or in connection with the said letter of invitation dated March 13, 2023, as it affects the applicant pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

Earlier, in a letter addressed to the Imo state chairman of Peoples Democratic Party, Charles Ugwu, the Police invited the applicant and others in connection to what it called the investigation into a case of murder, kidnapping and arson.

By the ruling of the court, the Imo state police command which has been accused by the member elect for its alleged complicity in the multiple attacks on his person and his home and for failing to conduct any form of investigation has been stopped in this fresh move to arrest Ugochinyere.

The matter was thereafter adjourned to April 4, 2023 for a hearing.

Dino and the others had insisted that the results inputed on the Commission’s Result Viewing Portal (iREV) from the different state Colation centers must be projected on a screen so they can compare it with the ones presented manually by state collation officers for the presidential election (SCOPs). They also insisted that the INEC Chairman, Mahmood Yakubu must not accept the results of Ekiti state alleging that there were incidents of over-voting and electoral irregularities.

In reaction, Melaye, Ihedioha and about four others  stormed out of the national collation centre.

The seven-man panel of justices who presided over the case on Monday March 2, adjourned the case till Tuesday March 3 after Ihedioha’s counsel, Kanu Agabi pleaded for more time to respond to an application by Uzodinma’s legal team.

Agabi told newsmen “The matter was adjourned for hearing and just few moments ago we were served with a process and we will have to look at it. If it is convenient for us to come back tomorrow.”

Counsel to the former governor of the state, Emeka Ihedioha and the PDP, Kanu Agabi (SAN) sought an adjournment to enable the parties conclude on the processes that are being filed and served. Counsel to Uzodinma and APC, Damian Dodo (SAN) did not oppose the application.

Ihedioha and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) had filed an application before the apex court, asking it to set aside its judgement of January 14th in which the court nullified the March 9 election of Ihedioha and declared Hope Uzodinma of the All Progressives Congress, APC, winner of the election.

Speaking to newsmen after being presented to President Muhammadu Buhari by APC Chairman Adams Oshiomhole, Hope Uzodinma alleged that Ihedioha’s reasons for seeking a review and reversal of the supreme court judgement are based on falsehood. He also insisted that the time for election petitions are over.

He said “I am not disturbed by the PDP’s move to seek a review of the judgment. I am not concerned because I believe they are going back to the Supreme Court based on falsehood because the number of accredited votes outside the excluded votes is what they are talking about. But, if you are going to court, you must go to court to discuss or talk about the number of accredited votes including the excluded polling units. If you compute the number of accredited votes inclusive of the excluded voters, the figures are correct. We went to court with an issue of exclusion; we didn’t go to court complaining about election malpractices, violence and all of that. So, it is a peculiar case. My case can be likened to that of Jim Nwobodo vs Onoh and Omoboriowo vs Ajasin – It is the position of the Supreme Court that where an election has been announced at a polling unit, INEC is bound to collect the result and enter the results into the Form EC 8B. So, let INEC tell us what happened; I’m a lawmaker and I participated in the amendment of the Electoral Act. Election petitions are timed. As far as I’m concerned, the 60 days left for Supreme Court to look into that matter has expired. I’m not a lawyer but with my little knowledge of law making, I understand what is in the Electoral Act.”

The group sought a US visa ban against Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Tanko Muhammad and six other Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria who decided the matter.

According to the group, Justice Tanko, Justice Kudrat Kekere–Ekun, Justice Sylvester Ngwuta, Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, Justice Aminu Sanusi, Justice Amina Augie, and Justice Uwani Abba-Aji went on a judicial coup by overturning the governorship mandate given to Rt Hon Emeka Ihedioha. The petition so far has over 700 signatures.

The group said “Nigeria’s disgraceful partisan Supreme Court must reverse her recent perverted ruling or be placed on visa ban or a no-fly list, including members of their immediate families. In what has been described a ‘judicial coup’, the Supreme Court of Nigeria overturned the landslide Imo State governorship electoral mandate, given to Rt Hon Emeka Ihedioha of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and handed victory to the ruling All Progressives Congress’ (APC) candidate, Hope Uzodinma, who came a distant fourth position in the election. When that whole fake results were added without adjustment to other figures, it brought the total votes cast to 928,054, which is not only higher than INEC declared total valid votes cast of 714,355 but a total number of accredited voters of 823,743 for the election. Yet, the Supreme Court in a bizarre judgment awarded more votes to the fourth-placed candidate, that inflated total votes cast above the number of voters, and made him the winner.”