Okorocha vs Uzodimma: Court judgment raises jurisdiction question – Ahiakwo

Legal Expert Questions Basis of Court Ruling on APC Candidate for Imo West

Justice Osai Ahiakwo, a constitutional lawyer and public affairs analyst, has raised concerns regarding the legal foundation of a Federal High Court judgment that recognizes former Imo State Governor Rochas Okorocha as the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate for the Imo West Senatorial District in the 2027 elections.

Ahiakwo emphasized that the ruling brings into question the compliance with the constitutional requirement of filing pre-election cases within 14 days. He asserted that the jurisdiction of the court must be confirmed before the merits of the case can be discussed.

The court, led by Justice Obiora Egwuatu, directed Governor Hope Uzodimma to refrain from acting as the APC candidate for the district and mandated the party to acknowledge Okorocha as its nominee.

In his analysis of the judgment, Ahiakwo referred to Section 285(9) of the amended 1999 Constitution, which stipulates that pre-election issues must be filed within 14 days of the relevant event, decision, or action.

He noted that the APC reportedly conducted its Imo West senatorial primary on May 18, 2026, while Okorocha filed his suit on August 13, raising doubts about whether his lawsuit was filed within the constitutionally established timeframe.

Ahiakwo highlighted that the critical issue was the nature of the decision or action being contested in the lawsuit, suggesting that the court must determine if the case pertained to the conduct of the primary or a subsequent decision regarding the recognition of the party’s candidate.

He pointed out that a subsequent administrative decision does not automatically revive a cause of action that has become statute-barred. He asserted that a suit filed beyond the applicable constitutional period cannot be rectified by a favorable ruling on its merits.

Regarding the reported finding that Okorocha received the majority of votes during the primary, Ahiakwo stated that the court may intervene if credible evidence shows that the declared outcome did not reflect the lawful results, provided it has jurisdiction and the law supports the remedy granted.

He further disputed the notion that Section 183 of the Constitution disqualifies Uzodimma from being nominated for a senatorial position while he remains governor, clarifying that the provision prevents governors from holding another executive office or paid employment during their term.

Ahiakwo cautioned against making definitive conclusions about the judgment without reviewing its certified true copy and the relevant court documents. He stressed that the central issue is whether the court adequately addressed the constitutional time limit before ruling on who lawfully won the APC primary.

“The Constitution, not political influence, must determine who is lawfully entitled to a party’s nomination,” he said.

Read Full Article