The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Wednesday raised the alarm accusing the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) of currently mounting pressure on the Supreme Court to restrain itself from reversing the flawed judgment on the Imo State Governorship election.
It also alleged that this clandestine moves came despite obvious mistakes in the controversial judgement, which is allegedly threatening the stability of the nation.
The party, however, hailed Wednesday’s verdict of the Supreme Court on Bayelsa State governorship election but noted that the grounds for the demands by the PDP and majority of Nigerians for the reversal of Imo state governorship election judgment are completely different from those of Bayelsa.
PDP spokesman, Kola Ologbondiyan said this in a statement made available to newsmen in Abuja.
Further, the party explained that its demand on Imo was not in any way in contestation of the authority and finality of the Supreme Court.
It affirmed that the PDP position was only a patriotic effort to assist the Supreme Court affirm its infallibility by correcting the inherent mistakes in the judgment which came as a result of misleading presentation to it by the APC.
Part if the statement reads, “It is, therefore, instructive to note that the various election matters before the Supreme Court were brought on clearly distinctive grounds and each should be treated on its merit before the law.
“The party said the only reason APC was pushing for a review of the Supreme Court’s valid and flawless judgment on the Bayelsa and Zamfara governorship elections was to cause confusion and blackmail the Supreme Court from treating the Imo case on merit.
“The PDP maintained that the grounds for the reversal of Imo judgment are unambiguously constitutional and completely distinct from APC’s attempt to blackmail the Supreme Court with their demands on the Bayelsa and Zamfara states governorship election.
“The party therefore urged the Supreme Court not to succumb to the threats and blackmail by APC to push it restrain itself from looking at the merit of the Imo case; correcting the mistakes and reversing the flawed judgment.”