Former Governor Rochas Okorocha of Imo State has accused Governor Hope Uzodimma of relying on documents containing alleged irregularities to claim victory in the All Progressives Congress (APC) senatorial primary for Imo West, insisting that he remains the dominant political force in the party in the state.

Mr Okorocha made the allegations during an interview on Arise News’ Prime Time on Thursday, a day after the Federal High Court in Abuja declared him the winner of the disputed APC primary and ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission(INEC) to recognise him as the party’s candidate for the 2027 senatorial election.

The former governor also challenged the legitimacy of the APC leadership structure in Imo State, dismissing those allegedly mobilised against him as political associates of Mr Uzodimma rather than representatives of properly elected party structures.

“Rochas is the APC in Imo State. I was a founding father of this party,” he said. “The structure of APC in Imo State is Rochas. And I gave the name APC.”

The comments signal a renewed confrontation between the two politicians, whose rivalry has shaped the APC’s internal politics in Imo.

PREMIUM TIMES reportedon Thursday that Justice Obiora Egwuatu of the Federal High Court ordered Mr Uzodimma to stop presenting himself as the APC’s candidate for Imo West Senatorial District.

The court also directed the APC to forward Mr Okorocha’s name to INEC for publication as its candidate for the election scheduled for 16 January 2027.

The judgement followed a suit filed by Mr Okorocha challenging INEC’s recognition of Mr Uzodimma as the winner of the party’s 18 May primary.

Allegations over primary documents

During Thursday’s interview, Mr Okorocha offered his account of the documentary evidence that formed the basis of his legal challenge, alleging that the records presented in support of Mr Uzodimma’s emergence as the APC senatorial candidate contained some inconsistencies.

He said he obtained certified copies of documents relating to the primary from INEC on 26 July 2026, after making the necessary application and payments.

According to him, the documents subsequently relied upon by Mr Uzodimma were presented to the electoral commission on 22 August, almost a month after he had obtained his own certified copies.

Mr Okorocha questioned the circumstances surrounding the emergence of the later documents, describing them as an afterthought.

He also alleged that there were discrepancies in the dates recorded for the primary election.

He said documents supporting Mr Uzodimma’s emergence indicated that the election was conducted on 16 May, whereas the actual exercise took place on 18 May.

Another inconsistency, according to him, concerned the description of Mr Uzodimma’s emergence as a consensus arrangement despite the existence of competing aspirants and recorded votes.

Mr Okorocha said the governor could not have emerged through consensus when he himself participated in the contest and was credited with votes.

He further alleged that result sheets covering more than 300 polling units across 144 wards and 12 local government areas were completed in the handwriting of one person.

He also claimed that some ward result sheets contained no entries, although documents subsequently presented at the local government level contained collated results.

Mr Okorocha contrasted these documents with the records he said he obtained from INEC, insisting that his own were consistent in their presentation and certification.

He suggested that the discrepancies raised questions about the authenticity of the documents used to support Mr Uzodimma’s nomination.

“All the misinformation on social media about my documents have been put to rest because the court has found out that the documents are genuine and correct,” he said.

Dispute over INEC’s role

Mr Okorocha also challenged the suggestion that INEC had independently determinedthe outcome of the APC primary in Mr Uzodimma’s favour.

He argued that the commission’s responsibility during party primaries was principally to monitor the exercise and keep records of the outcome submitted by the political party.

He alleged that although the results monitored by INEC favoured him, the figures eventually announced were different from those transmitted to the commission’s headquarters.

He said the party had, at some point, directed that the results should not be announced at the state level but taken to its national secretariat for announcement.

Mr Okorocha said that this created the discrepancy between the results he claimed were recorded during the exercise and the outcome eventually announced by the party.

He also questioned the origin of a letter allegedly submitted to the APC national chairman by the Imo Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC), claiming that it was certified by the party rather than INEC.

According to him, the letter was expected to bear the signatures of both the REC and the Head of Election Monitoring, but only the REC signed it.

He said the document supporting his own claim was addressed to the APC national chairman and certified by INEC.

Mr Okorocha maintained that these differences were part of the evidence he presented to challenge the governor’s nomination.

On challenge to his suit

Responding to questions about why he did not institute his legal action within 14 days of the primary, Mr Okorocha said he could not have challenged a result he believed had already been officially recorded in his favour.

He said he only became aware of the problem on 1 September, when he discovered that his name had been displaced from the records despite having obtained certified copies of the relevant documents from INEC.

He explained that he had no reason to institute proceedings against himself when the documents in his possession showed that he had won the primary.

He subsequently sued INEC, joining the APC and Mr Uzodimma as respondents.

The governor and the APC had challenged the suit on the grounds that it was filed outside the 14-day period prescribed for pre-election matters.

In their responses before the court, they disputed Mr Okorocha’s account of the primary.

A representative of the governor’s election committee had told the court that Mr Uzodimma won the exercise with 230,464 votes against Mr Okorocha’s 1,098 votes.

INEC also maintained in its counter-affidavit that its officials monitored the election and reported Mr Uzodimma as the winner.

Mr Okorocha said he was confident that the facts supporting his case were strong enough to withstand further judicial review, although he acknowledged that the opposing parties retained the right to appeal.

He said he did not expect Mr Uzodimma to challenge the judgement, stressing that the evidence before the court was compelling.

Imo APC leadership dispute

Beyond the senatorial nomination, Mr Okorocha used the interview to challenge the political authority of those claiming control of the APC in Imo State.

He dismissed suggestions that influential party figures were mobilising against him, describing them as individuals appointed by Mr Uzodimma rather than leaders who emerged through recognised party congresses.

“There are no forces, these are what I call the PAs of Hope, that he could put together and say, take chairman,” he said.

He questioned whether the party had conducted congresses to establish the legitimacy of the structures being presented as opposition to him.

“Has there been any election? Was there any congress conducted? There was none,” he said.

Mr Okorocha also questioned the involvement of the Imo State Government in the legal dispute, explaining that the contest was between him and Mr Uzodimma as individuals rather than between two governments.

“What does Imo State Government have to do with the election between me and Hope Uzodimma as a person? It’s not Imo State Government contesting for election, it’s Hope Uzodimma,” he said.

He maintained that his political relationship with the people of Imo State would enable him to mobilise support for the APC and President Bola Tinubu ahead of the 2027 elections.

Uzodimma’s camp rejects judgement

However, the governor’s camp and the APC have rejected the judgement.

The Imo State Commissioner for Information, Declan Emelumba, described the decision as a travesty of justice and said the state government would approach the Court of Appeal to challenge it.

Mr Emelumba also argued that the judgement disregarded judicial precedents on the time limit for instituting pre-election cases and the procedure for presenting allegations of forgery.

Similarly, the APC in Imo State maintained that Mr Uzodimma remained its authentic candidate for the senatorial district, insisting that he won the party’s primary.

The party said its legal department would study the judgement and pursue available legal remedies.

The APC spokesperson, Jones Onwuasoanya, said the APC would determine its next course of action after reviewing the court’s decision.

PREMIUM TIMES contacted Oguike Nwachuku, the governor’s Chief Press Secretary, for Mr Uzodimma’s response to Mr Okorocha’s allegations concerning the primary documents, the party’s leadership structure and the possibility of an appeal.

Mr Nwachuku told our reporter he would respond to the allegation. But he had yet to do so as of the time of filing this report.

The dispute is the latest chapter in the longstanding political rivalry between the two men. Mr Okorocha governed Imo from 2011 to 2019 before becoming the senator for Imo West between 2019 and 2023.

Mr Uzodimma, who became governor in January 2020 following a Supreme Court judgement that overturned the result of the 2019 governorship election, is serving his second and final term, which ends in January 2028.