Dele Adedeji Esquire
The so many cases decided by the Court of Appeal on certificate forgery and what should be the true position of the law on Subpoenaed witnesses both in the past and recent time has shown that the Honorable Justices of the Appeal Court are desirous of preserving the sanctity of our judiciary.
Casting our mind back, the Court of Appeal in Gololo case faulted the trial tribunal’s decision which holds that even if the B.sc., MBA and NYSC discharge certificate of the 1st respondent presented to INEC were all forged, that he cannot be disqualified since he had the minimum qualification required by section 65 of the 1999 constitution. The appellate court held that the qualification of the 1st respondent under section 65 is subject to not being in breach of section 66 which makes presentation of forged certificate by a candidate a disqualifying factor, hence it is immaterial whether or not the 1st respondent possessed the requisite educational qualification under section 65.
On whether appellants actually proved beyond reasonable doubt that the B.sc, MBA, and National Youth Service Corp (NYSC) discharge certificate of the 1st respondent were all forged, the Court stated relying on the decision of Agi v. PDP (2016) that “The act of making a false document or altering a genuine one for same to be used is what forgery is.” According to the Court, this definition makes it clear that forgery takes two forms. Meaning that it could be the making of a false document, in which case there would be no genuine one to be tendered to make comparison. The other form of forgery is altering of a genuine document to be used as real. That it was incorrect to hold that to prove forgery, two set of documents, the forged one and genuine copy, must always be tendered as this would amount to asking the impossible.
According to the Court, the ‘best evidence’ to prove forgery of certificate is a report from the institution that purportedly issued it and that in this case, the appellants not only subpoenaed witnesses from the very institutions but also the witnesses additionally tendered certificates and certified true copies of documents issued by their institutions to support appellants’ contention that they, LASU and NYSC, did not issue the first respondent the certificates he presented to INEC.
In conclusion, the Court held that the appellants proved beyond reasonable doubt that the 1st respondent presented forged documents in the B.sc., MBA and NYSC discharge certificates he presented to INEC in 2014 and 2018 to contest the House of Representatives election for Gamawa Federal Constituency of Bauchi State in both 2015 and 2019 general elections and as such stood automatically disqualified to the said elections or even any elections in the future.
Having laid the above background of a fantastic judgement delivered by Appeal Court in the past concerning forgery and subpoenaed witnesses, it is good to note that the recent judgments delivered by same Court of Appeal on forgery where they have remained consistent in sacking culprits of the above offence should be seen as hope for our judiciary and such act of consistency should be commended.
Recently on issue of forgery and the subpoenaed witnesses against President Tinubu, I as a lawyer can make bold to say with due respect to the Justices of the Supreme Court that the judgments of the Appeal Court were more sound and logical than that of the Supreme Court. On the alleged certificate forgery against President Tinubu, The Appeal Court couldn’t say anything on certificate forgery because it was not part of any of the petitions before it, but on Subpoena, it made it clear that those invited by Atiku and Obi were at the time they filed their petitions members of their party where front loading the statement on oath of a willing witness applies in the principle of paragraph 4(5) of the second schedule of the electoral act of 2022. The panel went ahead to rule that those witnesses were neither official nor adversary witnesses hence they discountenance their testimony.
The celebration of Appeal Court’s consistency in sacking culprits of certificate forgery in Nigeria even with their latest victim from Katsina State, one Mr. Dalha Ismail of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) on Thursday this week by Honorable Justice Samuel Ademola Bola led panel is because Appeal Court by implication of their consistency on war against certificate forgery will at the end of the day rid our leadership space forgers and criminals.
This brings me to Enugu State case against the sitting governor. It is true that I am not from Enugu State neither do I have any personal interest with what goes on there but what Nigerians are clamoring for is a corrupt free judicial system where justice will not just be done but seen to be done. After reading the judgment of Justice Akano’s led panel in Enugu case, I almost shed tears of how our Judges have descended so low to give such ridiculous judgment! A judgment that even those who are not lawyers were pointing obvious flaws as to what may have transpired is an indictment of members of that panel. No wonder some writers and commentators described the Enugu guber judgment as a case-out judgment.
On Subpoenaed witnesses, the Justice Akano’s led panel dismissed their own witnesses who came to the Court on their order! Hear their reason; that the petitioners couldn’t front load the statement on oath of those subpoenaed witnesses while filing their petition relying on inapplicable statues and case laws. But the question is how does Justice Akano’s led panel arrived at a petitioner front loading a statement on oath of an official/adversary witnesses such as NYSC and INEC in the case in question? What logic says that a petitioner can do the impossible? How does Justice Akano’s led panel want the Labour Party and her candidate to force NYSC to give them their statement on oath even when the Court has not yet sat to issue the subpoena, or the other way round, think it possible that INEC without being compelled by the Court will just for the asking of the petitioners, give them their evidence on oath that the petitioners will use against them in Court, if not that Justice Akano and her members wanted the petitioners to do the impossible?
In law it is said “lex cogit ad impossblia”. The Court does not compel one to do the impossible. Meaning that the guber judgment in Enugu was below the bar but I am confident that the Appeal Court will do justice to such judicial rascality.
