*As lawyers, CSOs insist tribunal violated Constitution, Supreme Court precedents
*Insist section 182(1)(j) spells out consequences of forgery
By Daniel Tyokua
Nigerians have refused to accept as the correct position of law, the decision of the Enugu State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal which dismissed the forgery of the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) Discharge Certificate as non-issue.
A three-member panel of Judges led by Justice Kudirat Akano, had on September 21st, dismissed all the grounds of the petition filed by the Labour Party (LP) gubernatorial candidate in the state, Hon. Chijioke Edeoga, against the declaration of Peter Mbah of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), as winner by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The court had declared that the Director of Corps Certification of the NYSC and other officials who tendered documents and gave evidence during the hearing, should have front-leaded such evidences even though they were official witnesses brought to testify under subpoena of the court.
They court also contended that Peter Mbah, by attaching an NYSC Certificate which had been disclaimed by the NYSC (the issuing authority), to the forms submitted to the INEC, violated no law as he never intended to rely on such document for the election.
The court equally rejected the appeal for it to re-calculate the mathematical errors made in the scores of the LP and PDP candidates wrongly in favour of the PDP candidate, because the witnesses who tendered the polling unit results were not the polling agents that signed the results which were tendered.
Aside from these, the court rejected the depositions made by Edeoga asking it to reject the collated figures obtained outside the Bi-Mordal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS’s) certified reports in Nkanu-East Local Government Area and other places, where there were obvious over-voting.
Also speaking against the verdict was the CLO’s National President and Treasurer, Comrade Igho Akaregha and Halima Ibrahim, respectively, at a recent press conference in Abuja, who bemoaned what they dubbed the penchant by unpatriotic people to denigrate educational institutions, and the NYSC by tampering with their certificates without consequences.
They expressed worry that with the way forgery of educational certificates and NYSC Discharge or Excemption Certificates are being carried out, it is absurd for the judiciary to pend their voices to such, insisting that that NYSC Certificate becomes a sine qua none for a holder of HND and above to work or serve in any public capacity.
Equally, the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) and several other NGOs have time and again drawn attention to the recourse by politicians and few powerful Nigerians to unscruplusly forge certificates across the country.
They wondered why a youth should take pains to acquire an academic laurel and embark on the mandatory one-year NYSC programme if he can forge or outrightly such certificates without consequences.
Mr. Haruna Abubakar who claims to belong to the Charles Oputa’s our “Our Mumu Don Do” fame, also lent their voices against the gradual denigration of the NYSC and educational institutions by politicians and the courts, reminding them of the dire consequences.
On his part, a renowned legal practitioner, Barr. Chukwudi Ezike, said the tribunal’s judgment was made in total disregard to the constitution and precedencents set by the Supreme Court.
He described it as a travesty of justice, where the court decided in favour of someone who is in clear breach of the letters of section Section 182 (1)(j) of the Constitution, citing several Supreme Court judgment to buttress his arguments.
According to Barr. Ezike, “in the case of Agi vs PDP, the Supreme Court had defined forgery as bringing or presenting or attaching or submitting a document not made by the agency which is purported to have made such a document.
“In proof of this leg of the petition, Hon. Edeoga and the LP, called five witnesses which included a Director from the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) in-charge of Corps Certification and a Managing Partner of a law firm, who applied to the NYSC under the Freedom of Information Act, to verified the authenticity of the NYSC certificate which Peter Mbah, the governorship candidate of the PDP presented to INEC.
“The finding of the Tribunal that the said forged certificate NYSC Certificate No A808297 was not submitted in aid of the qualification of Mr. Mbah to contest election, is not what the law and the Supreme Court said.
“The other leg of the judgmet that NYSC ceerificate is not a requirement to contest governorship election or that both the forged and the original document must be presented before the court, is pure travesty of justice.
“The court was also wrong to hold that the said NYSC certificate having not been referred to in the Form EC9, affidavit of personal particulars, is therefore a merely attached document and shall be of no consequence to the qualification of the 2nd respondent, is a wrong legal finding”, he said.
Barr. Ezike added: “Section 177 of the constitution provides the qualification for the contest of the governorship election in Nigeria.
“Anybody who is qualified under section 177 can be disqualified under section 182(1) if he is culpable of (j), presented a forged certificate to the INEC”.
“Simplified, section 182 says that presentation of forged certificate by any candidate of any political party for the purpose of contest of governorship election in Nigeria will be disqualified, not withstanding that the person is qualified under section 177 of the constitution.
“The Supreme Court in the case of Ucha v. Onwe (2011) ALL FWLR (PT 580) 1227 @ 1295, (2011) 4 NWLR (PT 1237) 386 @ 427, which is similar to the Edeoga vs Mbah case, upheld the provision of Section 66(1) (h) of the 1999 Constitution as a disqualifying factor, and it says it all.
“Sub-paragraph (h) did not classify the type of forged certificate that can disqualify a candidate.
“The Tribunal therefore cannot be right in its finding that the NYSC Certificate is not envisaged in Section 66(1)(h) of the 1999 Constitution.
“Counsel and the Courts, as the Apex Court (Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC) admonished in Ojibah v. Ojibah (1991) 6 S.C. 182; (1991) 6 SCNJ 156, (1991) LPELR- SC. 128/1988, should avoid the temptation of relying on ‘the established legal jingles and catch-phrases’, without fully asking how well they fit into the particular facts of their cases”.
He added that the facts of the case of Oke V. Mimiko heavily relied by the tribunal to arrive at its decision that evidence of subpoenaed witness must accompany the petition is distinguishable with the facts of the case under review cannot stand on appeal.
Barr. Ezike said the next leg of the case which is that the result of the election in 20 polling units in Igbo-Eze North and Udenu Local Government Arears alleged to be wrongly computed in favour of the PDP and against the LP, the court should have analysed the figured entered in Forms EC8A and EC8B and calculations presented, rather than dismiss the testimony of ward collation agents as not being not fit to testify on the polling unit result because the witness did not sign the polling unit results.
“The introduction of BVAS in our electoral system, section 137 of the Electoral Act 2022, came to cure the requirement of oral evidence in proof of infraction of the Electoral Act, such as over voting and the rest.
“Also, Order 3 Rule 3 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules of the Federal High Court and Paragraph 4 (5) of the 1st Schedule to the Evidence Act are in all fours to serve the same purpose”.
