By David Torough, Abuja


A renowned legal practitioner and constitutional expert,   Chukwudi Ezike, has stated that the judgment of the Enugu State Governorship Election Petitions Tribunal, which affirmed Peter Mbah as the duly elected governor, was made in total disregard of the constitution and precedents set by the Supreme Court.

He described  the judgment delivered on September 21as travesty of justice and gross abuse of the Constitution.
In a critical analysis  of the Tribunal’s verdict, Ezike submitted that ” a situation where the court decided in favour of someone, who is in clear violation of the letters of section Section 182 (1)(j) of the Constitution, is shockingly strange and below the table of justice”.
He cited  several Supreme Court decisions  to buttress his arguments.
In a statement in Abuja, made available to DAILY  ASSET, the legal luminary  said it was  equally wrong for the court to have held that a petitioner had to produce a certificate he did not make and equally faulted the tribunal for describing evidence of witnesses subpoenaed by the courts as incompetent, because the witness statements were not filed at the time the petition was first submitted to the court.
A three-member panel of judges headed by Justice Kudirat Akano, had on September 21, dismissed all the grounds of the petition filed by the Labour Party gubernatorial candidate in the state, Hon. Chijioke Edeoga, against the declaration of Mbah of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), as winner by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in the March 25, governorship election.
According to  Ezike, a Barrister -at- Law,  “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, petitioners at the Tribunal, 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 verify the authenticity of the NYSC certificate, which Peter Mbah, the governorship candidate of the PDP presented to INEC.
“The Tribunal at page 103 of the judgment summarised the evidences of the five witnesses of the petitioners thus:  “The testimony of the petitioners witnesses who testified in support of this ground that is PW1 (the NYSC Director, Corps Certification), PW2 (Mrs. Mary Nneoma Elijah, the lawyer who wrote to the NYSC to verify the alleged certificate), PW3, Pw4, Pw26 and Pw30, to the effect that the 2nd respondent’s (Mbah’s) NYSC Certificate No A808297, is forged, as same was not issued to him by the issuing authority, that is NYSC, on the ground that he did not complete the mandatory one year programme.
“The finding of the Tribunal that the said forged certificate was not submitted in aid of the qualification of Mr. Mbah to contest election, is not what the law and the Supreme Court say.
“The other leg of the judgmet that NYSC certificate 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.
Ezike  also said that “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 as stated in subsection (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”, Ezike explained.
He said that a candidate who approached the court under such a ground could not be deemed to be pursuing a pre-election issue for two reasons that only candidates, not aspirants, contest elections and so, they would only have issues to contest when they submit to INEC a forged certificate for an electoral contest.
“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 upon  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 and cannot stand on appeal.
The seasoned  Lawyer 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 figures entered in Forms EC8A and EC8B and calculations presented, rather than dismiss the testimony of Ward Collation Agents as not being fit to testify on the polling unit result because the witness did not sign polling unit results.
“The decision of the Tribunal rejecting the evidence of the rest of  the witnesses called to prove the miscalculation of results in the rest of the polling units and the document tendered through them is a violation of Section 60 of the Electoral Act   and paragraph 50 of the INEC Regulation and Guideline for the conduct of election issued in 2022. 
“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,” he stated.





Tribunal Judgment sets up NYSC for destruction

The constitutional lawyer also raised the alarm that the Tribunal verdict,  has set up the NYSC  for public ridicule and possible destruction.
” A situation people who forge NYSC Certificate are allowed to go scot free negates the very essence of NYSC as it undermines the integrity of the Federal Agency” he stated.
He wondered why there would be no sanction for a clear case of forgery with documentary evidence as proof.
He referred to Arise News  Television appearance of the Director  General, Brigadier General  Yusha’u Dogara Ahmed, who clearly disowned  Mbah’s NYSC Certificate as further evidence that the certificate in Mbah’s possession was forged.
“They came to us for verification and we told them this certificate is not from us. I was very clear and frank to him that this certificate is not from us,” he said in the Arise TV interview, a clip of which DAILY ASSET accessed from YouTube

 
Ezike said he was hopeful that based on the serious  legal deficits of the Tribunal verdict, it would not stand  the test of time.