Alleged Forgery: Court Accepts Gov. Obaseki’s Nomination Form In Evidence

12 min read 2,364 words 3 views

*Dismisses suit against Ize-Iyamu

The trial in the alleged certificate forgery case against Edo
State Governor, Godwin Obaseki resumed on Tuesday with the
tendering of the Governor’s nomination form submitted for the
purpose of the September 19 disputed governorship election by the
Independent Electoral Commission (INEC).

The development came as the court in a separate judgment,
dismissed the suit filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)
seeking to disqualify the candidate of the All Progressive Congress
(APC), Pastor Osaze Ize- Iyamu from participating in the Edo State
governorship election.

Justice Ahmed Mohammed in his judgment held that the suit had
turned to an academic exercise since the crux of the action was to
stop Ize-Iyamu from participating in the election that had since
been held and won by the PDP and its candidate, Obaseki.

PDP had in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/ CS/69/20, contended that
Ize-Iyamu was not a product of a valid primary election.

It told the court that the indirect primary election that
produced Ize-Iyamu was conducted by the Adams Oshiomhole- led
executives of the APC, at a time they were already sacked by a High
Court of the Federal Capital Territory, with the decision affirmed
by the Court of Appeal.

In the case against Obaseki, Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Abuja
division of the Federal High Court who is adjudicating over the
matter admitted the said nomination form (Form EC9) in evidence and
marked it along with other documents attached to it as exhibit
PL-2.

Before that, the court had dismissed the objections raised
against the admissibility of the documents by the Peoples
Democratic Party (PDP).

The INEC was summoned through a subpoena issued by the court on
December 23, 2020, to produce and tender the said documents before
the court.

The suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/74/2020 filed jointly by the APC with
one of its members in Edo, Mr Williams Edobor, alleged that Obaseki
forged the University of Ibadan degree certificate he submitted to
INEC in aid of his qualification for the election.

Besides the litigants further alleged that there were
discrepancies in the subjects that Obaseki claimed he passed in his
West African Examination Council (WAEC) exam and subjects in his
testimonial.

They are urging the court to declare that Obaseki’s claim in his
INEC form EC9 at column C, sworn to on June 29, 2020, at the
Federal Capital Territory High Court Registry to the effect that he
obtained from the University of Ibadan in 1979, a Bachelor of Arts
Degree in Classical Studies is false and contrary to Section 31 (5)
and (6) of the Electoral Act, 2010.

Furthermore, they are equally pressing for an order declaring
that Obaseki lied on oath when he swore to an affidavit on June 29,
2020, that he worked in Afrinvest Limited from 1994 to 2014 when he
retired.

When the trial resumed on Tuesday, the electoral body acting on
a subpoena that was issued against it produced a Certified True
Copy, (CTC), of Obaseki’s nomination form, through one of its legal
officers, Mr Samuel Omale.
However there was contention from counsel to Obaseki

Mr Ken Mozia (SAN) and that of the PDP, Isenalohme Razaq, who
argued that Omale who appeared as the second Prosecution witness in
the case (PW-2), lacked the capacity to tender the document in
evidence.

The two defence lawyers argued that under the rules of the
court, the INEC official was not supposed to be sworn on oath
before the court since he was merely subpoenaed to produce
documents and not to tender them as a witness in the matter.

Specifically, it was the argument of Mozia that the PW-2 did not
file a written witness deposition as required by Order 20 Rule 3 of
the Federal High Court Rules, adding that the documents were not
duly certified as prescribed by the Evidence Act.

“My lord, ex-facia from the document, there is no proof of
payment as mandatorily required by section 104 (1) of the Evidence
Act”, he added.

Razaq on his part, argued that the Exhibit sought to be tendered
was a computer-generated document that was downloaded from INEC’s
website, contending that it did meet the requirement of section 84
of the Evidence Act.

He said since it was computer-generated, there ought to have
been a certificate that was attached to it.

Counsel to INEC, Mr M. A. Bawa, did not opposed to the
admissibility of the document.

Responding, counsel to the Plaintiffs, Chief Akin Olujimi, SAN,
urged the court to dismiss the objections.

“I agree that when a witness is subpoenaed to produce a document
pursuant to section 219 of the Evidence Act, that such a person
does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produced the
document and cannot be cross-examined, unless and until he is
called as a witness.

“However, the mere fact that a witness was sworn on oath in
error does not derogate from the fact that he was merely subpoenaed
to produce a document and cannot be subjected to a
cross-examination”, Olujimi submitted.

The Plaintiffs’ counsel said in the interest of justice, he
would not object to the court allowing the Defendants to
cross-examine the PW-2, stressing that the document INEC was
subpoenaed to produce, was already pleaded by all the parties in
the matter.

“There is no element of surprise here because both the
Plaintiff, the 1st and 2nd Defendants are also seeking to rely on
this same document.

“This is an official document in the custody of the 3rd
Defendant (INEC), to whom it was submitted to by the 1st
Defendant.

“INEC is the 3rd Defendant in this case. There is no way I can
ask an adverse party to come and make a statement on oath. The only
way to bring him before your lordship is by an order compelling him
to appear before this court”, he added.

He equally denied that the document was downloaded from a
website.

In his ruling, Justice Mohammed noted that though the PW-2 was
not supposed to be sworn on oath, he held that the document sought
to be tendered was “very relevant and should not be rejected on the
ground that there was an error in the manner it was produced by the
witness”.

Justice Mohammed held that since a substantial part of the suit
centred on the Form EC9, it made the document very relevant.

“In fact, without the Form EC9, this case will collapse like a
pack of cards”, the Judge held, adding that the Defendants were at
liberty to cross-examine the witness.

While under cross-examination, the PW-2, told the court that in
line with COVID-19 protocols, the Form EC9 was published online for
candidates to download, fill and upload on INEC’s website.

Asked if the copy he tendered before the court was downloaded
from the website, the witness said: “This is a copy from the file
that we have it in our custody. It is also part of what the 2nd
Defendant filled and submitted online”.