Legalpedia Citation: (2023-06) Legalpedia 11822 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

Fri Mar 24, 2023

Suit Number: CA/AK/EPT/GOV/04/2023

CORAM

Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu JCA

PARTIES

ADEGBOYEGA ISIAKA OYETOLA & ANOR

APPELLANTS

INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & ORS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ELECTION PETITION, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This is a Cross-appeal against part of the judgment of the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal found that the 2nd Cross-respondent had presented a forged certificate to the 1st Cross-respondent. Rather than hold that the 2nd Cross-respondent was not qualified to contest the Governorship Election of 16th July, 2022, the Tribunal held that the 2nd Cross-respondent was still qualified to contest the election.

Dissatisfied, Cross-appellants appealed to this Court through a notice of Cross-appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Ø  Whether the learned Tribunal was right when it held that exhibits 2R.RW6 and 2R.RW9 attached to Exhibit EC9 submitted by the 2nd Cross-respondent to the 1st Cross-respondent satisfied the requirements of Sections 177 and 318 of the 1999 Constitution, the Cross-appellants having failed to lead credible evidence to prove their allegation that the said exhibits 2R.RW6 and 2R.RW9 were forged and consequently held, that the 2nd respondent was duly qualified to contest the governorship election held on 16th July, 2022 for Osun State?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

FORGED DOCUMENT – WHERE THE COURT FINDS A PERSON HAS PRESENTED A FORGED DOCUMENT

The provision of Section 177 (1) of the 1999 Constitution provides that a person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a State if he is educated up to at least School Certificate or its equivalent.

However, by virtue of Section 182 (i) (j) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), no person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governorship of a State if he has presented a forged Certificate to INEC.

It is settled that where the Court finds that a person has presented a forged document, the only order to make, after determining that the information is false, is an order disqualifying the candidate from contesting the election. See IBEZIM v. ELEBEKE (2022) 4 NWLR 1 AT 39. – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JSC

FINDING OF FACTS – MEANING OF A FINDING OF FACTS BY A COURT OF LAW – A FINDING ON ALLEGATION OF FORGERY

The question then is, did the Cross-appellants as petitioners at the tribunal prove the allegation that the 2nd Cross-respondent presented forged document to INEC? An allegation that a party gives false information in his affidavit is firmly rooted in criminality which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is not enough to make such allegation. The party alleging must go further to lead credible evidence to prove such allegation. See ABUBAKAR v. INEC (2020) 12 NWLR (pt 1737) 37 AT 110. In the instant case, the Cross- appellants who alleged forgery were duty bound to prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt which they woefully failed to do.

The next germane issue is, whether the lower Tribunal rightly made a finding on the allegation of forgery against the 2nd Cross-respondent? A finding of fact by a Court of law is that result or inference arrived by a Judge after a careful collection; study and synthesizing of facts and evidence or otherwise in support of such facts as pleaded by the parties. See ARISONS TRADING CO. LTD v. MILITARY GOVERNOR OF OGUN STATE & ORS (2009) LPELR-554 (SC).

It was rightly posited that Section 177 (d) of the Constitution does not require that the person must obtain a school certificate but he should be educated up to school certificate level or its equivalent. Where as in this case, the 2nd Cross- respondent submitted his transcripts from two different Universities, the Tribunal must find that he satisfied the constitutional educational requirement to contest for governorship election. – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JSC

SPECIFIC PRONOUNCEMENT – WHEN THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS MADE A SPECIFIC PRONOUNCEMENT ON THE SAME DOCUMENT

In the present case, the cross-appellants having failed to prove forgery, the Tribunal had no basis of making any findings on the 2nd Cross-respondent’s qualification. This is even more compelling when the Court of Appeal had made a specific pronouncement on the same document. This Court’s decision in Exhibit 2RW2, Appeal No CA/A/362/2019 is a judgment in rem, which binds all persons and therefore relevant to any subsequent suit relating to the issue it decided. – Per M. L. Shuaibu, JSC

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT