The 2nd respondent won the nomination to contest the governorship election in Bayelsa State on the platform of the APC and had as his running mate, the 1st respondent. Their names and particulars were duly forwarded to INEC along with the INEC form CF001.
The appellants using the provisions of Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act went to the Federal High Court, claiming that the information contained in the said Form CFOO1 was false. They sought to disqualify the 1st respondent and by extension, the 2nd respondent, from contesting the election.
The trial Federal High Court (I. E. Ekwo J.) agreed with the appellants that in his Form CF001 presented to INEC, the 1st respondent gave false information thereby to INEC. It therefore invoked Section 31(6) of the Electoral Act and disqualified 1st respondent (and consequentially the 2nd respondent) from contesting the governorship election in Bayelsa State. The trial Court at pages 574 - 578 held inter alia that:
-
1
The affidavit of correction and confirmation of name of 9 August 2018 was a fraudulent attempt to correct the name on the First School Leaving Certificate issued in 1976 and the WAEC/GCE Certificate issued in 1984.
-
2
The only authority competent to correct anything on those certificates was the authority that issued either certificate and that the affidavit of correction and confirmation of name does not in his opinion, conform to the proper manner of changing name or correcting a name on a certificate, and that it is only be deed poll, and not by mere deposition that a name on an official certificate can be effected and further that the procedure necessarily affects official record and archives of the nation. That it is after the deed poll that the deponent approaches the Nigerian Civil Registry to have the change published in the official gazette. None of these procedures had been done by the 1st respondent.
On the affidavit of regularisation of name deposed to on 18 September 2010 before another notary public, the trial Court found at page 575, that the notary public is not verifiably identified. His name was not stated on the affidavit and that the affidavit (at page 576) was invalid and fraudulent. The learned trial judge further found that the 1st respondent having not approached the lawful authorities that issued the First Leaving Certificate in 1976 and WAEC that issued the 1984 GCE certificate to the 1st respondent, brandishing certificates that do not carry his name and using affidavits to assert his ownership of the certificate does so in error and fraudulently. He held that the affidavits were bereft of any probative value.
The learned trial judge at page 578, held that there was no nexus between the name of the 1st respondent on his Form CF001 and the various certificates (including the first degree certificate from Rivers State University of Science and Technology, NYSC Exemption Certificate of 2 October 1990, the award of Masters in Business Administration (MBA) Degree dated 14 February 2002; and that the 1st respondents name in Form CF001 is not the same name on the statutory declaration of age of 1 July 1990.
On 12 November 2019, the trial Court delivered its final judgment wherein included its decision overruling the preliminary objection that:
-
i
the suit disclosed no reasonable cause of action
-
ii
the suit should not be heard on originating summons since the various affidavits exchanged are seriously in conflict on the allegations that in the INEC Form CF001 the 1st respondent through his sponsoring party, APC (the 3rd respondent herein) presented false information about his name vis-a-vis the various certificate attached thereto.
The APC along with the 1st and 2nd respondents filed separate notices of appeal to the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal. It held that
-
1
the suit disclosed no reasonable cause of action
-
2
The resolution of one notice of preliminary objection by one party which in substance was the same as the notice of preliminary objection raised by another without advertising to the other tantamounts to denial of fair hearing to the party who raised the other notice of preliminary objection.
The same issue against the party in the same suit would operate as issue estoppel against the other party objectors in the same suit on the same issue).
-
3
The originating process procedure adopted by the trial Court was not appropriate for the instant suit since the facts in the supporting affidavits and the counter-affidavits "are in dispute and/or likely to be hostile)". (The lower Court did not however transfer the suit to the general cause list to be heard on pleadings and evidence).
-
4
That the allegation that the 1st respondent presented false information to INEC (4th respondent) in his Form CF001, duly vouched and verified on oath, "is essentially an allegation of crime (of perjury) which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt" and it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
This further appeal is against the said judgment of the lower Court delivered on 23 December 2019.
Whether the lower Court was wrong in holding that the appellants did not...
Read More
