Enugu for Good Governance

Enugu for Good Governance An interactive platform for citizen engagement, suport and promotion of good Governance.

7TH JULY 2023-UPDATE ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF ENUGU STATE GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION PETITION TRIBUNALDay 1 of the Trial: Ground...
07/08/2023

7TH JULY 2023-UPDATE ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF ENUGU STATE GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION PETITION TRIBUNAL

Day 1 of the Trial:
Ground One of Chijioke Edeoga 's Petition done and dusted,now awaiting for judgment.

At the resumed hearing of the governorship election petition tribunal sitting in Enugu, Chijioke Edeoga and Labour Party presented two star witnesses namely the Director Corps Certification of the NYSC and one Nneoma Elijah of Omas & Partners as PW1 and PW2 respectively who give oral and direct evidence in proof of Ground one the Petition bordering on presentation of forged NYSC Certificate to INEC by Peter Mbah.

PW1- The Director Corps Certification who appeared before the Tribunal in obedience and compliance with the Subpoena Duces Tecum et ad Testificandum tendered the NYSC letter disclaiming Mbah’s purported NYSC Discharge certificate dated 6th January, 2003 and told the Tribunal that the certificate being paraded by Mbah did not emanate from the NYSC. The witness further told the Tribunal that Mbah was mobilised to serve but he did not complete his service which was supposed to end by September 2003 and his discharge certificate would have fallen under serial No."6" series given to his batch/ tier and not "8" series . The evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged and uncontroverted by the Respondents counsel as the witness was neither cross examined at all on the disclaimer letter nor confronted with any documents by Mbah’s lawyer emanating from the NYSC to disprove the assertions made by the witness.

Also PW2 - Omas & Partners testified before the tribunal in obedience to the subpoena issued to them to the effect that they wrote letter to the INEC sometime in October 2022 requesting for the CTC of the documents submitted by Peter Mbah to the INEC and in response,INEC furnished them with Mbah’s INEC Form EC 9( Affidavit of personal particulars with the accompanying documents) including Mbah’s purported NYSC discharge certificate. Omas and Partners tendered the said form EC 9 of Peter Mbah in evidence and it was duly admitted.
PW2 also tendered in evidence their letter of 23rd November 2022 addressed to the DG NYSC requesting for the confirmation of Mbah’s NYSC discharge Certificate with Now A808297 submitted to the INEC; and the NYSC reply letter dated 1st February 2023 disclaiming Mbah’s NYSC discharge Certificate which clearly stated the certificate with No. A808297 belonging to Mbah Peter Ndubuisi did not emanate from the NYSC.

Omas & Partners also told the Tribunal that she was aware that by July 2003, Peter Mbah was serving as Chief of Staff to the then Governor of Enugu State, Dr. Chimaroke Nnamani, the same period he claimed to be serving in Lagos as a corps member in Udeh & Associates. The witness tendered in evidence Mbah’s letter of appointment as Chief of Staff dated July 14,2003 and it was duly admitted.

The Respondents counsel did not cross examine the witness on the document she tendered to contradict her or disprove that Mbah’s was not serving as Chief of Staff as at July 2003.

The Petitioners lead Counsel Asiwaju Adegboyega Awomolo,SAN further tendered the following documents from the bar:
i. The 1st Petitioner’s Nomination Form,
summary of results ( INEC form EC 8E), final declaration of result ( INEC Form EC 8D), LGAs collation result(Form EC 8Cs) and INEC Form EC 8As and EC 8Bs ( polling units and ward collation results) in Udenu LGA .

Matter was thereafter adjourned to the 11th July 2023 for continuation of trial.
justice prevail!!!!

06/17/2023

Enugu State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal to deliver Judgment on the application for dismissal of the Petition filed by Uchenna Nnaji of APC against Peter Mbah & 6 Others in Petition No. EPT/EN/GOV/05/2023 on Tuesday 22/6/2023.

The Respondents to the Petition on Saturday 17/6/23 had argued before the Tribunal that Petitioners ( Uchenna Nwakaibeya & APC) have abandoned their Petition having failed to apply for the issuance of pre-hearing information sheet as in Form T007 within seven days after the close of pleadings on the 8/06/23 as required under Paragraph 18(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2022. The Petitioners who served the 3rd & 4th Respondents ( Chijioke Edeoga & Labour Party) with their Reply on the 8/6/23 failed to apply for issuance of Pre-hearing Information Sheet ( Form T007) pursuant to paragraph 18(1) of the schedule.

Under paragraph 18(4) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, where the Petitioner and Respondent fail to bring an application in accordance with subparagraph (1) ,the Tribunal or court shall DISMISS the petition as abandoned petition and no application for extension of time to take that step shall be filed or entertained .

And pursuant to Paragraph 18(5), dismissal of a Petition under sub-paragphs (3) and (4) is final and the Tribunal or Court shall be functus officio.

Judgment on the application to dismiss the petition on the ground of abandonment will be delivered on 22/6/2023.

06/12/2023

Nnamdi Azikiwe Stadium, Ogui Nike Enugu.

06/12/2023

What is legally wrong in naming a private owned university established by Sam Maduka Onyishi- "Maduka University Ekwegbe-Nsukka"?

To the best of my knowledge, Sam Onyishi has not contravene any known law particularly NUC Act and Regulations.
For those asking Ekwegbe community to approach the court,my question is : on what basis? Did the management of the institution breach any agreement they entered into with the community?

I consider those calling for Sam Onyishi's head for adding " Nsukka" to the name of the institution as nothing but busy-bodies and properly described as meddlesome interlopers.

Leave Sam Onyishi. If you are aggrieved,go and establish your own school.

PETER MBAH AND THE BATTLE AGAINST NYSC BY OBIAJULU NNOKA.The National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) established via Nationa...
06/12/2023

PETER MBAH AND THE BATTLE AGAINST NYSC

BY OBIAJULU NNOKA.

The National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) established via National Youth Service Corps Act (No. 24 of 1973) marked its 50th anniversary this year. It is without a doubt one of the few institutions in Nigeria that have survived the ‘Nigerian Factor’. Most Nigerians are agreed that the scheme has continued to be relevant in line with its founding principles and philosophy.

However, very unfortunately, this programme lately has come under heavy flashlight as a result of the activities of a few mindless politicians. In response to enquiries by interest groups to the NYSC over the authenticity of the discharge certificate submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission, by Peter Mbah, the newly inaugurated Governor of Enugu State, the NYSC has always maintained that the discharge certificate Peter Mbah is parading was not issued by it.

Peter Mbah had early in 2023, in a suspicious legal blitz filed an action against an individual whom he claims accused him of forging his discharge certificate. In a record four months, the FCT. High Court found the defendant guilty of wrongful accusation.The objective of this pre-meditated action is to set the cases up as Res Judicata at the election Petition Tribunal when as now, the matter is before the Tribunal. That has indeed been pleaded as part of the defendant’s case.

A very troubling part of this development is the recent action by Peter Mbah against the Corps itself, which is nothing but a brazen attempt to whittle down the integrity of the NYSC and its management. It is bizarre to confront an institution of the size and integrity of the NYSC with a forged document with the intention of intimidating it to accept such as authentic simply because the culprit has put himself on a collision course with the law. Instead of accepting the reality of the end of the road, Mbah will rather bring an action in court which original intention was to gag the Corps from making further embarrassing remarks about his forged document and particularly giving evidence before the Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Enugu. Very unfortunately for him, the court could not give such an order which effect would have been to shut out the truth. Indeed, that action has had the salutary effect of the NYSC ventilating details of Mbah’s criminal gambit and the extent he went to procure his forged certificate.

In a deposition by an Assistant Director in the Corps Certification Department, several indicting revelations were made by the NYSC. Documents submitted to the court to prove that Mbah submitted a forged discharge certificate to INEC include the alleged false certificate Mbah submitted to INEC, a photocopy of the original certificate that was to be issued to Mbah, a date sheet showing where discharged corps members signed for their certificates, official circulars authorizing the destruction of unclaimed certificates, photographs of incineration of the unclaimed discharge certificates, samples of NYSC discharge certificates during the period Mbah was supposed to have performed the service, Police and DSS letters of investigation etc. No deposition could have been more elaborate, indicting and convincing.

The plot by Mbah to set up a plea of Res Judicata at the Election Petition tribunal will fail because the plea of Res Judicata is legally founded on the basis that a previous judgement of a Court of competent jurisdiction had decided to finality the issues of law and facts raised by the Plaintiff in the present suit.

In this regard therefore, four basic ingredients must exist for a plaintiff to successfully plead it.1, The parties (or their privies as the case may be) are the same in the present case as in the previous case. 2., The issue and subject matter are the same in the previous suit as in the present suit. 3., That the adjudication in the previous case must have been given by a Court of competent jurisdiction. 4., That the previous decision must have finally decided the issues between the parties.

The very first ingredient is decidedly fatal to Peter Mbah’s plea because the Defendant in the suite he instituted in the FCT. High Court is obviously not Chijioke Edeoga. This is crucial because Res Judicata is based on the principle that there must be a limit to litigation. It will amount to abuse of the judicial process to allow individuals to re-litigate matters that have been concluded. However, once the parties are not the same, Res Judicata will not avail the person pleading it.

The second ingredient which is that the issue and subject matter are the same in the previous issue as in the present suit is also fatal to Peter Mbah’s case. The previous issue is a civil action based on balance of probabilities, while the present issue is anchored on crime which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. So the standards of proof are not the same.

The third issue is that the Court must be properly seized with jurisdiction and competence. It is doubtful if the FCT. High Court, by virtue of Section 251 of the 1999 as amended) which denies a state High Court jurisdiction to entertain a matter against the Federal Government or its agencies is seised with jurisdiction. Even the fourth ingredient still does not help Peter Mbah because it requires that the previous decision must have finally decided the issues between the parties.

The decision of the FCT. High Court could not have finally decided the issues between Peter Mbah and the defendant to the action he instituted in the FCT. High Court because NYSC was not subpoenaed to give evidence in the case. The position of the Supreme Court has been that the best evidence in case of forgery is a report by the supposed issuing authority. A pronouncement by the issuing authority is final because the law is not Juju. As the reader is already aware the NYSC Director General came on Arise Television to say categorically that the certificate which Peter Mbah submitted to INEC was not issued by the NYSC.

Mbah’s lawyers, in advancement of the Res Judicata gambit which I have shown cannot stand legal scrutiny have moved to stop the NYSC from coming to give evidence at the Tribunal. Their counsel has informed the Tribunal that the FCT High Court has ruled on the substance of the case before them. In effect, they are asking the tribunal not to enter the issue of certificate forgery at all. But they are confronted by a constitutional roadblock. Section 285(8) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that: Where a preliminary objection or any other interlocutory issue touching on the jurisdiction of the tribunal or court in any pre-election matter or the competence of a petition itself is raised by a party, the tribunal or court shall suspend its ruling and deliver it at the stage of final judgement.

This section of the Constitution was interpreted by the Supreme Court in APP vs. Obaseki where his Lordship Ogunwumiji, JSC, said that: ‘’By section 285(8) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), every ruling that is capable of terminating an election petition in limine be it a preliminary objection or an interlocutory issue touching on the jurisdiction or competence of the court must be deferred or suspended until the final judgement when both will be rendered together.

The provision of section 285 (as amended) of the 1999 Constitution is mandatory, as the word ‘’shall’’ used therein leaves no room for discretion. The mischief sought to be cured by the section is simply to prohibit the tribunal or court of first instance in election matters from truncating an election petition in limine based on any preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the tribunal or court on the competence of the petition.

It has also been erroneously argued that the issue of qualification of a candidate is solely a pre-election matter. There are two categories of pre-election matters, the one is pre-election matters as provided for by the Constitution, while the other is pre-election matters as provided for in the Electoral Act 2022.

For the provision of section 285(14) (c) of CFRN, it would appear that locus standi to file a pre-election petition thereunder is not for aspirants but for political parties that are aggrieved by the actions of INEC. It gives room for political parties to challenge actions, decisions or activities of INEC in respect of nominations of candidates for an election, the timetable for an election, registration of voters and other activities in respect of preparation for an election. This is the window for political parties to challenge the nomination of candidates of another party.

The second category under sections 29(5) and 84(14) of the Electoral Act 2022 confers locus standi on aspirants only.

The true position is that the qualification of a candidate is both a pre and post-election issue.

Section 66 (1) (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended states that anybody who submits a forged document to INEC stands disqualified. Section 134 (1) (a) of the Electoral Act 2022 instructively dropped down the provision of Section 66 (1) (1) of the CFRN by providing in their grounds for petition that ‘’An election may be questioned on any of the following grounds: ‘’ a person whose election is questioned was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election. This provision of the Electoral Act 2022 was emphatic that for an allegation of presentation of false information in the affidavit submitted to INEC to succeed against any candidate in electoral matters, it must relate to the constitutional requirements.

In the same way, section 134(1)(a) of the Electoral Act allows the opponents of any candidate to challenge the victory of the candidate after the general elections on the ground that the candidate was as at the time of the election not qualified to contest the election.

The Supreme Court has held in a number of cases that ‘no law, legislation, be it regulation or guidelines of whatever nature can come into effect to undermine a constitutional provision’. In other words, no one can be disqualified on any ground except on the ground that the person did not meet the constitutional requirements to contest the election.’

The Supreme Court further in Saleh v. Abah & Ors held that ‘the intention of the Constitution is that anyone who had presented a forged certificate to INEC should stand automatically disqualified…No decent system or polity should condone, or through judicial policy and decisions, encourage the dangerous culture of forging certificates with impunity to seek electoral contests’.

’’This court must take the lead, righting the wrong in our society if and when the opportunity presents itself as in this appeal.’’ ‘’Allowing criminality and certificate forgery to continue to percolate into the streams, waters and oceans of our national polity, will only mean that our waters are and will remain dangerously contaminated.’’ ‘’The purification efforts must start now and be sustained as we seek, as a nation, to now change from our old culture of reckless impunity.

The basis of this provision is to ensure that only individuals who are of impeccable moral fiber assume offices. The forging of documents as a crime strikes at the moral constitution of the individual and therefore is not acceptable to the Constitution. Indeed, our country is on its knees today because of the activities of criminals who have pervaded all levels of government.

It therefore could be deduced that an individual who could forge a document to deceive his country and deprive same of token post-graduation service is not fit to be elected into any office, let alone the high office of the governor of a state.

Maduka University, Ekwegbe, Nsukka receives licence to operate as a Private University.The Institution is owned by an Ns...
06/10/2023

Maduka University, Ekwegbe, Nsukka receives licence to operate as a Private University.

The Institution is owned by an Nsukka billionaire and CEO of Peace Mass Transit Ltd - Dr. Samuel Maduka Onyishi, MON .

Congratulations!

06/10/2023

Interesting to Watch: Mr. Peter Obi brought TV to the Tribunal

06/09/2023

EDEOGA VS. INEC& 2 ORS

UPDATE :PROCEEDINGS OF WEDNESDAY 7TH JUNE,2023

The Enugu State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Enugu today delivered ruling on the Motions filed by the 2nd Respondent ( Peter Mbah) in which he urged the Tribunal to strike out the Petitioners Reply to his Reply or in alternative strike out some paragraphs of the Petitioners Reply to his Reply; and still in the alternative grant him leave to respond to the purported new issues raised by the Petitioners in their Reply .

In the ruling, the Honourable Tribunal refused to strike out the Petitioners' Reply to 2nd Respondent’s Reply and or /strike out some paragraphs of the Petitioners' Reply. Rather, the Tribunal acceded to their alternative Relief to file a Reply to the so called new issues raised by the Petitioners.

Those paragraphs in contention and the purported new facts/issues are not relevant to any of the grounds of the Petition.

With respect to the Motion to strike out the Petition or ground one of the Petition touching on Mbah’s presentation of forged NYSC Certificate to INEC, the Tribunal reserved ruling till the time of delivery of final judgment, this is a victory for the Petitioners. This means that the issue of presentation of forged NYSC certificate to INEC by Mbah will be soon be decided by Tribunal.

Thirdly, on the issue of when Pre-hearing commenced, the Tribunal held, after extensive arguments, that since the first Relief under the Motion ruled upon was for leave to move the said Motion outside of the Pre-Hearing session and the Petitioners did not object; and since it had ordered a further Reply to be filed, pre-hearing was yet to commence.

Consequently, the matter was adjourned to 13/6/2023 for Pre-hearing pursuant to paragraph 18 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022.

Let justice prevail!

Address

San Francisco, CA

Telephone

08063381903

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Enugu for Good Governance posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Videos

Share