If any fact vouched to be true turns out to be false, particularly deliberately false, then in my view the 1st respondent has presented to INEC a forged or false certificate: Dide v. Seleketimibi. — E. Eko JSC. PDP V. Biobarakumo Degi-Eremionyo (SC.1/2020, 13 Feb 2020)
SHARE ON
It is trite law that forgery is a very serious imputation and needs to be pleaded with particularity and proved strictly. – NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C. Finnih v. Imade (1992)
Indeed, to establish the offence of uttering, the prosecution must prove that (a) the document/writing was false; and (b) the false document was knowingly and fraudulently uttered.
— J.H. Sankey, JCA. Brila Energy Ltd. v. FRN (2018) – CA/L/658CA/2017
It is trite that to prove forgery two documents must be produced that is (1) the document from with the forgery was made and (2) the forged document. In this petition apart from the Exhibits tendered through the subpoenaed witnesses no other document was produced by the Petitioners.
— K.M. Akano, J. Edeoga v Mbah (2023) – EPT/EN/GOV/01/2023
The word forgery is defined as an act of fraudulent making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine. However, in ATUCHUKWU V. ADINDU (2011) LPELR – 3821 (CA), OGUNWUMIJU, JCA (as he then was) drew a distinction between grammatical and criminal forgery and held that the mere speculative observation of the respondent and her witness given flesh by the reasoning of the trial Judge cannot be substituted for conclusive and hard evidence of criminal forgery which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the case put forward before the trial Court deserved to be meticulously and reflectively analyzed in order to determine whether such a party has set out to establish the commission of a crime by anybody as would impose on him the necessity to establish a case of forgery beyond reasonable doubt. Now, looking at the circumstances of this case, it was not the case of the 1st and 2nd respondents that any named person had forged Exhibit 1. An examination of paragraph 4 of the statement of defence of 1st and 2nd defendants as well as paragraph 4 of the statement of oath of Chief Elias Ezenagu who testified as DW2 vis-a-vis Section 138 of the Evidence Act shows that the allegation of forgery was not made specifically to a party or against a party. Therefore, the case made by the 1st and 2nd respondents is not one of criminal forgery but that Exhibit 1 was a useless document on account that same was neither signed by the mortgagor nor the mortgagee.
— M.L. Shuaibu, JCA. FBN v Benlion (2021) – CA/C/31/2016
In Agwuna V AG Federation (1995) 5 NWLR (Pt.396) 418, the Supreme Court per Iguh, JSC held as follows – “It is certainly not the law that it is only the person who manually writes or signs a forged document that may be convicted for forgery of the document. The position of the law is that all persons who are, participles criminis whether as principals in the first degree or as accessories before of after the fact to a crime are guilty of the offence and may be charged and convicted with [the] actual commission of the crime.”
If a person is alleged to have forged his certificate or qualifications or had made false statement to INEC, it must relate to whether he has presented certificates belonging to any other person, dead or alive, which does not belong to him or that he has arrogated to himself qualifications which he does not possess to make him qualified for the office he seek or had presented names that does not belong to him but to another person or that he has lied to the umpire, INEC, on matters in aid of his qualification and above all his intention the mens rea, must be that he had answered names not belonging to him but to another person or had forged his qualifications or age or made false statements in respect of the requirements of the law for purposes that the falsifications should be acted upon by INEC.
– B.A. Georgewill, JCA. Ganiyu v. Oshoakpemhe & Ors. (2021) – CA/B/12A/2021
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry