Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

FORGED CERTIFICATE IS WHEN CERTIFICATE IS NOT TRUE

Dictum

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

FORGED CERTIFICATE – HAS THE CANDIDATE PRESENTED A CERTIFICATE WHICH DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM?

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

Was this dictum helpful?

HOW TO PROVE FALSIFICATION OF AN ELECTION RESULT

In order to establish falsification of election result, the Petitioner must produce in evidence two sets of results; one genuine and the other false. See: KAKIH v PDP & ORS (2014) LPELR-23277(SC) at pages 51-52, paras. C-C; and NWOBODO v ONOH (1984) LPELR-2120(SC). Indeed, in ADEWALE v OLAIFA (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1330) 478 at 516, this Court held that: “To prove falsification of results of an election, two sets of results one genuine and the other false must be put in evidence by the party making the accusation. After putting in evidence the two sets of results, a witness or witnesses conversant with the entries made in the result sheets must be called by the party making the accusation of falsification or forgery of results of the election to prove from the electoral documents containing the results of the election how the results of the election were falsified or made up.”

— H.S. Tsammani, JCA. Peter Obi & Anor. v INEC & Ors. (2023) – CA/PEPC/03/2023

Was this dictum helpful?

FORGERY MUST BE STRICTLY PROVED

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

INGREDIENTS THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE IN ESTABLISHING THE OFFENCE OF FORGERY

In order to prove or establish the commission of the offence of forgery, the following must be proved by cogent and reliable evidence:
a. (i) That the accused made, signed, sealed or executed the document in question or any part thereof; or (ii) That it was made by someone else;
b. That it was made under the circumstances stated in section 363;
c. That the accused mad it dishonestly or fraudulently or with intent that fraud may be committed;
d. That the seal, plate or other instrument was capable of being used for committing forgery;
e. That the accused made or counterfeited it or had it in his possession;
f. That he did as in (b) with the intent that it should be used for committing forgery, or in the case of possession, he knew the same to be counterfeit.

– PER I.S. BDLIYA, J.C.A. Barma v. State (2022) – CA/G/119c/2021

Was this dictum helpful?

TO PROVE FORGERY

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

Was this dictum helpful?

THOSE WHO WILL BE CHARGED FOR FORGERY – PARTICIPLES CRIMINIS

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.”

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.