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)
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
The law is that where a document was used as an intermediate step in the scheme of fraud in which the accused is involved, if it shown that such a document, was false and was presented or uttered by an accused person in order to gain an advantage, an irresistible inference exists that either the accused forged the document with his own hand or procured someone to commit the forgery. It is therefore immaterial who actually forged a document so long as an accused person is a party to the forgery.
— 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
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
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
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry