HOW THE NYSC CERTIFICATE FORGERY AGAINST GOVERNOR MBAH WAS ADJUDGED BY THE HONOURABLE GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION PETITION TRIBUNAL (ENUGU STATE) ?

by Branham Chima.

Distillable, the decision of the tribunal on the alleged forged NYSC certificate is premised on two standpoints, videlicet:
i. NYSC certificate is not a requirement for qualification;
ii. The NYSC certificate was not presented in aid of his qualification.

These shall be shortly considered. Let us consider the facts of the case first.

✓ Brief facts
This petition pertains to the gubernatorial election in Enugu State that took place on March 18, 2023. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), represented as the 1st Respondent, conducted this election. In this electoral contest, Mbah Peter Ndubuisi, denoted as the 2nd Respondent and a candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (the 3rd Respondent), vied for the office of Governor.

The 1st Petitioner, Edeoga Chijioke Jonathan, participated in this election as a candidate of the 2nd Petitioner, the Labour Party, along with other candidates from various political parties. Following the election, the 1st Respondent declared the 2nd Respondent, Mbah Peter Ndubuisi, as the winner with 160,895 votes, while the 1st Petitioner secured the second position with 157,552 votes. Other candidates in the election ranked behind these two.

This petition was filed on April 6, 2023, contesting the declaration and victory of the 2nd Respondent by the 1st Respondent.

In respect of the alleged forged NYSC certificate, the prayer of the Petitioners was: ‘That it be determined that the 2nd Respondent was, at the time of the election to the office of Governor of Enugu State held on 18th March, 2023, not qualified to contest the election.’

✓ Issue
Whether the 2nd Respondent sponsored by the 3rd Respondent was qualified to contest the Governorship Election for Enugu State held on 18th March 2023 [in view of the alleged forged NYSC certificate]?

✓ Decision
The decision of the Court is premised on two standpoints, videlicet:
i. NYSC certificate is not a requirement for qualification;
ii. The NYSC certificate was not presented in aid of his qualification.

i. NYSC certificate is not a requirement for qualification:
The tribunal held that, based on Section 177 of the 1999 Constitution, possession of an NYSC discharged certificate is not a requirement for the office of Governor, as stipulated in Section 318 of the same constitution. The 2nd Respondent’s qualification as a lawyer is undisputed, but the authenticity of the NYSC certificate he presented is contested. The tribunal posed, the key question is whether he could contest the election without the NYSC certificate?

The tribunal concludes that Section 182(j), which the Petitioners rely on, must be interpreted alongside Section 318. When considered together, it is determined that an NYSC certificate is not a requirement to contest the office of Governor in Enugu State, as per the 1999 Constitution.

Hear the tribunal thus: ‘“It is not in doubt going by the provision of Section 177 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and highlighted which is the qualification to the office of Governor of a State, that possession of NYSC discharged certificate is not a requirement as a follow up to Section 318 of the same constitution.”

“The consideration here and questions to ask are: 1. Was the certificate presented by the 2nd Respondent forged? 2. Did the 2 Respondent present a forged NYSC Certificate in aid ofhis qualification? In respect of the posers above, reference is made to section 177(d) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) quoted above. The qualification of the 2nd Respondent as a Lawyer is not in doubt between the two sides in this Petition. What is in issue is that the NYSC certificate presented by the 2nd Respondent in aid of his qualification was forged as he never completed the said programme and was never issued with any discharged certificate by NYSC. A poser here again is without the NYSC certificate is the 2nd Respondent qualified to have contested the election?”

“The qualification to contest to the office of the Governor in Section 318 of 1999 Constitution as highlighted above does not include NYSC certificate. Section 182(j) relied upon by the Petitioners cannot stand alone but interpreted together with Section 318 of the same constitution. We so hold. Therefore reading Section 182(1)(j) with Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) we hold that NYSC certificate is not a requirement/qualification to contest to the office of Governor of Enugu State.”’


ii. The NYSC certificate was not presented in aid of his qualification:
Governor Mbah did not fill in the alleged forged NYSC certificate in the requisite form i.e. form EC9. This form is where the educational qualifications of Mbah were stated. Though, the NYSC certificate was attached to the form, it was not filled in the form, and thus does not amount to submitting the said NYSC certificate as part of his qualifications.

Hear the tribunal on this thus: ‘Placing reliance on this, this Tribunal shall therefore then ask, was the alleged forged document presented in aid of the qualification of the 2nd Respondent? Reference is here made to Exhibit PET01/15 which is the Form EC9 of the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent wherein the educational qualification of the 2nd Respondent was filled. Nowhere in the form is NYSC certificate filled though attached. We then ask "was the NYSC certificate attached in aid of his qualification? In Ogundehin v Olubowale (2016) LPELR 41125(CA), Tsammani JCA held thus: “… it is the settled law that any document attached to an affidavit but is not so marked as an exhibit cannot be countenanced”. See NDCA & Gaspa Project Management Engineering Ltd v Gaspa Project Management Group Ltd & Ors (2019) LPELR 47607 (CA). The said NYSC Certificate having not been referred to in the affidavit is therefore held to be merely attached and shall therefore be of no consequence to the qualification of the 2nd Respondent. Agi v PDP (2016) LPELR 42578 (SC) where the Supreme Court held: “… it must be proven that the falsification was done to circumvent the provision of Section 177 of the constitution, 1999, particularly as it relates to age qualification”’.


✓ IN CONCLUSION, the tribunal held thus: ‘From the consideration of evidence presented by the Petitioners and the holding of the Tribunal that the NYSC discharged certificate so attached does not have any bearing in the affidavit not being a statutory requirement. Also that same was not attached in aid of his qualification to contest the election we hold that the Petitioners did not present any evidence before the Tribunal in respect of this leg of their Petition. This issue is therefore resolved in favour of the Respondents and against the Petitioners same having not been proved. WE SO HOLD.’.

Why was Perjury not considered?