Fake certificate: NYSC offers documents against Mbah government

The Petitions Tribunal for Gubernatorial Elections sitting in Enugu State has begun considering the petition filed by the Labor Party and its candidate Chijioke Edeoga against the election of Dr Peter Mbah as Governor of the state after the breakup of Sallah.

When the hearing resumed on Friday, the petitioners presented the National Youth Service Corps, as the first witness in defense of their petition.

Edeoga and his party are challenging the election of Governor Mbah on the grounds that he did not receive the highest number of legal votes cast in the March 18 gubernatorial election and that the respondent submitted a forged NYSC discharge certificate to the Independent National Election Commission in an effort to secure his election.

The PUNCH had reported that the Tribunal had previously subpoenaed the NYSC following the petitioners' request to appear before the panel to certify as true or not the document that the defendant (Mbah) had submitted to the election arbitrator before the elections.

Testifying in court on Friday evening, NYSC presented documents including the alleged forged clearance certificate, as well as the original clearance certificate that Mbah should have recovered.

The NYSC also submitted a letter written by Oma and Partners, an Abuja-based law firm, which had asked the Corps to review the clearance certificate submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission by the Governor.

The Claimants, represented by Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, who is lead counsel, alongside Dr. Valerie Azinge, SAN, Ifeanyi Ogenyi Esq, and others, led Claimant Witness 1 (PW1) in evidence.

Applicant's Witness 1 is Director of Certification, NYSC, Aliyu Abdul Mohammed, who adopted his affidavit.

Awomolo sought to introduce the witness's sworn statement as evidence in court.

The third defendant, Peoples Democratic Party, Attorney, Anthony Ani, SAN, objected to the admissibility of the document and elected to file a motion dated and filed on July 7, 2023, which seeks to request the court to strike out the affidavit of PW1 for incompetence.

The 1st defendant, INEC, along with the 2nd defendant (Peter Mbah), aligned themselves with Ani's submission and requested the court to strike out the written deposition of Mohammed (PW1) for lack of jurisdiction.

Relying on the decision of the Court of Appeal in the ANDP & anor V INEC case as well as that of Damina & anor V Adamu and others, counsel for the respondents asked the court to strike out the written deposition under oath of the PW1 for lack of competence.

In response, counsel for the petitioners, relying on the Ararume & anor V INEC case, which they claim is a contradictory decision with the authorities cited by counsel for the respondents, asked the court to admit the affidavit of PW1.

In a short decision, the court admitted the document and reserved its decision on the objections raised by the respondents for final judgment.

PW1 was then taken in for questioning in chief.

Mohammed told the court that he acted on a subpoena issued to the NYSC chief executive or any other official to appear in court to testify to resolve some issues regarding the certificate allegedly issued by the agency.< /p>

The subpoena was admitted into evidence without objection from the respondents and was marked as exhibit PTC/01/06.

Mohammed also presented his official ID as a NYSC staff member which was admitted into evidence and marked as exhibit PTC/01/07.

In paragraph three (3) of the plaintiffs' witness sworn deposition, the witness testified that, pursuant to the court subpoena, he came with the governor's authentic discharge certificate, as well as the one that would have been handed over to him.

Counsel for the Respondent objected to the admissibility of the documents and reserved his reasons for final written addresses.

The court admitted the documents and marked them as exhibits PTC/01/08 a and b. The petitioners also presented another witness, an Abuja-based lawyer, Mary Nneoma Elijah, a senior partner at the law firm Oma and Partners.

She is the witness for Claimants 2.

Counsel for the Petitioners sought to introduce his sworn deposition as evidence, which Counsel for the Respondents objected to, citing the same grounds raised in Stage One.

The court admitted the document and reserved the decision during the judgment.

She also adopted the court subpoena dated June 21, 2023, which was admitted and marked as Exhibit PTC/01/09.

The witness's letter to INEC, as well as the response given by INEC, were requested by counsel for the petitioners amid objections by counsel for the respondents.

However,...