ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS & ANOR V. OBASEKI & ORS (2021)

Background

This appeal arose from a pre-election action brought before the Federal High Court concerning the eligibility of Godwin Nogheghase Obaseki to contest the 2020 Edo State governorship election. The appellants alleged that Obaseki had supplied false information in his INEC Form EC9 and had presented forged or false educational documents, including a University of Ibadan degree certificate, an Advanced Level WAEC certificate and a testimonial from the Institute of Continuing Education. They relied substantially on alleged inconsistencies between Obaseki’s 2016 INEC Form CF 001 and his 2020 Form EC9, particularly the year in which he claimed to have obtained his university degree and the period during which he worked at Afrinvest.

The appellants sought declarations that the information and certificates were false or forged, an order disqualifying Obaseki under section 182(1)(j) of the Constitution, and consequential orders against the PDP and INEC. The Federal High Court dismissed the claims. The Court of Appeal affirmed that decision. The APC and its co-appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. Obaseki filed a cross-appeal relating to the competence of certain grounds of appeal, but that cross-appeal ultimately became academic.

Issues

1. Whether the lower courts misconstrued the appellants’ pleadings and evidence.
2. Whether the appellants proved their allegations of falsification, forgery and false information.
3. Whether sections 31(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act 2010 imposed an impermissible burden on the appellants.
4. Whether allegations of forgery and falsification in an electoral proceeding had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
5. Whether the evidence of the defence witnesses was hearsay and whether the trial court’s treatment of documentary objections occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
6. Whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to uphold the trial court’s findings and whether the cross-appeal was competent under section 285 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the appellants bore the legal and evidential burden of proving the facts on which their requested declarations and disqualification orders depended. Under sections 131, 132 and 133(2) of the Evidence Act 2011, a claimant must first establish his own case before any evidential burden shifts to the opposing party. If the claimant’s evidence does not establish the alleged facts, the action collapses and must be dismissed; the claimant cannot succeed merely because the defence is weak or absent.

The Court further held that forgery, falsification and the making of a false declaration on oath are allegations involving criminality. By section 135 of the Evidence Act, where the commission of a crime is directly in issue in civil proceedings, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants therefore had to prove not merely inconsistencies or suspicious features, but that the relevant certificates were forged, that the information supplied was false, and, where applicable, that the document was presented with the requisite dishonest knowledge.

Court Findings

The Court found that the appellants’ pleadings clearly alleged that Obaseki had presented forged or false certificates and had supplied false information to INEC. Consequently, the trial court and the Court of Appeal did not misconceive the case. However, the evidence led by the appellants consisted mainly of observations and opinions concerning photocopies and apparent discrepancies. No official disclaimer was obtained from the University of Ibadan, WAEC or Afrinvest confirming that the documents or employment information were false. The appellants also failed to call evidence from the institutions said to have issued the disputed documents.

In contrast, Obaseki produced original educational documents, including the University of Ibadan degree certificate, and called evidence from the University’s Deputy Registrar. The defence explained that the differences between the 2016 photocopy and the 2020 photocopy resulted from the use of smaller paper and the failure of the photocopying machine to capture all portions of the original document. The Supreme Court accepted that discrepancies may generate suspicion, but suspicion or doubt is not proof of forgery beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court also emphasised that specific findings of fact which are not challenged on appeal remain binding and subsisting. In addition, the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the Court of Appeal unless the findings are shown to be perverse or unsupported by the evidence. No such exceptional circumstance was established.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the main appeal for lacking merit and affirmed the decisions of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal. The cross-appeal was struck out as academic because the determination of the main appeal had rendered it unnecessary. The appellants were ordered to pay costs of N1,000,000 to the first respondent.

Significance

The decision confirms that electoral disqualification proceedings based on alleged false information or forged certificates are not proved by inconsistency, conjecture or visual criticism of photocopies alone. A party alleging criminal conduct must produce cogent and credible evidence capable of satisfying the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard. Evidence from the issuing institution, an official disclaimer, original documents or properly authenticated records may be essential, depending on the allegation. The judgment also reinforces the principle that litigants must succeed on the strength of their own case, that pleadings define the issues for trial, and that earlier authorities cannot be applied without regard to the factual circumstances in which they were decided.