A Constitutional Lawyer, Nnadume Offorkansi, has described as judicial rascality the verdict of the Enugu State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, which dismissed the petition of the Labour Party and its governorship candidate in the March 18, 2023 polls.
The three-man panel, headed by Justice Kudirat Akano, on Thursday, upheld the election of Gov Peter Mba of the Peoples Democratic Party PDP.
Advertorial
The panel ruled that the petitioners failed to prove their case, including that the contended NYSC discharge certificate which LP advanced did not hold water because an NYSC discharge certificate is not a requirement to become a governor.
Reacting to the ruling, Offorkansi, said, “It’s laughable. The panel relied on Section 177 of the 1999 Constitution, but ignored Section 182 which stipulates what ought not to be done, including forgery.
“The respondent submitted an NYSC discharge certificate on oath. Yes, it is not mandatory to contest, but here it was submitted, and the petitioner proved it to be forged, because NYSC said it did not emanate from it.
“Section 182 said forged certificates, not specifying any. Cases of proof can only be done by the issuing authorities, which was established in this case,” the lawyer argued.
“In those days, judges looked at lawyers who argued cases in courts, and asked them to fill forms to become judges, and not members of the bar.
“I’m not saying there are no credible judges today. But the verdict of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal of Atiku, Obi versus Tinubu emboldened what is happening today at various tribunals.
“The judges no longer look at precedents.
“Judges should understand that judgements are living documents. They are read at law schools where lawyers are trained,” the lawyer added.
