Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Ozukhome blames judge for sacking Ikpeazu



A senior advocate of Nigeria, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), has criticized the judgment delivered by Justice Okon Abang of the federal high court, Abuja, which sacked the governor of Abia State, Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu and awarded his seat to Dr. Uche Ogah, his closest rival in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) primaries, saying it lacks research.


The learned silk said the court was very wrong in that decision, insisting that possession of tax clearance is not one of the qualifications envisaged by the 1999 constitution.

He said: “The court was very wrong. Possession of Tax Clearance is not one of the qualifications envisaged by the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. Sections 177 and 182 of the Constitution deals with qualification and disqualification, respectively. To be qualified to contest for governorship, you must be a citizen of Nigeria by birth, you must be 35 years old, you must have been sponsored by a political party you belong and you must possess at least a school certificate. None of them applies to Dr. Ikpeazu.

“For him to be disqualified as in section 182, you must have been declared bankrupt, you must have been declared to be insane, you must have been declared to be a member of a secret cult, you must not be a civil servant who has not retired or resigned from office, you must not have been indicted by a judicial commission of inquiry or panel in the last ten years for matters including dishonesty.

 “You must also not have produced a fake certificate. This certificate does not refer to tax clearance, it means academic qualification. None of these things apply to Ikpeazu. For the court to have disqualified him on the basis of providing a forged tax clearance certificate, in my view, is a result of lack of proper research.”

According to him, forgery is a criminal offence, which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

“The documents before the court were just originating summons, it was paper work. Ikpeazu was never called to the dock to be cross-examined, the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and you cannot decide a criminal matter in a civil proceeding. That is why the tribunals always say the person accused of corruption or crime in an election petition must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. There was none in this case.

“Even if we assume, which we have not conceded, that Ikpeazu committed forgery, the question is what is the penalty under the Electoral Act? Under the Electoral Act, you have to look at Sections 140, 141, 142 and 143”, he declared, adding that the only reason you can take a certificate from a sitting governor and give to another person is if that person does not have what is called plurality or majority of votes.


banner
Previous Post
Next Post

0 comments: