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.
0 comments: