- By AfricanHeraldExpress, Abuja -
PDP Senator-elect, Dr Andy Uba’s recent election victory is threatened by mountains of evidence of ‘multiple certificate forgeries’ Accord Party candidate Sen Ikechukwu Obiora has adduced in a petition he filed before the Electoral Tribunal.
The petition claims that Uba did not obtain WASC as required by law, that he submitted a Senior School Certificate Examination that was forged, that he never obtained the Bachelors, Masters and Doctorate Degrees he claimed, amongst other damning allegations.
Full text of the petition:
IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ELECTION TRIBUNAL HOLDEN AT AWKA
THE ELECTION TO THE SENATE FOR ANAMBRA SOUTH SENATORIAL DISTRCIT HELD ON THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2011
PETTION NO: EPT/ANNAE/SE/04/2011
IKECHUKWU OBIORAH …………………… PETITIONER
1. ANDY EMMANUEL UBA
2. NICHOLAS UKACHUKWU ……………………….. RESPONDENTS
3. PEOPLE DEMORCATIC PARTY
4. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION
5. PROF KELECHI GRECO OKOYE ( THE RETURNING OFFICER FOR ANAMBRA SOUTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT ELECTION)
The Petitoner of Ikechukwu Obiorah of Okpuno Ebennator Village Uruagu- Nnewi, Nnewi North Local Government Area of Anambra State whose name is subscribed
1. Your Petitioner was a candidate at the National Assembly Election for Anambra South Senatorial District on the Platform of the Accord.
2. Your Petitoner states that the election was held on the 9th day of April 2011 wherein the Petitoner and the following persons were candidates:
i. Sir Chris Atuegwu
ii. Chukwuwike Nweke
iii. Chief G.N Ben (George Nadubem Moghalu)
iv. Chukwmaeze Nzeribe
v. Christian Ikechukwu Oti
vi. Prof Nonso Mojekwu
vii. Afam Okoye
viii. Umeoha-Ike Esther
ix. Andy Emmanuel Uba
x. Chief Adolphus Izuegbu
3. the Petitoner states that the result of the aforesaid election as declared by the 4th Respondents is as follows
i. Accord Party, Ikechukwu Obiorah: 24,724 Votes
ii. ACN Party, Sir Chris Atuegwu: 11,559 Votes
iii. ADC Party, Chukwuwike Nweke : 902 Votes
iv. ALP Party, Nsofor Izuchukwu : 639 Votes
v. ANPP Party, Chief G.N Ben (George Nadubem Moghalu): 1973
vi. APGA Party, Chukwmaeze Nzeribe: 43,798 Votes,
vii. CDC Party, Christian I Oti: 2,178 Votes
viii. CPC Party, Prof Nonso Mojekwu: 1,880 Votes
ix. HDP Party, Afam Okoye: 172 Votes
x. Labour Party, Umeoha I. Esther: 2022
xi. PDP Party, Andy Emmanuel Uba” 63,316 votes; and
xii. PPP party, Chief Izuegba: 698 Votes.
4. Your petitioner further states that at the end of the election the 4th Respondent returned . Andy Emmanuel Uba, 1st Respondent herein as the winner.
5. The 1st respondent contested the said election as the candidate of the 3rd Respondent for Anambra South Senatorial District
6. The 2nd Respondent also contested the said election as the candidate of the 3rd Respondent for Anambra South Senatorial District.
7. The 3rd is a registered Political party in Nigeria which fielded both the 1st and 2nd Respondents for the aforesaid election.
8. The 4th Respondent is the agency of the Government of the Federation of Nigeria which organized and confuses the aforesaid election.
9. The 5th Respondent was the Returning Officer appointed by the 4th Respondent who collated and announced the result of the aforesaid election.
10. GROUNDS FOR QUESTIONING THE ELECTION:
The grounds on which the election is being questioned are:
i. The election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices and non-compliances with the provisions of the Electoral Act.
ii. The 1st Respondent at the time of the election was not qualified to contest the election.
11. PARTICULARS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND THAT THE
ELECTION WAS INVALID BY REASON OF CORRUPT PRACTICES AND
NON –COMPLAINCES WITH THE PROVISONS OF THE ELECTORAL ACT
i. The 3rd Respondent as a political Party was required to hold special congress primaries with the name of the winner of the primaries forwarded to the 4th Respondents as the candidate of the party for the election.
ii. The 3rd Respondent organized two parallel congresses held the same day and in two different parts of the same town Ekwulobia in Anambra South Senatorial District and forwarded the names of two candidates, the 1st and 2nd Respondents, to the Respondent for the Anambra South Senatorial election.
iii. The Anambra state Executive of the 3rd Respondent organized its own congress in which the 1st Respondent emerged the winner.
iv. The national Executive Committee organized its own congress through its AGENTS THE Anambra PDP Electoral Panel headed by Senator J.K Waku in which the 2nd Respondent emerged the winner. (At the hearing of this Petition the petitioner shall rely on the 3rd Respondents letter dated the 2nd day of January 2011 appointing Senator J.K. Waku the chairman of the electoral Panel to conduct primaries for the PDP aspirants to the National Assembly in Anambra State. The Petitioner shall also rely on the results of the primary Election conducted by Senator J.K Waku; the Letter dated the 9th day of December 2011 forwarding the Primary elections Result to the 3rd Respondent; the Minutes of the Meeting held by the Nationals Working Committee of the 3rd Respondents on the 30th day of January 2011 accepting the results of the national assembly primary election; and the 1st and 2nd Respondents Nomination form ( INEC EC4B (iv).)
v. The state Executive of the 3rd Respondent forwarded the name of the 1st Respondents to the 4th Respondents as the 3rd Respondent Candidate. The Petitoner shall at the trial rely on the list of successful Zone primaries complied by the state Executive of the 3rd Respondent and signed by the State Chairman of the 3rd Respondents as certified by the 4th Respondents.
vi. The national Executive of the 3rd Respondent forwarded the name of the 2nd Respondent as the 3rd Respondents Candidate for the said election.
vii. The 2nd respondent having regard to the provisions of the 3rd Respondents constitution mandating that the conduct of primaries and forwarding of name to the 4th Respondents shall be the exclusive preserve of the national Executive committee of the party believed himself to be the rightful candidate of the 3rd Respondent and commenced campaigns. (The 3rd Respondent constitution shall be founded upon at hearing at the hearing of this petition)
viii. The 4th Respondent accepted both the list forwarded to it by the Anambra State Executive of the 3rd Respondent and that which was submitted to it by the National Executive of the Party and decided to work on that submitted by the state Executive of the 3rd Respondent and by letter dated the 10th day of February 2011 informed the National Executive of the 3rd Respondents of this decision which was later vacated on the 28th day of February 2011.
ix. The 3rd respondent through its National Legal Adviser wrote to the 4th Respondents warning that the 4th Respondent had no powers to accept a list forwarded by the state Executive of the party. (At the hearing the Petitoner shall rely on the said legal Adviser’s letter dated 14h February 2011.)
x. This states of affairs led to litigations in which the 3rd Respondents deposed to an affidavit starting that the candidates of the party are those who emerged from the Senator J.K Waku conducted primaries among which is the 2nd Respondent. (The said Affidavit shall be relied upon at the hearing of this petition.)
xi. The federal High Court, sitting at Awka, on the 13th day of January 2011, in Suit No FCT/AWK/CS/05/2011 made an order for preservation of the status quo which was that the 2nd Respondents being the person whose name was forwarded to the 4th Respondents by the National Executive of the 3rd Respondents remained the candidate of the 3rd Respondent for the said election( the said Order shall be relied upon at the hearing of this petition.)
xii. Amidst this confusion both the 1st and 2nd Respondents campaigned with equal intensity and vigor and expended energy and money for the said elections while each assured the electorate that he was the candidate of the party .( At the hearing of the petition the Petitioner shall rely on copies of the 1st and 2nd Respondents respective posters, Photograph of billboard and newspaper advertisements, radio news report, jingles and advertisement as well as Television news and commercials.)
xiii. There was confusion in minds of voters as to who the actual candidate of the 3rd Respondent was.
xiv. At the election very many people voted for the 2nd Respondent through the emblem of the 3rd Respondent on the ballot papers; while very many also voted for the 1st Respondent through the emblem of the 3rd Respondent on the ballot paper, such that is its impossible to determine which vote went for whom.
xv. That after the election, various results sheets collated at the ward, Local Government, and senatorial collation centre contained the name of the 1st Respondent and some contained the name of the 2nd Respondents and some contained the name of the 2nd Respondent as the Candidate of the 3rd respondent. (Your Petitoner shall at the hearing of this petition rely on the various INEC forms EC8A, EC8B, EC8C and the Senatorial District result sheet for the Anambra South Senatorial Election held on the 9th day of April 2011.)
xvi. After the election when the results were tallied by the Returning Officer, the 3rd Respondents combining the votes of the 1st and 2nd Respondents received majority of the votes.
xvii. The returning officer of the 4th Respondents, not knowing who the candidate of the 3rd Respondent was as between the 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent stated as such.
xviii. The returning officer of the 4th Respondent further stated that the 3rd Respondent was yet to resolve who its candidate for the said election was, and therefore declared that the winner as PDP candidate without any name. The Petitoner shall at the trial rely on the Video tape of the Declaration of the result of the said election.
xix. The Returning Officer, Professor Kelechi Graco Okoye declared the following results and make the following comments:
“ After the election the score was Accord Party- 24,724 Votes; ACN Party – 11,559 Votes, ADC Party- 902 Votes, APGA Party 43,789 Votes, ANPP Votes 1973, CDC Party- 2178 Votes; CPC Party -1,880 Votes, HDP Party -172 Votes, Labour Party- 2022; PDP Party -63,316 Votes and PPP Party – 698 Votes. Therefore by the power conferred on my by the Independent National Electoral Commission of Nigeria, I Professor Kelechi Greco Okye hereby declare PDP Part as the Winner. Permit me to say this a little further, I am of the much disposed to declare the result the way I have done based on circumstances. Yesterday, there was some little of who will do this or who will do that. I want to go further to say PDP as a party has a little thing to settle and the candidates of this party say it’s a home affair. They should settle whatever differences. Therefore I declare the candidates if PDP the winner has scored the highest votes of 63,316. Thank you and God bless.”
xx. the said Returning Officer after making the above declaration at Nnewi without filling out the name of the candidate who won and without giving agents copies of same the proceeded to Awka wherein he issued the result Declaration form to the 1st Respondent in a ceremony. The Petitoner shall at the hearing rely on the Video- Recording of the said ceremony by Channels Television and AIT and the coverage of same by other media Houses and the Petitioners agent.)
xxi. Shortly thereafter both the 1st and 2nd respondent claimed victory each of them insisting that he was the rightful candidate of the 3rd Respondents and therefore the winner of the election. (The various newspaper advertorials and congratulatory messages issued by the 1st and 2nd Respondent shall be relied upon at the hearing.)
xxii. The votes cast for the 1st Respondent were not separated from those that were cast for the 2nd Respondent before the 5th Respondent declared the result of the election.
12. PARTICULAERS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND THAT THE ELECTION WAS INVALID BY REASON OF CORRUPT PRACTOCES AND NON-COMPLIANCES WITH THE PROVISONS OF THE ELCTORAL ACT AND THE GROUND THAT THE 1ST RESPONDNT WAS NOT QUALIFIE TO CONTEST THE ELECTION.
i. the 1st Respondent in his affidavit in Support of Personal Particulars, INEC form C.F 001, stated that he attended the following Tertiary Institutions:
a. Concordia University Canada
b. California State University; and
c. Buxton University London
ii. The 1st respondent also stated in the said Affidavit in Support of Personal Particulars, INEC form CF 001 that he has the following educational qualifications:
a. West African School Certificate WASC 1970-1974
b. Bachelor of Science (AWAITING.)TING) 1985 -1992
c. Doctor of Science 1993 -1996
At the hearing of this Petition the Petitioner shall rely on certified copies of the 1st Respondents INEC FORM CF 001 and the attachments thereto as well as his INEC FORM 002.C)
iii. In the aforesaid INCE form CF 001 the 1st Respondent attached the following documents as evidence of his educational Qualifications:
a. Senior School Certificate Examination May/ June 1974;
b. Statement of Result;
c. Academic Transcript from Concordia University.
d. Academia Transcript from California State University.
e. Certificate from Buxton State University.
iv. The 1st Respondent did not attaché any School certificate from the West African Examination Council in Proof of his claim to a West African School Certificate.
v. Even the Senior School Certificate Examination Statement of result from Union Secondary SCHOOL Awkunanaw in the Enugu state school system is curious because there was no Senior School Certificate Examination in 1974.
vi. The Senior School Certificate Examination Statement as attached by the 1st Respondent shows that he obtained only one credit at the said examination.
vii. The minimum entry requirements for any degree course is Five credits which must include English Language and in most cases Mathematics in one sitting or six credits in not more than two sittings.
viii. Without the minimum entry requirement no person can gain admission to any University to pursue any degree
ix. It is not possible to enroll for a doctorate degree programmed without first obtaining a bachelor’s degree and in most cases with a Master Degree.
x. There is no degree known as Bachelor of Science ( Awaiting)
xi. The said documents attached to the said INEC form CF 001 show that the 1st respondents claim that he obtained a Bachelor of science (Awaiting) and Doctor of Science are patently false as the only qualification obtained by the 1st Respondents is the one (1) Credit which purportedly obtained in the Senior School Certificate Examination in 1972 which is far below the number credits required for University admission in pursuit of any degree course.
xii. The transcript of Concordia university attached to the said INEC form CF 001 by the 1st Respondents show that his assessment by the authorities after about a year in the school is Failure and that his accumulated credit fell far below the number of credits required for continuation, he therefore crashed out or Concordia University without completing any course of work for the award of Bachelor of Sciences.
xiii. Another Transcript from California State University attached by the 1st Respondent to his INEC form CF 001 shows that he enrolled in the spring extension 1985 and dis-enrolled in 1986 without completing any course of work necessary for the award of Bachelor of Sciences.
xiv. The third transcript attached by the 1st Respondents to his INEC form CF 001 shows that four (4) years after crashing out from his last stint at California State University, he enrolled again at the same University for Geography in fall Quarter of 1990 and crashed out again without completing a course of work necessary for the award of a Bachelor of Science Degree.
xv. The 1st Respondent could not sustain any admission in any of the Universities because he lacked the minimum entry requirement.
xvi. The 1st Respondent is presently not enrolled in any University to be expecting any Bachelor of Science twenty (20)years after his last academic adventure.
xvii. The 1st Respondent not having completed any course of work necessary for the award of Bachelor of science patently gave false information when he claimed that he obtained Doctor of Science 1993 -1996 as he could not have commenced such a study without at least a Bachelor of Science degree.
xviii. There is no University known as Buxton University London, in London or anywhere else n the United Kingdom. (At the hearing of the Petition, the Petitioner shall rely on the report of Home City Ltd, a verification and Research service company which verified the authenticity of the said Buxton University.)
xix. There is no record of the existence of a Buxton University in London or elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
xx. Institutions in the UK are given the power to award degrees under an Act of Parliament or by Royal charter. They are then recognized as degree-awarding bodies by the UK government and other financial organizations and know as Recognized Bodies’ the degrees that they award are referred to as recognized UK degrees. Some colleges do not grant degrees but run courses on behalf of Recognized Bodies, thereby contributing to a Degree. These are known as ‘Listed Bodies’
xxi. Buxton University does not exist in the list of United Kingdom Government recognized Bodies or the Listed Bodies.
xxii. The List of Recognized Bodies and listed bodies are contained respectively in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 as published in the UK Government Official information websites.
xxiii. Buxton University does not exist in the United Kingdom Government Register of Sponsors.
xxiv. The aforesaid register exist to make sure that people working or studying in the UK do so legally
xxv. There is town called Buxton near Derby in England where a college arm of the University of Derby is situated. This institution is known as Buxton College and offers pre degree (i.e. College) programs only which when completed qualifies the student to enter for a degree program.
xxvi. The address shown on the back of the so called certificate attached by the 1st Respondents is:
Registrar Buxton University Graduate Records Office, 145-157 St John Street, London EC1V 4PV, UK
xxvii. The post code EC1V 4PV does not exist on the UK Government post office code listing.
xxviii. There is no route plan for this post code EC1V 4PV when a route plan is sought through the following UK national motoring organization route search Services, the result says “ This Post Code is incorrect”
xxix. There is no such address in the United Kingdom
xxx. Buxton University of London does not exist in London or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
xxxi. The 1st respondent claim that he has a Doctor of Science from Buxton University London is false as there is no university in London known as Buxton University London.
xxxii. The 4th Respondent held the 1st Respondent out as a PhD holder in its publication on its website, notice boards and later in This Day Newspaper of 8th April 2011, just a day before the said election (The Petitioner shall found on the said newspaper publication at the hearing of this Petition.)
xxxiii. The aforesaid publication by the 4th Respondent weighed heavily on the minds of the electorate and influenced them to cats their votes for the 1st Respondent believing that he was a PhD holder.
13. At the hearing of the petition, your petitioner shall rely upon and make use if all documents or forms relating to or connected with or relevant to the facts herein pleaded whether made by the 4th Respondent or any of the parties or any other person or persons.
14. Your Petitoner will also at the trial of this petition contend that non- compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act and INEC guidelines substantially affected the results of the election.
15. Your petitioner hereby gives security for all cost arising from this petition undertakes to make any required deposit.
16. WHEREOF Your Petitioner prays for the following relief’s:
i. A declaration that the 1st Respondent was , at the time of the National Assembly election for the Anambra South senatorial District aforesaid election, not qualified to contest the election.
ii. A declaration that the 1st Respondent obtained Votes by deceit due to false information given by the 1st Respondent in his INEC form CF 001 and by the 3rd Respondent in the INEC form 002c its Submitted in holding out the 1st Respondent to be a PhD Degree holder.
iii. A declaration that the 3rd Respondent sponsored tow candidates for the National Assembly for the Anambra South Senatorial District which as conducted by the 4th Respondent on the 9th day of April 2011.
iv. An order disqualifying the 1st Respondent for giving false information in his INEC forms CF 001.
v. An order setting aside the declaration of the 1st Respondent by the 4th Respondent as the winner of the election into the National Assembly for the Anambra South Senatorial District by 4th Respondent.
vi. An order setting aside the certificate of return issued by the 4th respondent to the 1st Respondent purporting the 1st Respondent to be the winner of the election into the National assembly for the Anambra South Senatorial District.
vii. An Order invalidating or voiding the election into the National Assembly for the Anambra South Senatorial District conducted on the 9th day of April 2011.
viii. An order directing the 4th Respondent to conduct fresh election into the National Assembly for the Anambra South Senatorial District.