How Obinna Uzoh Outsmarted Ubah In Anambra

Election litigation is becoming sophisticated as illustrated by the recent judgment obtained by Dr. Obinna Uzoh against Chief Ifeanyi Ubah on who should represent Anambra South Senatorial District in the Senate, Tobi Soniyi reports

When it comes to election litigation, no state has enriched our jurisprudence as much as Anambra.

Politicians in the state have demonstrated unparalleled confidence in the nation’s judicial system. Rather than take the law into their hands, they have always chosen to fight their cause through the courts. For this, Anambra deserves commendation.

Continuing with this tradition, Dr. Obinna Uzoh of the Peoples Democratic Party, took advantage of a suit- CV/3044/2018 filed by a member of the Young Peoples Party, Mr. Anani Chuka, before a Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja to launch an audacious bid for the Anambra South Senatorial District.

The Independent National Electoral Commission had declared Chief Ifeanyi Ubah of the Young Peoples Party as the winner of the election into the senatorial district.

Read Also: Breaking: Court Okays Ifeanyi Ubah Sack From Senate

In applying to join the case, Obinna Uzoh appeared to have done his research very well. He knew he did not stand a chance if he challenged Ubah before the election tribunal. He also did not originate the pre-election case filed by Chuka, though there are unsubstantiated claims that he and Chuka are working hand in glove. Even if they are, it is not illegal to do so.

Uzoh’s calculation paid off when in a judgment delivered on April 11, 2019, the trial judge, Justice Bello Kawu sacked Ubah for allegedly submitting a forged National Examination Council certificate to contest the February 23, 2019, senatorial election.

The judge consequently ordered INEC to withdraw the certificate of return issued to Ubah and directed that a fresh one be issued to Obinna Uzoh of the PDP who came second at the election.

Uzoh had argued before the court that Ubah submitted a forged NECO certificate to INEC.
According to him, the certified copy from INEC has Serial No 303865920 (note 3038) whereas NECO certified copy has Serial No 303565920 (note 3035).

A comparison of these two certificates, he contended, revealed other differences such as logo, font, signature, etc.

Read Also:  Exclusive: Court Disqualifies Sen. Ifeanyi Ubah, Orders INEC To Issue Certificate Of Return To Obinna Uzoh (Photos)

Obinna Uzoh said that Ubah submitted the forged NECO certificate to INEC, the same having been cloned.

In an affidavit he deposed to before the trial judge, Obinna Uzoh averred, “The first defendant (Ubah) presented a forged and fake NECO result with candidate No: 31474672FC to run for the said general election to the 3rd defendant (INEC). Exhibit B attached.

“That to the best of my knowledge, Exhibit B which was the NECO result of June 2003, with candidate No: 31474672FC presented by the 1st defendant to the 3rd defendant as his NECO result is forged and fake result which its original carried Biology, with F9 but the one presented by the 1st defendant to the 3rd defendant did not carry Biology subject, evidence of a fake result.

Exhibit B, the NECO logo and signature, etc are different from the ones on original NECO certificate, same having been cloned.”

Read Also: Ifeanyi Ubah Reacts As Court Sacks Him As Senator

Based on Uzoh’s arguments, the trial judge found in his favour, Justice Kawu held, “The deposition in the affidavits evidence was not controverted by the 1st defendant who was given ample opportunity to do so, but refused and neglected to file any process in challenge of the claimant’s claim after being served with all the processes by substituted means and hearing notices having been duly served too.

“The unchallenged facts remained uncontroverted.”

The judge said he was satisfied with the evidence led in the case and held that the NECO certificate submitted by Ubah was fake. The judge also held that the party that nominated Ubah did not hold any primary and consequently, declared his nomination invalid.

Shocked by the FCT High Court’s decision, Ubah, who claimed he had no knowledge of the suit, applied to the judge to set aside the judgment.

However, the court reaffirmed its earlier order sacking him as the senator representing Anambra South. Justice Kawu, in a ruling, declined Ubah’s request to set aside his April 11, 2019’s judgment.

Read Also: Senator Ubah Appreciates Family And Well Wishers on Successful Inauguration.(photos)

Ubah had filed the application before the court praying for an order setting aside the judgment on the grounds that it occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice against him.
He said he was not served with the court processes or the hearing notice throughout the proceedings leading to the judgment.

Temporary Relief
Hoping that Ubah would be able to persuade him to set aside his judgment, on December 4, Justice Kawu initially gave the senator a temporary relief.

He granted an order of stay of execution restraining the Senate President from swearing in Uzoh, pending the hearing and determination of Ubah’s application.

The judge also ordered all parties to the suit, including INEC to maintain the status quo in the meantime.

Read Also:  Senate: I Was Denied Fair Hearing, Ifeanyi Ubah Tells Court

This temporary relief was, however, shortlived. In a January ruling, the judge dismissed the application for lacking in merit.

It also dismissed a motion filed by another claimant to the PDP senatorial ticket, Chief Chris Uba, to be joined as an interested party in the substantive suit.

Read Also: Anambra South PDP Stakeholders Meets, Brainstorms Ahead 2021

In dismissing the two applications, the judge stated: “In a nutshell, the preliminary objections of both the claimant and 4th defendant succeed by virtue of section 285(9)-(12) because the application of the 1st and 2nd defendants together with that of the party seeking to be joined were brought after 180 days allowed by the constitution.”

On lack of service, the judge held: ‘There is enough evidence before the court to show that all the processes were served on the 2nd defendant personally and the 1st defendant by substituted means because of the inability of court’s bailiff to access him directly. In fact, several hearing notices were served on the defendants.