The Federal High Court, Abuja, is to commence hearing in the suit filed by a former House of Representatives member, Hon. Daniel Reyenieju, over the West Africa Examination Council (WAEC) result submitted by his opponent, Michael Diden fondly called Ejele.
Ejele, is the PDP candidate for Delta South Senatorial District for the National Assembly (NASS) election in 2023.
It would be recall that the National Assembly candidate was dragged to Court over alleged forgery of his West Africa Examination Council certificate and his date of birth.
In the primaries, the former chairman of the Delta Oil Producing Area Development Commission (DESOPADEC) polled 176 votes out of 272 eligible ad-hoc delegates accredited to participate in the party’s primary.
He beat former House of Representatives member, Hon. Daniel Reyenieju, a finance expert, Chief Oghogho Ayodele Ithihiwa and one-time Speaker of the state assembly, Rt. Hon. Kent Omatsone with a far distance behind with 48, 46 and 2 votes respectively.
In their earlier submission, they argued “we humbly refer my Noble Lord to Exhibits DD 1 which is a letter dated 28th June, 2022 from the West African Examination Council and states in the 2nd paragraph thus; “Our record shows that the date of birth of the candidate 4112012052, Diden Michael for May/June 1999 is August 16, 1978 and not June 26, 1963”.
Read details below 👇
In this regard, we humbly refer my Noble Lord to Exhibits DD 1 which is a letter dated 28th June, 2022 from the West African Examination Council and states in the 2nd paragraph thus; “Our record shows that the date of birth of the candidate 4112012052, Diden Michael for May/June 1999 is August 16, 1978 and not June 26, 1963”.
It is worthy of note that the particulars result in Exhibit DD1 analysed by the examination body are the same with that which the 1st Defendant submitted except as to the day, year and month of birth which he altered, thereby making the said certificate invalid.
It is worthy of note that the 1st Defendant claims to have been born on 26th March, 1963. We humbly refer to the Affidavit of birth dated 21st September, 2010.
That 1st Defendant in another breath is shown by WAEC to have been born on the 16th of August, 1978, 15 years later.
We urge my Noble Lord to compare Exhibit CC1 which is the same result submitted by the 1st Defendant and Exhibit DD1 which is a report from WACE on the said alteration.
My Noble Lord, very clearly the 1st Defendant has made false declaration by altering the originals of his certificate and making same invalid and therefore disqualifying himself; having regard to the circumstances of this case and the provisions of Sections 65 (2) (a); 66 (1) (i) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, Section 29 (5) and (6) of the Electoral Act, 2022, and the fact that the 1st Defendant submitted and relied on false information, dubious and forged document/certificate in order to participate in and be declared the winner of the 2nd Defendant’s primary election which held on the 23rd day of May, 2022, the 2nd Defendant herein is precluded and otherwise prohibited from submitting, forwarding, or transmitting the name of the 1st Defendant to the 3rd Defendant as the lawful candidate under the platform of the 2nd Defendant as flag bearer of the 2nd Defendant for the 2023 General Elections with regards to the Delta South Senatorial District.
On whether assuming that questions (1) and (2) above are resolved in the affirmative and the 2nd Plaintiff is the person with the second highest number of valid votes, is the 2nd Plaintiff entitled to the reliefs he seeks before this Honourable Court, we respond in the affirmative.
My Noble Lord, above fact we submit activates the provisions of Section 29 (5) & (6) of the Electoral Act, 2022 to the effect that “where this Honourable Court determines that any of the information contained in the affidavit is false only as it relates to constitutional requirements of eligibility, the Court shall issue an order disqualifying the candidate and the sponsoring political party and then declare the candidate with the second highest number of valid votes …” we urge My Noble Lord to so hold.
CONCLUSION:
In the final analysis we submit as follows:
That with the above facts, law and arguments, the 1st Defendant ought not to have participated in the said primary in the circumstances of this case.
That with the above facts, law and arguments, the 1st Defendant could not have been validly nominated in the circumstances of this case.
That with the above facts, law and arguments, the 1st Defendant forged his West African School Certificate which he submitted in bid of his qualification in the circumstances of this case.
That with the above facts, law and arguments, the 2nd Defendant ought not to have declared the 1st Defendant winner of the said primary in the circumstances of this case.
That with the above facts, law and arguments, the 2nd Defendant ought not submit the name of the 1st Defendant to the 3rd Defendant in the circumstances of this case.
That with the above facts, law and arguments, the 3rd Defendant ought not recognize the 1st Defendant as candidate of the 2nd Defendant in the General Elections in the circumstances of this case.
That with the above facts, law and arguments, the 2nd Plaintiff ought to be declared candidate of the 2nd Defendant for the said General Elections in the circumstances of this case.
