Embattled Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate, Umo Bassey Eno, has replaced his earlier WAEC Confirmation of Result with Testimonial of his alma mater at Federal High Court, Uyo.
Mr Akan Okon, an aspirant in the May 25 PDP governorship primary at Godswsill Akpabio International Stadium, Uyo is dragging Umo Eno, the winner of the said primary to the court on the allegations that Eno is parading forged West African Examination Council (WAEC) certificate in his bid to actualise the governorship ambition.
The court presided by Justice Agatha Okeke had at a joint but amended statement saw how defendants Eno and PDP removed the WAEC Confirmation of Result which he had earlier attached to the first statement of Defence he filed on July 6, but instead attached a Testimonial he obtained from Victory High School, Ikeja II.
Read also
- Akwa Ibom Governorship aspirant wants court to disqualify PDP Candidate
- 2023: OBA, Eno, Luke, Others Pick Governorship form for Akwa Ibom
- Vilification of Gov Emmanuel for adoption of Umo Eno, unwarranted- Ex-Minister
As a result of the amendment of his statement of defence, Eno through his counsels have delisted the WAEC Deputy Registrar who was billed to testify as his witness.
Usoro takes over from Assam
A former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Paul Usoro, SAN, has taken over from Assam Assam, SAN as the lead counsel to Pastor Umo Eno.
Usoro is joined with six other Senior Advocates of Nigeria to defend Eno in the case bordering on alleged certificate and PVC forgery and age falsification.
Apart from Usoro, other SANs to jointly defend both Umo Eno and the Peoples Democratic Party in the suit are Chief Assam E. Assam, SAN, Chief Offiong E B Offiong, SAN, Nnamonso Ekanem, SAN, Essien E Udom, SAN, Oyetola Muyiwa Atoyebi, SAN FCIArb (UK) and Uwemedimo Nwoko, SAN.
According to the documents filed by the defendants in court, other lawyers to defend PDP and Umo Eno who are the 1st and 2nd defendants are Barr Emmanuel Enoidem, Barr. Godwin Udondiah, Barr Utibe Nwoko, Barr. Chinedu Anyaso, Barr Ime Edem-Nse, Barr. Harrison Okoro and Assam A. Assam, Jnr.
He sought the leave of the court to amend their statement of defence which was filed on July 6, 2022.
In the new statement of defence, the defendants (Umo Eno and PDP) however based their arguments on technicalities.
Usoro argued that the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the suit because the suit is “irredeemably incompetent in terms of and pursuant to the Federal High Court (Pre-Election) Practice Directions, 2022 that was issued by the Honourable, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court and came into effect from 28 June 2022 (FHC Pre-Election Practice Direction” or the “Practice Direction”).”
Usoro, SAN and co also urged the court to dismiss the case and award costs against Okon because the plaintiff (Okon) failed to exhaust the internal remedies within the PDP as listed in the party’s guidelines.
He also said the suit should be dismissed because it is statute-barred.
The request was granted by the judge but an observation was made by Counsel to Akan Okon, Uchenna S. Awa, SAN who argued that based on judgments by the Supreme Court, a withdrawal or amendment to an earlier defence filed in court and served on all the parties to a suit by a defendant does not make it cease to exist.
According to him, Section 136 of the Evidence Act states, “A litigant should not be allowed to speak at the same time or the same moment from the two sides of his mouth.
He can only be allowed to speak from one side of the mouth at the same time or the same moment. He cannot make a case in his pleadings and suddenly change or reverse position to make a different case. A party cannot by his complete state of mind make an admission and later decide to change it by an amendment”.
‘‘In the Supreme Court decision between Uzodinma vs Izunaso 2012, the court held inter alia “It is to be noted however, that a statement of claim or defence which has been amended will leave of court does not cease to exist. It is still part of the proceedings and can properly be looked at or referred to by the trial judge in his judgment”.
In his observations to the joint statement of defence filed by Eno and PDP, Okon said the testimonial filed by the defendant is not in the list of documents submitted to INEC.
“They made reference to Religious Knowledge and the certificate carries same as one of the subjects offered by Umo Eno in 1981 whereas the testimonial shows Bible Knowledge, same as the now discarded purported Confirmation from WAEC.
“They now have inserted English Language in the testimonial because the plaintiff had queried how possible it is to write WAEC without English Language offered as compulsory subject. Also note that with this, he now has 7 subjects – Chameleonically 4 subjects, 6 subjects, 7 subjects all in one exam?
“It is a clear case of trying to distance themselves from the forged WAEC confirmations because the plaintiff had rebutted in his response and pointed out the discrepancies.
“The testimonial carries Victory High School II, Ikeja whereas the certificate carries Victory High School Ikeja. Their WAEC confirmation earlier submitted to Court and rebutted by plaintiff carried Victory High School 1, Ikeja. 3 Different schools,” Akan Okon said in his observations to Eno’s statement of defence.
He further said “If it is permissible, the plaintiff should do everything to ensure that the earlier defence of the 2nd defendant that the court and himself were served and the latest joint defence of 1st and 2nd defendants are taken together.
They waited to see the response of the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant’s statement of defence and having debunked in its entirety, the now come up with this new one. It’s like someone writing exams and after submitting his scripts, the answers were shown. Seeing that he has failed and with the benefit of having seen the answers, he now decides to write a new script to replace the earlier one. They said the law is ass but not stupid.”
Recall that while responding to Mr Okon’s earlier statement of claim to the Federal High Court, Eno had in his first statement of defence attached a copy of ‘Confirmation of Result.’
In a letter dated April 8, 2022, and signed by T. A. Ademola, WAEC Exams and Records, the examination body stated that it could not certify the certificate because it did not issue it.
“This is to notify you that certificate No. PO 275878 A for candidate No. 15725119 of December 1983 submitted for certification by you does not exist in our records hence we cannot certify what we did not issue,” the letter had read.
The case was adjourned to Thursday, July 21 to enable INEC (3rd defendant) to make their filings.
