- CL|Forged Document
IN THE SUPREME COURT
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
FRIDAY, 02 JUNE 2017
SUIT NUMBER: SC. 758/2016
ENGR. MUSTAPHA YUNUSA MAIHAJA APPELLANT
1. ALHAJI IBRAHIM GAIDAM RESPONDENT
2. ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC)
3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION
Area of Law
APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ELECTION, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
The Appellant as Plaintiff at the trial Court instituted an action seeking declarative reliefs amongst which was an order of the Court nullifying the nomination of the 1st Respondent as candidate of the 2nd Respondent in the 2015 Governorship election in Yobe State. It was the case of the Appellant that the 1st Respondent had presented to the 3rd Respondent a forged Primary School Leaving Testimonial; hence he was not qualified to contest the election. The trial Court dismissed the Appellants suit for want of jurisdiction at the instance of the Respondents. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal where his appeal was allowed in part. Dissatisfied with the decision of the court, the Appellant has further appealed to the Supreme Court
Whether the lower court was right to have held that the Appellant was not an aspirant in the 2nd Respondents primaries dated 4th December, 2014 culminating in this appeal for the purpose of invoking the provisions of section 87(9) of the Electoral Act (as amended).? Whether the lower Court was right in holding that the Appellant has not established the allegation of forged documents and declaration regarding the 1st Respondents INEC Form CF 001 bordering his certificate and date of birth.? Whether the lower court was right in holding that the 1St Respondent had not been elected into office as Governor of Yobe State more than twice in two previous elections prior to the April 2015 Governorship election.
PRIMARY ELECTION- DUTY OF A PARTY CHALLENGING THE CONDUCT OF A POLITICAL PARTY'S PRIMARY ELECTION
"The law is too well settled to warrant restatement. For the avoidance of doubt, this Court will endeavour to repeat itself on this vital issue of law. It was, and remains our firm conviction, informed by law, that in order to be qualified to complain about the propriety of the conduct of a primary election of a political party, the Appellant would need to show convincingly, by unassailable evidence, that he actually participated in the said primary election that formed the basis of this appeal. Otherwise, he would have, robbed himself of the legal right, put differently, his suit will lack the legal potency to avail him any protection under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (supra). See Peoples Democratic Party -V-Timipre Sylva & Ors (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt 1316) 85 at 126, Where this Court held as follows:"Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act confers jurisdiction on the courts to hear complaints from a candidate Who participated at his party's19/11/11 to choose the party candidate for general election for Governor of Bayelsa State which was fixed for 12/12/12. The 1st Respondent not being a candidate at the primaries cannot be heard to complain about the conduct of the primaries. Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act is thus not applicable. The PDP has the right to bar the 1st Respondent, or any of its members from contesting its primaries if it so desires" - PER S.D. BAGE, J.S.C
NOMINATION OF CANDIDATE FOR ELECTION- PRE-REQUISITE FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 87(9) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT, 2010 (AS AMENDED)
"We are also bound by our earlier decision in Ukachukwu vs PDP (2014)17 NWLR (Pt.1435) 134, on this issue where we restated that to invoke the provisions of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) would necessarily require that: (1) there must be complaint that the party's guidelines or the provisions of the Electoral Act were not observed in the nomination process and (2) The Complainant must have participated in the primary election. In the words of this Court per Kekere-Ekun, JSC in Ukachukwu VS PDP (supra) at page 182 paragraph F-H. The learned jurist had stated the unambiguous position of the law as follows:-"The Point being made by this Court is that Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act is very narrow in scope as to the jurisdiction exercisable by the Court. The literal interpretation of Section 87(9) of the Electoral, Act is that an aspirant has a right to complain where the provisions of the Electoral Act and/or the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate for election...However, the provision is not at large. The complainant must be an aspirant who participated in the primary election that produced the sponsored candidate. See Uwazurike Vs Nwachukwu (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1342) 503 at 526, E - G."The above position was also re-stated in Daniel vs INEC & Ors (2015) 3-4 MJSC 1 at 45, F-G that before a candidate for the primaries can have a locus standi to sue on the conduct of the primaries, he must be screened, cleared by his political party and participate at the said primaries. Anything short of that, the candidate who did not participate in the primaries could be conveniently classified as a meddlesome interloper with no real interest in the primaries." PER S.D. BAGE, J.S.C
FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENT- IMPLICATION OF FALSIFICATION OF CERTIFICATE TO SECURE UNMERITED POLITICAL POSITION- SECTION 182(1)(J) OF 1999 CONSTITUTION (AS AMENDED)
"This court has since taken a stern position on the issue of falsification of document or forgery of certificates particularly to secure unmerited political advantages. Only recently, in another similar but different scenario involving political gladiators in the case of Hon. Hassan Anthony Saleh Vs Christian Adabah Abah (Supreme Court Suit No. SC/144/2016), this Court was emphatic in declaring that every forgery requires proof of requisite mens rea, i.e. knowledge that the document presented was going to be used fraudulently or dishonestly as genuine, which onus must be discharged by the Appellant. This becomes crucial in view of the far-reaching implications of the provisions of section 182(1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which is to the effect that, quote:"182. (1) No person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a State if(j) he has presented a forged certificate to the independent National Electoral Commission."The law is very clear to warrant any form of colourated interpretations. The question is whether a certificate that turned out to be forged has ever been presented, and not whether the forger has ever been charged, tried or convicted on this. I made it abundantly clear in Saleh Vs Abah (Supra), and our position in that case is instructive in this circumstances, that:"The intention of the Constitution is that anyone who had presented a forged certificate to INEC should stand automatically disqualified. No decent system or polity should condone, or through judicial policy and decisions, encourage the dangerous culture of forging certificates with impunity to seek electoral contest. This court must take the lead in righting the wrongs in our society, if and when the opportunity presents itself as in this appeal. Allowing criminality and certificate forgery to continue to percolate into the streams, waters and oceans of our national polity would only mean our waters are, and will remain dangerously contaminated. The purification efforts must start now, and be sustained as we seek, as a nation, to now 'change' from our old culture of reckless impunity." - PER S.D. BAGE, J.S.C
ALLEGATION OF FORGERY - INGREDIENTS A PARTY MUST PROVE TO SUCCEED IN AN ALLEGATION OF FORGERY AND FALSE DECLARATION
"The necessary question is what must a party prove to succeed on the allegation of forgery and false declaration. As rightly held by the court below, it is crucial to prove:"1) The existence of a document in writing;2) That the document or writing was forged;3) That the forgery was by the person being accused;4) That the party who made it knew that the document or writing was false; and5) The party alleged intended the forged document to be acted upon as genuine."See Alhaji Kashim Ibrahim Imam & 2 Ors Vs Senator Ah Modu Sheriff & 11 ors. (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt.9I4) 89 and ARC VS PDP (2015) I5 NWLR (Pt. 1482) I." PER S.D. BAGE, J.S.C
ALLEGATION OF FORGERY - DUTY OF A PARTY ALLEGING FORGERY IN AN ELECTION
"In politically-oriented litigations, where the allegation of presentation of forged certi?cate to INEC is in issue, the accusing party must prove that the certificate presented to the INEC was forged and that it was the candidate that presented the certificate and that the two ingredients must be proved beyond reasonable doubt as held in Audu vs INEC (No. 2) (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1212) 456 at 507 paras E-F." PER S.D. BAGE, J.S.C
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES- DUTY OF COURTS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
"The duty of court, particularly ours as the Apex court, is to interpret the statute in accordance with the intention of the law makers. In Ugwu Vs Ararume (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 367 at 498 this Court stated thus:"A statute, it is always said, is "the will of the legislature" and any document which is presented to it as a statute is an authentic expression of the legislative will. The function of the Court is to interpret that document according to the intent of those who made it. Thus, the Court declares the intention of the legislature".The principles of interpretation of the provisions of the constitution enjoin the Court to interpret the constitution as a whole taking into consideration, related sections. The lead judgement of this Court in Brig. Gen. Mohammed Buba Marwa & Ors. Vs Admiral Murtala Nyako & Ors (supra) is instructive." PER S.D. BAGE, J.S.C
INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS - MODE OF INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
"Constitutional provisions dealing with the same subject matter are to be construed together. Seemingly conflicting parts are to be harmonized, if possible, so that effect can be given to all parts of the constitution. See Brig. Gen. Mohammed Buba Marwa & Ors. Vs Admiral Murtala Nyako & Ors (supra) Per Onnoghen, J.S.C (Pt. 52-54, paras. C-B)." PER S.D. BAGE, J.S.C
INTERPRETATION OF WORDS IN A STATUTE- MEANING OF "HOLD" IN SECTION 191(1) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION(AS AMENDED)
"For clarity, I will endeavour to shed further lights on the provisions of section 191(1) of the Constitution. It states, and I quote:"191. (1) The Deputy Governor of a State shall hold the office of Governor of the State if the office of Governor becomes vacant by reason of death, resignation, impeachment, permanent incapacity or removal of the governor from office for any other reason in accordance with section 188 or 189 of this constitution."The word is "hold office of Governor". Such person only acts in position of Governor by 'holding' the office in a kind of public trust (and I also think for the dead, the living and unborn) till expiration of the tenure of the late Governor. To the best of my understanding, given the fact that the words used in the said provisions of the Constitution was clear and unambiguous, "holding" connotes acting in the capacity of Governor, by operation of section 191(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). The person "holding" the office of Governor under this provision continues to function, and may step-aside in the very unlikely event that the former, deceased Governor resurrects from the dead, or, under miraculous circumstances, had his permanent incapacity turned around to become subsequently active and capable. The section does not envisage "permanence" or a permanent tenure. It envisages "holding office" in a kind of interim, stop-gap arrangement to avoid a vacuum, which the Constitution abhors and provides against under section 191(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). PER S.D. BAGE, J.S.C
PROOF OF FACTS- DUTY OF A PARTY SEEKING LEGAL RIGHT DEPENDENT ON THE EXISTENCE OF FACTS WHICH HE ASSERTS
"The law is settled that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts, which he asserts, shall prove that those facts exist. It is also the law that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Where the commission of a crime is directly in issue in any proceeding, civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. See Sections 131, 132 and 135 (c) of the Evidence Act 2011.It follows that where there is an allegation made pursuant to Section 31 (5) of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended, that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false, the burden is on the person who makes the assertion to prove that fact." PER K.M.O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
ELECTION TO THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR - REQUIREMENT FOR QUALIFICATION FOR ELECTION TO THE OFFICE OF A GOVERNOR- SECTION 177 OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION (AS AMENDED)
"Section 177 of the 1999 Constitution provides as follows:117. A person shall be quali?ed for election to the office of Governor if-(a) he is a citizen of Nigerian by birth;(b) he has attained the age of thirty-five years, and(c) he has been educated up to at least the School Certi?cate Level or its equivalent. Where a candidate lacks any of these requirements, he would be ineligible to contest the election." PER K.M.O. KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
TESTIMONIAL - MEANING OF TESTIMONIAL
"A testimonial, as it appears from the word, is a formal written statement or testimony, often by a former teacher or employer, about somebody's abilities, qualities and character. See Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. A testimonial, normally or in its usual context, affirms or confirms facts that existed in the past." PER E. EKO, J.S.C
COMMISSION OF CRIME - STANDARD OF PROOF OF COMMISSION OF A CRIME
"Where, as in this case, the commission of a crime by a party to the proceeding is alleged, the alleged criminal offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; and the burden of proving the commission of the criminal offence beyond reasonable doubt is on that person who asserts it. See Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, See Nwobodo V. C. C. Onoh & Ors. (1983) 14 NSCC 478. Allegations beyond imaginable conjectures and speculations in political times and proof beyond reasonable doubt of such allegations of criminal Offences are not one and the same thing. The former may be of unacceptable political desperation. The latter is an imperative in criminal law practice and procedure." PER E. EKO, J.S.C
? Whether the lower court was right to have held that the Appellant was not an aspirant in the 2nd Respondents primaries dated 4th December, 2014 culminating in this appeal for the purpose of invoking the provisions of section 87(9) of the Electoral Act (as amended).? Whether the lower Court was right in holding that the Appellant has not established the allegation of forged documents and declaration regarding the 1st Respondents INEC Form CF 001 bordering his certificate and date of birth.? Whether the lower court was right in holding that the 1St Respondent had not been elected into of?ce as Governor of Yobe State more than twice in two previous elections prior to the April 2015 Governorship election.
(DELIVERED BY SIDI DAUDA BAGE, JSC)
This appeal emanates from the judgment of the Court below that is the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Div1ston in Appeal NO. CA/A/809/2015 between ENGR. MUSTAPHA YUNUSA MAIHAJAVS ALHAJI IBRAHM GAIDAM & 2 OTHERS, CORAM MOORE A.A. ADUMEIN, JOSEPH E. EKANEM AND MUHAMMED MUSTAPHA JJCA. The judgment being appealed against was delivered by the Court below on the 28th of July, 20l6 as captured at pages 824 to 867 of the Record of Appeal. In the judgement, the Court below partly resolved issue one (out of the three issues formulated) in favour of the Appellant but dismissed the appeal of the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the said judgment, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal dated 11th August, 2016 containing five (5) grounds of appeal. The Notice of Appeal is contained at pages 868 to 876 of the Record of Appeal. The Appellant also filed another Notice of Appeal on the 12th of October. 2016 in expressing his grievances and dissatisfaction with the judgment of the Court of Appeal. He (the Appellant) has however indicated in paragraph 5.1 of his Brief of Argument to rely on his Notice of Appeal filed on the 12th day of October, 2016 containing six (6) grounds of Appeal as set out on pages 30 to 44 of the Supplementary Record of Appeal transmitted to this Honourable Court at the instance of the Appellant.
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
The Appellant was the Plaintiff in an Originating Summons led in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/220/2015, ENGR. MUSTAPHA YUNUSA MAIHAJA VS ALHAJI IBRAHIM GAIDAM & 2 ORS dated 19th day of March, 2015 and filed at the Registry of the Federal High Court, Abuja. The suit sought a number of declaratory reliefs and sundry orders including nullification of the nomination of the 1st Respondent as the candidate of the 2nd Respondent in the 2015 Governorship election of Yobe State.
The grouses of the Appellant, from the inception of the political tussle, are summarised thus; that:
i) The 1st Respondent made false information in his Form CF001, Affidavit of Personal Particulars (Exhibit MAIHAJA 1 attached to the Originating Summons) by annexing a Primary Leaving Testimonial dated 22nd day of December, 1969 issued by Yunusari Local Education Authority (LEA) of Home State of Nigeria.
ii) The Appellant also alleged that the 1st Respondent submitted the said Primary School Leaving Testimonial to the 3rd Respondent knowing same to be a forged Certificate contrary to Section 182(1)(J) 0f the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and pursuant to Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).
iii) The Appellant also claimed that the 1st Respondent ought to be disquali?ed from contesting for the of?ce of the Governor of Yobe State on the grounds of false declaration in Form CF001 and for allegedly presenting a forged Certi?cate to the 3rd Respondent contrary to the provision of Section 182(1)(J) of the Constitution (Supra) and pursuant to Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).
iv) The 1st Respondent was also alleged to have furnished some other documents along with Form CF001 and which documents bear some other dates of birth different from 15th September, 1956 contained in Form CF001 and the birth certificate Exhibit MAIHAJA 13A issued by the National Population Commission to the 1st Respondent.
v) The 1st Respondent was alleged not to be eligible to contest the 11th April, 2015 Governorship election of Yobe State on the ground that by virtue of the combined effects of Sections 180(2)(a), 181(1), 182(1)(b) and 185(1) of the Constitution (Supra) he had been twice elected into the of?ce of the Governor of Yobe State, and
vi) The Appellants position is that, being the only other aspirant for the office of Governor of Yobe State in respect of the 11th April, 2015 Governorship election under the platform of the 2nd Respondent, he was entitled to take the place of the 1st Respondent.
The ease of the 1st and 2nd Respondents on the Originating Summons as canvassed at the trial stage was that:
i) The Appellant did not submit his forms as required by the Guidelines of the 2nd Respondent and because of the said failure, he could not participate in the screening of the aspirants on 30th of November, 2014.
ii) The Appellant therefore was not an aspirant at the primary election where the 1st Respondent emerged as the winner.
iii) The 1st and 2nd Respondents also state that prior to the election of 11th April 2015, the 1st Respondent had only been elected as the Governor of Yobe state once and that was in the election of April 2011.
iv) It was also the case of 1st and 2nd Respondents that the 1st Respondent was born on the 15th September, 1956 as shown in his birth certificate issued by the National Population Commission (Exhibit A) and the 1st Respondent only noticed the discrepancy in the date and month of his birth wrongly stated in 1st Respondent's National Youth Service Corp Exemption Certificate and in his Voters Card when he read the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons.
v) It was also contended that there was no time the 1st Respondent gave any information that he was born on any other date other than 15th September, 1956 to the National Youth Service Corps and /or the 3rd Respondent and that his School Leaving Testimonial of Primary Education was issued to the 1st Respondent by the relevant authority long after he left the school.
The Originating Summons was heard by the trial court on 21st May, 2015 along with the Notice of Preliminary Objection of the 1st & 2nd Respondents and judgment was delivered by the trial Court on the 16 November, 2016 upholding the Preliminary Objection of the 1st & 2nd Respondents and striking out the entire suit of the Appellant for want of jurisdiction.
Aggrieved by the dec1ston of the trial Court, the Appellant ?led an appeal at the lower court which appeal was heard on 31st May, 2016 and judgment delivered on 28th day of July, 2016 as earlier indicated above. The lower court allowed the appeal in part while it substantially dismissed the appeal of the Appellant. The lower Court after dismissing the Preliminary Objection filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents to the appeal partially resolved in favour of the Appellant Issue No. l on the question of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain the Appellant's Originating Summons and duty of the trial Court to express its opinion or dec1ston on all issues canvassed before it even if the preliminary objection succeeded.
The Court of Appeal resolved issues No. 2 and 3 in the appeal in favour of the Respondents and also dismissed the Appeal with costs. But, being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal the Appellant decided to come meet us upstairs; a not too long journey of a few meters from the Abuja Div1ston of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. That, in not-too-brief, is a summary of the facts and background to this appeal.
Towards resolving the knotty issues in this appeal, the Appellant? led his Brief of Argument dated 25th November, 2016 and a Reply Brief in response to the 1st and 2nd Respondents dated 28th February, 2017. The Appellant formulated three issues for the determination of this appeal contained in pages 7-8, paragraph 7.0 7.5 of the Brief of Argument as follows:-
Whether having regard to the provisions of Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) read together with Section 182(1) (J) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the undisputed depositions contained in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, the provisions of the States (creation and Transitional Provisions) Decree No. 12 of 1976, which clearly established the creation of BORNO STATE on the 3rd of February 1976, the lower Court properly came to the conclusion that, the Appellant failed to show that the Primary School Leaving Testimonial purportedly issued by BORNO STATE GOVERNMENT of Nigeria, on the 22nd of December 1969, which the 1st Respondent presented to INEC along with his Form CF001 (Affidavit of Personal Particulars) was forged, as to disqualify him (the 1st Respondent) from contesting the election for the of?ce of Governor of Yobe State, held on the 11th of April 2015? Grounds 1 and 6.
Whether having regard to the provisions of Section 182(1)(b) of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the false representation made by the 1st Respondent in his Form CF001 as to his eligibility to contest for the office of Governor of Yobe State and the dec1ston of this Court in MARWA VS NYAKO (supra), the lower Court was not wrong in coming to the conclusion that the 1st Respondent was not elected in two (2) previous elections, as to disqualify him from contesting the election into the office of Governor of Yobe State held on 11th April 2015 and further that the Appellants case did not fall with the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and 87(a) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)? Grounds 2 and 3.
Whether giving the peculiarities of the Appellants case as constituted in the Originating Summons, the lower Court was not wrong in coming to the conclusion that the Appellant was not an Aspirant and that his complaint did not fall within the ambit of Section 87(a) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)? Grounds 4 and 5.
On their part, the 1st and 2nd Respondents ?led their Respondents Brief on 14th February, 2017 and also formulated three issues for determination at pages 5-6, paragraphs 3.1 to 3.1.3 of the Respondents Brief of Argument as follows:
Whether having regard to the Appellants affidavit evidence in support of his Originating Summons inter alia that he did not submit his nomination form to contest in the 2015 Yobo State Governorship primary election of the 2nd Respondent and having regard to the clear provisions and intendments of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (As Amended), the lower Court was not right to have held that the Appellant was not an aspirant who could in law invoke the provisions of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (As Amended) to complain of any breach of the Guideline of the 2nd Respondent in the conduct of the said primary election and/or that the Appellant was otherwise excluded from the said primary election? (Grounds 4 & 5).
Whether the lower Court was not right in holding that the Appellant did not in law establish his allegation that the 1st Respondent forged the document(s) attached to the 1st Respondents INEC FORM CF001 or that the 1st Respondent otherwise gave false information in his INEC FORM CF001 sufficient in law to disqualify the 1st Respondent from contesting the Gubernatorial election of Yobe State in the 2015 general election? (Grounds 1 and 6).
Whether having regard to the clear and unambiguous provisions of Section 182(1)(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), the lower Court was not correct in law to have distinguished the facts in the case of MARWA VS NYAKO (2012) 6 NWLR (Pt.1296) in coming to the conclusion that the 1st Respondent had not been elected into the office of Governor of Yobe State and had not taken oath of office and oath of allegiance as a Governor more than once before April 11, 2015 election when he contested and won the election to remain in office as Governor of Yobe State? (Grounds 2 & 3).
The 3rd Respondent, the Referee in the election that culminated in the subject matter of this appeal also followed the path charted by the Appellant and 1st and 2nd Respondents respectively by likewise formulating three issues at pages 7-8, paragraphs 3.0 of its Brief of Argument dated 4 January, 2017 as follows:-
Whether the Lower Court was right when it held that the Appellant had no locus standi to question the primaries of the 2nd Respondent conducted on 4th December, 2014 having not participated in same.
Whether the Appellant discharged the evidential burden of proof that the 1st Respondent presented forged certificate to the 3nd Respondent or gave false information in INEC F