The legal battline is drawn, as Chijioke Edeoga’s legal position becomes increasingly unassailable — By Emeka Ugwuonye

Today, Peter Mbah, the PDP Governorship candidate for Enugu State in the last elections, files his reply to the petition of his rival, Chijioke Edeoga, of Labour Party. Mbah’s reply has been closely anticipated after Edeoga’s solidly grounded petition challenging the controversial electoral result as declared by INEC after the elections of March 18, 2023.

According to most observers of the elections, especially the Enugu Governorship elections, Chijioke Edeoga was coasting comfortably to a resounding victory until the magical last minutes manipulations at the Nkanu East polling units which ushered in the impossible figures. And those figures altered the flow of logic and the established voting patterns in the elections. From the moment INEC announced results, it was known that Edeoga actually won the elections but was robbed of victory. It was known from that moment that he would challenge the result rendered by INEC that declared his rival the winner.

True to this expectation, Edeoga went to the Electoral Tribunal with irrefutable facts and figures demonstrating that he won the elections. You will recall that Edeoga’s legal team advanced three grounds to back up their claim that Edeoga won and should be declared the winner, not Peter Mbah. Those grounds were:

i. The 2nd Respondent (Peter Mbah) was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election. (Section 134(1)(a) of the Electoral Act 2022)

ii. The 2nd Respondent (Peter Mbah) was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election. (Section 134(1)(c) of the Electoral Act 2022)

iii. The Election was not conducted in compliance with the Electoral Act (Section 134(1)(b) of the Electoral Act 2022).

These grounds were dramatic and encompassing. The first ground raised an issue that took many by surprise. It was based on the fact that Peter Mbah had presented a forged NYSC discharge certificate. This ground is three-pronged in effect. First, forgery is a serious crime that goes to the fundamental question of character and eligibility for public office. It also constitutes perjury where a candidate swore to have been honest and candid in submitting the forged document. Any dishonesty in the candidate’s application leads to disqualification of such candidate. And finally, if NYSC is a requirement to hold that office, then failure to possess a valid discharge certificate is evidence that the candidate is unqualified. Cumulatively, the first ground of Edeoga’s petition points overwhelmingly to the question of eligibility or qualification to run or to hold the office of Governor.

For Peter Mbah the only meaningful defense against this ground was for him to show that the NYSC discharge certificate he tendered, which has been called into doubt, was authentic and duly issued to him by the NYSC. Looking at his reply to be filed today, Peter Mbah did not quite do what he ought to do to counter the petition of Edeoga. By his process, he was not able to show that the NYSC discharge certificate he tendered was valid and duly issued by NYSC. Instead, Peter Mbah adopted a technical defensive posture, rather than a merit based argument. He argued that NYSC discharge certificate is not a requirement of law for him to run as governor of Enugu State. Also, he calls his failure to provide a valid and authentic discharge certificate during his application a pre-election issue. In other words, he suggests that it was a wrong done before the election itself and should not count toward the outcome indicator.

Without preempting the tribunal, one is inclined to argue that Peter Mbah’s pre to post-election delineation has a fundamental problem. Every eligibility-based argument is somewhat aimed a pre-election event. Naturally a person is qualified or not qualified before the election takes place. Qualification is not to be acquired after the elections. If the law allows an unqualified candidate to call the facts of his lack of qualification a pre-election matter, he will be suggesting that he should ascend to the office despite the fact that his lack of disqualification was discovered after the elections. It is just like a Medical Director who was discovered to have forged his medical certificate to insist in remaining the Medical Director because the forgery was not discovered before he was appointed the Medical Director. Eligibility factor is a condition precedent to contesting for the office. Therefore, contesting for the office or holding such office will be contrary to law if the condition precedent was not met. And if the lack of qualification was discovered after the fact, that does not excuse the requirement for qualification. The consequence is the same – the aspirant or holder of the office must stand disqualified.

Is NYSC discharge certificate necessary for the office of governorship under the Nigeria law? There are two ways to look at it – factual and legal. Factually, Peter Mbah presented a certificate. That means that Peter Mbah believed that the certificate was necessary. Similar certificate was tendered by other candidates for similar office now and in the past. It has been a routine practice to tender and accept NYSC discharge certificate for any candidate that is a graduate. There is no reason to change this established practice in the case of Peter Mbah.