Godwn Tsa, Abuja
A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja division has dismmised a suit seeking the removal of Kebbi State Governor, Atiku Bagudu for lacking in merit.
A busineesman, Anthony Itanyi, had, in the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/312/2015, prayed the court to declare that Bagudu was incompetent to contest the governorship poll in the state.
Although the governor’s main challnger in the April 11, 2015 governorship election in Kebbi state, Maj. Gen. Bello Sarkin-Yaki (rtd.) was initially listed as a co-plaintiff in the suit, he later withdrew from the case.
The Plaintiff had predicated the suit on allegations that Bagudu gave false information in the Affidavit of Personal Particulars otherwise called Form CF.001 submitted by him to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
It was also his claim that Bagudu in Form CF.001 to the effect that he was not under a fine for offence, “involving in dishonesty or fraud or any offence imposed by a court or tribunal is false”.
He claimed that contrary to Bagudu’s claim, it had been discovered that he was allegedly fined by a court in the United States of America (USA).
However, in his judgment, on Friday, Justice Ahmed Mohammed dismissed the suit after holding that the plaintiff’s failed prove the criminal allegations preferred against the governor.
Justice Mohammed held that all the documents (exhibits) placed before the court by the plaintiff failed to show that Governor Bagudu was sentenced or fined for any offence by any court or tribunal.
Besides, the court held that some of the exhibits were tendered by the prosecution witness, Anthony Itanyi, who admited undr cross-examination that he was not the maker of the said documents.
On this, Justice Mohammed held that ‘ the first prosecution witness testified that he was not the maker of any of the exhibits. What then is the legal effect of the exhibits. The Supreme Ccourt has held that where the maker of a document is not called to testified on a document, the document has no probative value as no weight can be attached to it nothwitstanding the fact that it is certified.’
He said the plaintiffs could not prove before the court that the information the first defendant (Bugudu) provided in form CF.001 to INEC was false and added that, “From the evidence of the plaintiffs, I am of the opinion that he has failed, through his witness that the first defendant was convicted by a court in the United States of America for criminal offence.
The court further held that what was contained in the said document was that ‘on 27/5/2003, the 1st defendant was arrested on extradiction warrant. This cannot be a sentnce in any kind, imposed by a court or tribunal. There is nothing to show that he was under any sentenc.”
Justice Mohammed noted that the allegations conatined in the suit are criminal in nature and needed to be proved beyond any reasonable doubts as provided for under section 138 [1] of the Evidnce Act.
‘Consequently, the case of the plaintiff has failed completely as he has failed through his witness that testified that the 1st defendant [Governor Bagudu] was sentenced by a USA court and the suit is dismissed.’ Justice Mohammed ruled.
