Says INEC Had Denounced Okorocha’s Controversial Primary Result Document as Fraudulent,
Cites Supreme Court Decisions on Forgery, Evidence and Jurisdiction
The Progressives Lawyers Network has expressed strong concern over the judgement of the Federal High Court which recognised Rochas Okorocha on the All Progressives Congress (APC) senatorial ticket for Imo West, insisting that the Judge erred in law by relying on forged and legally discredited documents in reaching judicial conclusions.
Barr. Nshi O. Nshi, the Spokesman 2 of the Progressives Lawyers Network maintained that the sanctity of judicial proceedings depends on the authenticity, admissibility and credibility of evidence presented before the court, stressing that the law does not permit any litigant to secure judicial relief through documents whose authenticity is seriously disputed.
The group particularly drew attention to the position taken by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which, in October 2026, formally petitioned the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Nigeria Police Force over a controversial APC senatorial primary result document allegedly circulated in connection with the Imo West Senatorial District.
In its correspondence dated October 5 and October 8, 2026, INEC’s Imo State Resident Electoral Commissioner, Chukwuemeka Ibeziako, reportedly described the disputed document as fraudulent and fictitious.
According to INEC, the authentic report submitted to its national headquarters identified Governor Hope Uzodimma as the winner of the APC senatorial primary conducted on May 18, 2026, while the controversial document purportedly presented former Governor Rochas Okorocha as the winner.
The Commission reportedly forwarded copies of both documents to the security agencies and requested an investigation into their circulation and authenticity.
The Network argued that such an official position by the electoral commission raises fundamental evidential questions that ought to be carefully addressed in any judicial proceedings involving the disputed primary election.
The Progressives Lawyers Network maintained that Nigerian courts are bound by established judicial principles governing the proof of forgery and the evaluation of documentary evidence.
It cited the Supreme Court decision in Engr. Mustapha Yunusa Maihaja v. Alhaji Ibrahim Gaidam (2017) LPELR-42474(SC), in which the apex court addressed the ingredients required to establish allegations of forgery and false declaration.
The Supreme Court identified the essential elements that must be established, including:
- The existence of a document in writing.
- Proof that the document was forged.
- Proof connecting the alleged forgery to the person accused.
- Knowledge that the document was false.
An intention that the forged document should be acted upon as genuine
The Network also referred to Hon. Hassan Anthony Saleh v. Christian Adabah Abah (2017) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1578) 100, where the Supreme Court considered the constitutional consequences of presenting forged certificates to INEC.
The decision underscores the importance of establishing forgery through legally acceptable evidence and the relevance of a judicial determination concerning the authenticity of a document.
The Network further relied on the provisions of Sections 131, 132, 135 and 136 of the Evidence Act 2011, which establish the general principles governing the burden and standard of proof.
Section 135 provides that where the commission of a crime by a party to a proceeding is directly in issue, the allegation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
It argued that where the authenticity of a material document is seriously challenged, the court must examine the evidence supporting its origin, preparation, certification and transmission before assigning it probative value.
The group also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Alhaji Kashim Ibrahim Imam & Ors. v. Senator Ali Modu Sheriff & Ors. (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt. 914) 89, as well as A.P.C. v. P.D.P. (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1481) 1, on the legal requirements for establishing allegations of forgery.
It maintained that judicial decisions must be founded on credible evidence rather than assumptions, contradictory records or documents whose authenticity has not been satisfactorily established.
The Network also raised questions about the appropriateness of determining matters involving substantial disputes over the authenticity of documents through originating summons.
It noted that originating summons is generally appropriate where the principal questions involve the interpretation of constitutional provisions, statutes or written instruments and where substantial disputes of facts do not require oral evidence.
Where allegations of forgery, fabrication, conflicting signatures, disputed authorship or fraudulent alteration arise, the court must consider whether the procedure adopted is suitable for resolving the material factual disputes.
The group maintained that the law is clear: no party should obtain judicial advantage through evidence that fails the requirements of authenticity, admissibility and proof.
The Network urged the appellate courts to examine this issue in the light of applicable Supreme Court authorities and the peculiar facts of the Imo West litigation and upturn the decision of the Federal High Court.
