The Federal High Court, on Friday, July 15, explained why it ordered the sack of Abia state Governor, Okezie Ikpeazu.
The court said it found out Dr. Ikpeazu allegedly submitted false tax information to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
In a statement, the court’s Chief Registrar, Emmanuel Gakko, said there were two different cases against Ikpeazu.
One of the cases, he said, was filed by Sir Friday Nwosu before Justice Ambrose Allagoa, with Dr. Ikpeazu and Dr. Sampson Uche Ogah as defendants.
In the second suit before Justice Abang, Dr. Ogah was the plaintiff, while Dr. Ikpeazu and Sir Nwosu were the defendants.
The court said the case before Justice Allagoa bothered on alleged forgery or falsification of tax certificate and receipts for 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 by Dr. Ikpeazu.
“The court further held that by the affidavit of the Abia State Director of Taxes testifying that the documents are genuine, the court held that there was presumption of genuineness of the assessment and the certificate and/or receipts issued to Dr. Ikpeazu.”
“The court further held that the consequential reliefs have become unnecessary for the court’s consideration.”
“It should be noted that the court did not make any consequential orders with regard to the position of the governor other than the allegation of forgery.”
Emmanuel Gakko said the case before Justice Abang indicts Dr. Ikpeazu for submitting form CF001 to INEC which were alleged to contain false information.
“The court held that the information in Form CF001 as shown by him (Ikpeazu) in the affidavit accompanied with other documents to INEC are false and has nothing to do with forgery.”
“The, court, therefore made consequential orders under the doctrine of ‘lis pendens,’ which disallows any transfer of rights or interest in any subject matter that is being litigated upon during the pendency of litigation in respect of the said subject-matter.”
“The court, accordingly, declared Dr. Ogah as the winner of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) primaries and should be issued with Certificate of Return accordingly.”
According to the statement, the clarification was necessary because of the misinterpretation in the media and comments made by legal practitioners and laymen.
