RE: ALLEGED FORGERY OF GOVERNOR AKEREDOLU’S SIGNATURE: THE REAL SUSPECTS, AND THE NEED FOR THOROUGH INVESTIGATION BY SECURITY AGENCIES
I read the letter written to the Ondo State Deputy-Governor by the State’s Honourable Commissioner for Energy, Engr. Rasaq Obe. In the letter, the Commissioner claimed that he transmitted a file to the State Governor, and it returned with a signature and handwriting which he considered irregular, consequent upon which he sent it together with other known signatures and handwriting of the Governor to a forensic expert for examination.
The forensic report, according to him, confirmed that the signature of Governor Akeredolu was forged on an official document relating to his own Ministry. As a Legal Practitioner trained to have a very inquisitive mind, I have some fundamental observations touching on the authenticity or credibility of the letter and purported forensic report in the first place.
Firstly, contrary to the Commissioner’s claim, the purported forensic report names the client who requested the examination as “Act for Positive Transformation Initiative”, and not Engr. Rasaq Obe or the Ondo State Commissioner for Energy. This means that either the Hon. Commissioner or the purported forensic report is lying about who hired the services of the alleged forensic expert who supposedly produced it. I addressed the above observation first, because the source of any documents which a forensic expert claims to have examined is very crucial in determining the issue of forgery.
The source and/or channel of transmission of the subject document to the ‘forensic examiner’ would equally reveal whether there are possibilities of mischief or deliberate alterations along the line. I In this regard, we must admit that Ondo State is under a tense political atmosphere where mischief and foul practices could be easily deployed for political reasons.
My second observation or finding is that a quick online search at the Corporate Affairs Commission (C.A.C) shows that the “Act of Positive
Transformation Initiative” on behalf of which the purported forensic expert
claimed to have carried out the forensic examination, is not registered and therefore not a juristic entity in law. It does not exist. In other words, the purported forensic examination was carried out on behalf of a non-existent person or ‘client’.
This renders the purported forensic report itself a suspected fraudulent document or false certificate within the context of Section 105 of the Criminal Law of Ondo State, a serious criminal act regarded as a felony. It is akin to a medical doctor issuing a medical report in the name of a fictitious or non-existent patient. If the forensic report is built on such fraudulent foundation, every other claim therein becomes seriously tainted with fraud.
The third and very fundamental observation I have to make is that there is even no single line in the purported 5-page forensic report stating the real identity of the documents allegedly examined by the purported forensic expert. The ‘forensic report’ gave the documents supposedly examined coded descriptions like “K”, K1, “K2”, “K3” “K4” and “Q-Q2”. In law, this proves nothing. We do not know the purported documents so coded. We are left to mere speculation on the real identities of the documents which the forensic expert claimed to have examined. It is however trite that a Court does not act on speculations or sentiments, but on proven facts. The Supreme Court restated this sacrosanct position of the law in AGBI V. OGBEH (2006) 11 NWLR (PT 990) 65 AT 135 PARAGRAPH E and OKPE V.
FAN MILK PLC (2017) 2 NWLR (PT 1549) 282 AT 310 PARAS B-C.
Now, I will proceed to my fourth observation. Engr. Rasaq Obe stated in his letter that upon the return of his file from the Governor through the
Secretary to the State Government and his suspicion of irregularities in the
(supposed) signature and handwriting of the Governor therein, he sent it to
the forensic expert for examination.
The questions we need to ask are:
When did he receive the document containing the alleged forged signatureand handwriting of the Governor? When did he send the document to the purported forensic expert for examination?
Fortunately, the introductory part of the ‘forensic report’ makes some
representations that are useful in answering these vital questions. It states the date of the request for the forensic examination as “4th December, 2023”, In his letter, the Commissioner claimed that he sent five files to the Governor, out of which only one was returned to him with the suspected irregular signature and handwriting of the Governor. By contradiction however, the forensic report refers to “Questioned signatures/handwriting on a questioned document dated 18th October, 2023 and 1st November,
2023, Marked Q and Q1 respectively,” thereby implying that there are two
signatures of the Governor on a single document with two separate dates
that are almost two weeks apart! Every rational thinker would certainly be
curious to dig more into this prima facie contradictions.
My sixth observation relates to the letter head containing the purported
forensic report. The name on the letter head is “Association of Forensic
Practitioners of Nigeria”, and not the office address of any particular
forensic expert. Meanwhile, it was purportedly signed by an individual in his personal capacity and not on behalf of the Association. How can a ‘forensic expert’ be using the name and address of an association on his letter head as against the name and address of his own office or firm? It is like a Lawyer using the letter head of the Nigerian Bar Association to prepare a legal advice, or a Medical Doctor using the letter head of Nigerian Medical Association to prepare a medical report instead of the letter head containing the name and address of his own hospital.
Something is seriously fishy here.My seventh observation is about the political leaning of Engr. Rasaq Obi
himself. Whoever claims there are no political divisions between the loyalists of the Ondo State Governor and his Deputy would be grossly insincere. It is therefore wise to pause a minute and determine which of the political divides Engr. Rasaq Obe belongs, in other to ascertain whether there are prima facie grounds to ascribe any tendentious political motives to his action or claims.
Recently, about 33 members of the State Executive Council comprising
Commissioners and Special Advisers signed and published what they
called a resolution expressing vote of confidence in the State Governor and
his capacity to continue to shoulder the administration of the State. The
Deputy-Governor and two Commissioners however did not support the resolution. Engr. Rasaq Obe is one of those two dissenting Commissioners.
I admit that he has the unfettered constitutional right to his own opinions and dissent. I am prepared to commend him for having the courage to dissent or disagree with such resolution. But the point is that political observers in the State may be right to assume or conclude that Engr. Rasaq Obe actually belongs to the Lucky Ayedatiwa faction. The fact that thenallegation of forgery of the Governor’s signature was already being spearheaded and/or actively promoted by people known to be undisguised supporters of the Deputy-Governor, including one of the lawyers representing him in a number of court cases, Mr. Allen Sowore (my own beloved friend), would lend some credence to the hypothesis that Engr.
Obe might simply be playing out the political schemes or skirmishes of the
Ayedatiwa group.
In conclusion, one would ask whether the above fundamental observations
are enough to completely render the claims of Engr. Rasaq Obe incredulous. I would not say so.These crucial observations however symbolize red flags why the claims of the Commissioner ought to be taken with a pinch of salt, unless and until same is properly investigated by the appropriate law enforcement agencies, in this case the Police or State Security Services.
And to call a spade a spade, Engr. Rasaq Obe himself would be the number one suspect in the course of such investigation, while the purported forensic expert would also be very useful to the security agencies. The investigation should then be conducted on the owner of the alleged forged signature(s), who is the Governor, as he alone could confirm whether his signature was forged on the subject documents or not.
The confirmation or denial of Mr. Governor would be the surest guide to further investigation into this matter. It would enable us determine whether we are simply dealing with public officers raising very serious and most embarrassing allegations supported with fraudulent documents to achieve a political objective, or heroes and watchdogs to whom we should be collectively grateful for their vigilance and courage.
Femi Emmanuel Emodamori
(An Akure-based Lawyer)
(9th December, 2023).
