An Abuja High Court on presided over by Justice Charles Agbaza Friday, 8 November, 2024 dismissed a criminal summons issued on 12 September, 2024 by a magistrate’s court against Senator Monday Okpebholo concerning alleged certificate forgery.
Justice Agbaza ruled that the entire proceedings before Magistrate Abubakar Mukhtar of the Wuse Magistrate Court in Abuja were void, stating that the summons was issued beyond his jurisdiction and contained errors of law.
Agbaza also agreed with Okpebholo that both the proceedings and the criminal summons were illegal, unconstitutional, and violated his fundamental human right to a fair hearing as guaranteed under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Thegazellenews.com recalls that Magistrate Mukhtar had ordered Okpebholo to appear in court on 20 September , 2024 just before the governorship election in Edo, over allegations of a false statement regarding his date of birth made by Aginbatse, a state indigene.
He faced accusations of providing conflicting dates of birth in his nomination forms submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, for the election.
Okpebholo’s defence counsel, Andrew Emwanta, in a motion dated and filed on 21 October 21,2024 argued that the action was intended to prevent Okpebholo from running as a candidate in the 21 September , 2024 poll and to disqualify him on false pretences.
He also sought a declaration that the entire proceedings and criminal summons were illegal, unconstitutional, and violated his client’s fundamental human rights.
He also requested a prohibition order to stop the magistrate from continuing with the case, No. CR/W22/816/2024, initiated by Aginbatse.
Emwanta argued that the magistrate did not have jurisdiction to handle this matter, as it was a pre-election issue, and Section 29 of the law grants jurisdiction to the Federal High Court.
In his judgement, Justice Agbaza agreed with Emwanta that the magistrate should have taken into account the evidence presented by Okpebholo before issuing such an order.
The judge, therefore, prohibited the magistrate from proceeding with the case.
However, he said that the magistrate had the discretion to set a hearing date for the matter before him.
