Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

THOSE WHO WILL BE CHARGED FOR FORGERY – PARTICIPLES CRIMINIS

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

In Agwuna V AG Federation (1995) 5 NWLR (Pt.396) 418, the Supreme Court per Iguh, JSC held as follows – “It is certainly not the law that it is only the person who manually writes or signs a forged document that may be convicted for forgery of the document. The position of the law is that all persons who are, participles criminis whether as principals in the first degree or as accessories before of after the fact to a crime are guilty of the offence and may be charged and convicted with [the] actual commission of the crime.”

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

FORGERY ARE CRIMINAL AND MUST BE PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

Now, allegations bordering on forgery and/or making of false statement to INEC are not only criminal and grievous but are not matters or things one party alleges and then fold his hand akimbo to see how the other party wriggles out of it. Allegations of forgery and or false statements are not issues of mere discrepancies but of commission of crimes which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the person who makes the allegations.

– B.A. Georgewill, JCA. Ganiyu v. Oshoakpemhe & Ors. (2021) – CA/B/12A/2021

Was this dictum helpful?

FORGED CERTIFICATE IS WHEN CERTIFICATE IS NOT TRUE

If any fact vouched to be true turns out to be false, particularly deliberately false, then in my view the 1st respondent has presented to INEC a forged or false certificate: Dide v. Seleketimibi. — E. Eko JSC. PDP V. Biobarakumo Degi-Eremionyo (SC.1/2020, 13 Feb 2020)

Was this dictum helpful?

INGREDIENTS THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE IN ESTABLISHING THE OFFENCE OF FORGERY

In order to prove or establish the commission of the offence of forgery, the following must be proved by cogent and reliable evidence:
a. (i) That the accused made, signed, sealed or executed the document in question or any part thereof; or (ii) That it was made by someone else;
b. That it was made under the circumstances stated in section 363;
c. That the accused mad it dishonestly or fraudulently or with intent that fraud may be committed;
d. That the seal, plate or other instrument was capable of being used for committing forgery;
e. That the accused made or counterfeited it or had it in his possession;
f. That he did as in (b) with the intent that it should be used for committing forgery, or in the case of possession, he knew the same to be counterfeit.

– PER I.S. BDLIYA, J.C.A. Barma v. State (2022) – CA/G/119c/2021

Was this dictum helpful?

FORGERY MUST BE STRICTLY PROVED

It is trite law that forgery is a very serious imputation and needs to be pleaded with particularity and proved strictly. – NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C. Finnih v. Imade (1992)

Was this dictum helpful?

WHEN IS THE OFFENCE OF FORGERY ESTABLISHED?

The offence of forgery is committed or established where an accused person makes a false document and a document is said to be false or fake, if the whole or part of it is purported to have been made by or on behalf of respondent who did not actually make it or authorized it to be made. See Nathaniel vs State (2019) LPELR 40326 (CA) PP. 9 – 10. The law is trite as espoused in the case of Lambert vs FRN (2021) LPELR. 54672 (CA) that any person who is in possession of a forged document or issues same is guilty of committing the offence of forgery, even though he did not actually make it.

– PER I.S. BDLIYA, J.C.A. Barma v. State (2022) – CA/G/119c/2021

Was this dictum helpful?

FORGED CERTIFICATE – HAS THE CANDIDATE PRESENTED A CERTIFICATE WHICH DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM?

If a person is alleged to have forged his certificate or qualifications or had made false statement to INEC, it must relate to whether he has presented certificates belonging to any other person, dead or alive, which does not belong to him or that he has arrogated to himself qualifications which he does not possess to make him qualified for the office he seek or had presented names that does not belong to him but to another person or that he has lied to the umpire, INEC, on matters in aid of his qualification and above all his intention the mens rea, must be that he had answered names not belonging to him but to another person or had forged his qualifications or age or made false statements in respect of the requirements of the law for purposes that the falsifications should be acted upon by INEC.

– B.A. Georgewill, JCA. Ganiyu v. Oshoakpemhe & Ors. (2021) – CA/B/12A/2021

Was this dictum helpful?

Load More
No more related dictum to show.

What do you need help with?

Join Judicial Poets!
Recent answers
Recent Questions

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

External link(s)

BOOK: First 2-years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons.