The efforts of All Progressives Congress (APC) to unseat Governor Godwin Obaseki are still going on as the ruling party on Wednesday, presented to the Federal High Court, Abuja, two more documents to prove its allegation of certificate forgery against Edo State Governor, Godwin Obaseki.
They are University of Ibadan degree certificates, belonging to Professor Emmanuel Dele Balogun, and a report by a forensic document examiner, Assistant Superintendent of Police, (ASP), Raphael Onwuzuligbo.
Both were admitted in evidence by the court after the lead counsel of the plaintiffs, Akin Olujimi (SAN) tendered, Daily Post reports.
The first degree certificate in Agricultural Science submitted was awarded to Balogun in 1979, the same year with that of Obaseki.
The second document was admitted with a caveat following objections to their admissibility raised by the first and second defendants.
The APC and a chieftain, Williams Edobor had dragged Obaseki, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to court.
At Tuesday’s proceedings, the plaintiffs, through a subpoenaed witness, Samuel Omale, an INEC Legal Officer, tendered form EC9 completed and Obaseki submitted to INEC ahead of the governorship poll.
During cross examination on Wednesday, Balogun told the court that he had never seen the controversial degree certificate issued to Obaseki by the University of Ibadan.
The witness stated that he never worked in the admission department of the institution, and could not comment on the certificate.
Replying to a question on photocopying, Balogun said when a document to be photocopied is not properly placed in the machine; it is possible for some parts of the original not to be included in the copy.
“If you do not scale it, some parts will be left out and it will not be a true reflection of the original documents”, he said.
Attempts by the plaintiffs to call in their fourth witness was challenged by the first and second defendants on grounds that they had exhausted the number of days the court provided to call their witnesses.
Justice Ahmed Mohammed overruled. He reminded that several issues came up that affected the time given to the plaintiffs and assured that similar consideration would be extended to the defendants