*AKAN OKON VS UMO ENO*

HOW THE DEFENCE CASE HAS COLLAPSED IRREDEEMABLY.

By Manfred Ekpe, Esq.

I had earlier said that beyond merit, the Akan Okon vs. Umo Eno's case might be won and lost on technicalities. However, from all the circumstances of the matter, the defence have no doubt deployed all technicalities known to our legal system but in my considered view, all have failed irredeemably as the plaintiff seems to have laid hidden legal traps that seems to have deactivated and neutralized all those technical maneuvers in one of the best fought legal battles in the Nigerian electoral jurisprudence.

*The Collapse of Police Evidence*

Let us examine, from the legal point of view, beyond paid media nuisance, the much talked about evidence of CSP Chris Enderly the police witness, and how Plaintiff have destroyed his entire evidence so that non existed again at the time plaintiff counsel had finished with him.

CSP Enderly was subpeonaed (summoned to court) by subpeona ad testificandum et duces tecum, meaning that he was invited to court to tender documents and testify as defense witness on those documents.

The police witness mounted the witness box, swore to an oath, tendered a letter from WAEC dated 8 August 2022 which purported to disown the letter written from WAEC to an NGO called the Association for Advancement of Democracy in Nigeria (AADN) dated 8 April 2022 (which disowned the 1983 GCE result of Pst. Umo Eno).

Under cross examination, CPS Enderly admitted that he signed and received the WAEC letter to the police which is dated 8th August 2022 on 5th August 2022, meaning he received the said letter 4 days before WAEC wrote it!

When his attention was drawn to this fact by the plaintiff's lead counsel, Okey Amaechi SAN, the senior police officer with years of experience and exposure to the rudiments of court heat, went into hypertensive mode with profuse sweat soaking his clothes in an air conditioned courtroom. He became uncoordinated, and apparently forget other answers he was coached to give. The police witness became so uncoordinated and panicky that he ended up destroying the entire evidence of defendants. judges study the demeanour or behavior of parties before court to arrive at a conclusion whether or not they are witness of truth.

It must be noted that in the absence of Pst. Umo Eno in court to testify as a star witness in his own case, CSP Enderly became the star witness and the entire defence's case was built around his evidence. Where the evidence of a star witness has been demolished, the case is a bad one.

To worsen the situation, the said letter from WAEC tendered by the police witness which purportedly disowned the AADN letter, actually ended up not helping the defence's case.

For clarity, the WAEC letter tendered by CSP Enderly cited certificate no. *SG 699413* and candidate no.*15520230* as the authentic certificate it was investigating. These certificate and candidate numbers are not those in the 1983 GCE certificate of Pst. Umo Eno. Pst. ENO'S 1983 GCE certificate bears certificate no. *PO 275878A* and candidate no.*15725119*.

The AADN letter written by WAEC (which disowned the 1983 GCE certificate) tendered by Akan Okon has cited the correct certificate and candidate nos on Pst. Umo Eno's 1983 GCE certificate which he gave to PDP and the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly, and UNIUYO.

In the eyes of the law, the letter from WAEC tendered by the police witness was in respect of another WAEC Letter to AADN but not in respect of the one tendered by Akan Okon. This leaves the AADN letter tendered by Akan Okon which purported to deny the existence of Pst. Umo Eno's 1983 GCE certificate intact and unchallenged by the defendants. The legal effect is that Akan Okon's allegation of forgery is deemed true and proved beyond reasonable doubt in the eyes of the law. We must know that the eyes of human is not the eyes of the the law. Something may be true in human eyes but not true in the eyes of the law.

Again, another gaffe done by the police witness, CSP Chris Enderly, was that the certified true copy of Pst. Umo Eno's 1981 and 1983 certificates attached to the said WAEC letter dated 8 August 2022 and addressed to the police, were all certified by WAEC on 5th August 2022. But whereas the WAEC letter itself was dated 8th August 2022, meaning that WAEC had already certified those certificates for the purpose of the investigation even before Investigation commenced!

Another technical grounds that stands to discredit the entire evidence of the police witness and by extension the entire case of the defence is that Pst. Umo Eno addressed a petition to the CP demanding Investigation of the source of the AADN letter. The Commissioner of Police ordered Investigation as requested. Therefore, the report of the investigation ought to have been given to the CP who ordered the investigation and it will be the property of the Nigeria Police Force.

CSP Enderly is only an officer or servant of the Nigeria Police Force under the CP. It is settled law that a servant cannot be compelled by the court of law to produce his principal or master's document in court. Only the master can be ordered to do so. It is only the master that can permit the servant to go to court and tender such document and testify on it.
See the case of *Famakinwa vs. Unibadan (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt.960) 374 at 391*.

CPS Enderly did not show evidence to the court that his principal, the commissioner of police, had permitted him to appear in court, tender police documents and give evidence. The legal effect of this gaffe is that all the evidence he gave were illegal, null and void, inadmissible and entitled to be expunged (deleted) from court record as if they never existed.

From the legal prism, I fail to see how the defendants can win this case. I see Mr. Akan Okon flying the PDP flag for the 2023 guber election in Akwa Ibom State.

All the defense witnesses were simply terrible so much so that I am terrified as to such bad and uncoordinated evidence adduced by them.

No doubt, the Defence legal team are one of the best in the country, but Akan Okon has successfully set up legal traps all over the place even before the case had commenced. The quiet soft spoken man seems to have planned this case for some time while Umo Eno was clearly taken totally unawares and off guard.

I therefore seek this opportunity to advice those who have discrepancies in their particulars to take appropriate and lawful steps to correct them now. Or else you might with your two naked eyes see, and hear with your own ears the court declaring that you are not you. That another person is you.