An Akure-based lawyer, Femi Emodamori, has criticized the forensic results presented by the Ondo State Commissioner for Energy and Mineral Resources, Razak Obe, regarding the alleged forgery of Governor Rotimi Akeredolu’s signature.
Emodamori, who called for an investigation into the matter, stated that the appropriate law enforcement agencies should properly scrutinise the claims of the Energy Commissioner to uncover the truth behind the forgery allegations.
The legal practitioner, maintaining that Obe remains the number one suspect in the forgery allegations during the investigation, noted that the purported forensic expert could also be valuable to the security agencies.
However, he emphasized that an investigation should also be conducted on the owner of the alleged forged signature(s), who is the Governor. He stated that the confirmation or denial of Akeredolu would be the surest guide for further investigation into this matter.
Emodamori, faulting Obe’s forensic results, said, “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 the 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
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. 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.”
He further explained, “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 not even a 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.”
“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 signature and 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,” he stated.
He said, “My sixth observation relates to the letterhead containing the purported forensic report. The name on the letterhead 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 letterhead as against the name and address of his own office or firm?
“It is like a Lawyer using the letterhead of the Nigerian Bar Association to prepare a legal advice, or a Medical Doctor using the letterhead of the Nigerian Medical Association to prepare a medical report instead of the letterhead containing the name and address of his hospital.”
He, however, attributed the steps taken by Obe to have a political undertone, saying the political division is clearly pronounced during the State Executive Council meeting recently.
According to him, “Something is seriously fishy here. My seventh observation is about the political leaning of Engr. Rasaq Obe 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 to, 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 a 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 a resolution. Tribune
